Knotty
Well-known member
Priceless!
El-Abd is urged to sign Albion deal
- Thread starter buller89
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Priceless!
Priceless.
I'm not 100% sure whether my toast had butter on it prior to me buttering it. I suppose it was technically butterless prior to being buttered, but once I buttered it, it had butter on. So technically, its buttered. But I'm not sure about whether it was buttered before. Anyway, its only buttered because I buttered it. If no-one buttered it, then it would technically be butterless.
I am sure that you know what I meant ....
But if you would like to state that the day before Bournemouth went into administration they were indeed solvent, go ahead.
Perry Milkins
Just a quiet guy.
A thankyomundo Buzzarelli!!
I don't know why I'm bothering, because you are clearly going to miss the point, but anyway;
10 players on wage scale 'A', earn £100k each = £1,000,000.
2 of them want a total of £100k extra.
If agreed to = £1,100,000 for about FIVE MINUTES
Then the other 8 demand parity.
Total cost then = £1,500,000.
Perry Milkins
Just a quiet guy.
I'll have you know that Buzzer noes all about counting and stuff..yah boo!
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
I think all this talk of solvent has gone to your head.
Remember kids - "Glue is for Airfix, not for a quick fix"
B.W.
New member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 13,666
OK... but does DK meddle too much in player acquisitions?
IMHO, the answer is "Yes"... he is even publicly quoted as saying he has looked at several players... why? IMHO< that is NOT his job...
Setting the overall playing budget is his job, negotiating individual player's fees and wages is his job, but assessing players just IS NOT... that is the job of Barry, Wendy and the rest of the manangement team...
IMHO, the answer is "Yes"... he is even publicly quoted as saying he has looked at several players... why? IMHO< that is NOT his job...
Setting the overall playing budget is his job, negotiating individual player's fees and wages is his job, but assessing players just IS NOT... that is the job of Barry, Wendy and the rest of the manangement team...
- Jul 10, 2003
- 26,192
But BW - we're not interested in your (or anyone else's) opinion, BigGully gives us FACTS
I am assuming the 'OK' was to disassociate yourself from me ... shameful really.
But of course he meddles too much, more than you will ever know.
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
...and I do believe you count a mean bean too, Carwash.
B.W.
New member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 13,666
That's a bit sensitive BG... it was really to draw a line under a pointless meandering argument...
Perry Milkins
Just a quiet guy.
I am a consultant to the counters of beans, I make sure that they count them right!
Barrel of Fun
Abort, retry, fail
I don't know about you, but if I were a chairman, I would be inclined to have a look at what we were buying.
I would rather have a chairman that was genuinely interested, rather than a Risdale type character who just signs cheques willy-nilly and frog marches into contract talks throwing any old number at the players representative before swiftly leaving.
Perry Milkins
Just a quiet guy.
BG I do not wish to dissassociate myself from you..Ok?
But how do you know how much BW's knows about DK meddlin' and how can you measure it quantifiably so as to make that statement?
Knotty
Well-known member
As chairman of the club he is entitled 'to look at several players'. Does he do that without the manager being involved? Nothing I have ever seen or heard says that he does, so I don't have a problem with his involvement at all.
If you or anyone else has evidence to the contrary, then that is another matter.
ROSM
Well-known member
Ive tried to resist but can't any longer. You so far have failed to answer any points in a polite and coherent manner. You even in a previous post accused me of hanging on every word in the press. However heres a way in which you may understand:
A house is worth £250k. A smaller house is worth £200k
Now, I may be willing to pay £250k and have the money (or the offer of finance for the price). It doesn't mean I will pay £250k for the smaller house. That is because it simply isn't worth it. If I did pay that, all other houses in that region at that size will also want £250k.
Now in this analogy - Savage is the £200k house. Functional, homely but never going to be worth relatively more without significant improvement that is unlikely as he has been developed to the full. Murray is the £250k house. he has potential for improvmenet and may in time be worth £400k. I am prepared to pay £250k for that house. It means that I am amending my budget and entering into finance based on the relative value and potential of the property.
The situation we have with hammond is that he was worth £250k and we offered £250k but the seller (him and his agent) didn't accept that price. They did find someone who may have been willing to spend more for him but they may never be able to recoup that value. We also gained by selling our interest in him (in this case his registration).
As I see it, you are saying that Wilkins wanted us to buy the three properties (hammond , savage and ocallaghan). having undergone a survey, the bank and those paying the property chose not to spend that money. They did however spend the money they were prepared to spend (plus more financed by a director until the sale of our interest) on properties with more current value and better potential.
If you are really telling me that Wilkins is now so upset that we didn't spend more than the value for these properties and is upset at the 'bank' for not financing more, then it diminishes my view of wilkins significantly and makes him out to be a little naive at best or behaving like a spoilt brat at worst. If he is also saying (or those close to him) are feeding info about his displeasure then he needs to grow up a bit. If he has been actively working against the main negotiator by saying to the seller that he wants to spend more and thinks the property is worth more (therefore undermining the deal negotiations) then he is actually likely to be in a serious spot with his employer.
And if (getting back to the point) he actually believes that the innoccuous comment in the argus about el-abds contract is actually some major criticism of the player, then he and anybody he talks to who fails to correct his understanding and bring him to his senses) is behaving very much like a dim child.
Finally - are you really a councillor.
That is all
(oh and by the way - I do numbers and that finance thingy too
Wow ...... you have kinda made up the figures to support your theory.
GCSE Business now Maths !!
I am not sure why you feel the 6th best player out of those 10 has not wanted parity with the 7th best before that, but anyway.
If we got rid of players that Wilkins wanted because we could not match their demands and therefore would break our Wage Structure that would be fine, but
If we got rid of a group of players that Wilkins wanted to stay because of a financial committment of say £100,00 ( for argument sake )
But then brought in a new set of new players a couple of weeks later for a financial committment of say £100,000, it couldnt of been because of a Wage Structure !
Your wage differential is a red herring because the same dynamics would happen when the new set of players arrived, handsomely paid no doubt.
Perry Milkins
Just a quiet guy.
Which colour beans?Ive tried to resist but can't any longer. You so far have failed to answer any points in a polite and coherent manner. You even in a previous post accused me of hanging on every word in the press. However heres a way in which you may understand:
A house is worth £250k. A smaller house is worth £200k
Now, I may be willing to pay £250k and have the money (or the offer of finance for the price). It doesn't mean I will pay £250k for the smaller house. That is because it simply isn't worth it. If I did pay that, all other houses in that region at that size will also want £250k.
Now in this analogy - Savage is the £200k house. Functional, homely but never going to be worth relatively more without significant improvement that is unlikely as he has been developed to the full. Murray is the £250k house. he has potential for improvmenet and may in time be worth £400k. I am prepared to pay £250k for that house. It means that I am amending my budget and entering into finance based on the relative value and potential of the property.
The situation we have with hammond is that he was worth £250k and we offered £250k but the seller (him and his agent) didn't accept that price. They did find someone who may have been willing to spend more for him but they may never be able to recoup that value. We also gained by selling our interest in him (in this case his registration).
As I see it, you are saying that Wilkins wanted us to buy the three properties (hammond , savage and ocallaghan). having undergone a survey, the bank and those paying the property chose not to spend that money. They did however spend the money they were prepared to spend (plus more financed by a director until the sale of our interest) on properties with more current value and better potential.
If you are really telling me that Wilkins is now so upset that we didn't spend more than the value for these properties and is upset at the 'bank' for not financing more, then it diminishes my view of wilkins significantly and makes him out to be a little naive at best or behaving like a spoilt brat at worst. If he is also saying (or those close to him) are feeding info about his displeasure then he needs to grow up a bit. If he has been actively working against the main negotiator by saying to the seller that he wants to spend more and thinks the property is worth more (therefore undermining the deal negotiations) then he is actually likely to be in a serious spot with his employer.
And if (getting back to the point) he actually believes that the innoccuous comment in the argus about el-abds contract is actually some major criticism of the player, then he and anybody he talks to who fails to correct his understanding and bring him to his senses) is behaving very much like a dim child.
Finally - are you really a councillor.
That is all
(oh and by the way - I do numbers and that finance thingy too
Ive tried to resist but can't any longer. You so far have failed to answer any points in a polite and coherent manner. You even in a previous post accused me of hanging on every word in the press. However heres a way in which you may understand:
A house is worth £250k. A smaller house is worth £200k
Now, I may be willing to pay £250k and have the money (or the offer of finance for the price). It doesn't mean I will pay £250k for the smaller house. That is because it simply isn't worth it. If I did pay that, all other houses in that region at that size will also want £250k.
Now in this analogy - Savage is the £200k house. Functional, homely but never going to be worth relatively more without significant improvement that is unlikely as he has been developed to the full. Murray is the £250k house. he has potential for improvmenet and may in time be worth £400k. I am prepared to pay £250k for that house. It means that I am amending my budget and entering into finance based on the relative value and potential of the property.
The situation we have with hammond is that he was worth £250k and we offered £250k but the seller (him and his agent) didn't accept that price. They did find someone who may have been willing to spend more for him but they may never be able to recoup that value. We also gained by selling our interest in him (in this case his registration).
As I see it, you are saying that Wilkins wanted us to buy the three properties (hammond , savage and ocallaghan). having undergone a survey, the bank and those paying the property chose not to spend that money. They did however spend the money they were prepared to spend (plus more financed by a director until the sale of our interest) on properties with more current value and better potential.
If you are really telling me that Wilkins is now so upset that we didn't spend more than the value for these properties and is upset at the 'bank' for not financing more, then it diminishes my view of wilkins significantly and makes him out to be a little naive at best or behaving like a spoilt brat at worst. If he is also saying (or those close to him) are feeding info about his displeasure then he needs to grow up a bit. If he has been actively working against the main negotiator by saying to the seller that he wants to spend more and thinks the property is worth more (therefore undermining the deal negotiations) then he is actually likely to be in a serious spot with his employer.
And if (getting back to the point) he actually believes that the innoccuous comment in the argus about el-abds contract is actually some major criticism of the player, then he and anybody he talks to who fails to correct his understanding and bring him to his senses) is behaving very much like a dim child.
Finally - are you really a councillor.
That is all
(oh and by the way - I do numbers and that finance thingy too
I am not sure why you feel I have somehoe insulted you, I havent got a clue who you are or what your last points were, but I would be surprised if I have been insulting in anyway.
You aint one of those people that if someone disagrees with them you get all upset are you. Try and imagine how I feel !!!
Hold on let me read what you say !