First abuse for Knight

[Deleted member 2719]

Well who did buy Turienzo then? McGhee certainly didn't seem to rate him!

You have also just completely proven my point with Hammond. Dick Knight didn't want him at that price - whereas the manager did. Ergo, Knight was overruling the manager rather than supporting him as one would like to think happens.

Exactly my point but put much better than me.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Ergo, Knight was overruling the manager rather than supporting him as one would like to think happens.

I know THE TRUTH from another poster on here and i can reveal Knight didn't back Wilkins on the following players for the exact same reason - Ronaldo, Drogba, Vidic and Gerrard - apparently he said they were too expensive as well

 

[fosters headband]

I know THE TRUTH from another poster on here and i can reveal Knight didn't back Wilkins on the following players for the exact same reason - Ronaldo, Drogba, Vidic and Gerrard - apparently he said they were too expensive as well

You have just ruined your argument with that stupid comment.

 

[The Large One]

Well who did buy Turienzo then? McGhee certainly didn't seem to rate him!

You have also just completely proven my point with Hammond. Dick Knight didn't want him at that price - whereas the manager did. Ergo, Knight was overruling the manager rather than supporting him as one would like to think happens.

You're twisting that badly. Knight has to have the final say on signing the player if he is holding the purse strings. One of the reasons for Knight's and Wilkins' seismic falling out was because Wilkins wanted Hammond to stay at any price.

ANY price.

It's not a case of the chairman not supporting the manager - Knight was happy for Hammond to stay, I wish people would remember that - more the manager happy to insist that the club smash the wage structure to keep his player. Two separate sources (one OK and one usually reliable) said that Hammond's wage demands were a four-fold increase on the top earner. I've no idea how true that is, and something tells me it's a pretty big exaggeration, but I do believe it appears indicative of the fact that Hammond's wage demands were just not acceptable to the club.

And that doesn't even take into account the agent's own demands.

 

[sir albion]

ernest they are now seeing the truth

Yeah i also believe knight is a major problem at this club and it seems things are actually starting to happen,although can't see knight going anywhere

 

[itszamora]

You're twisting that badly. Knight has to have the final say on signing the player if he is holding the purse strings. One of the reasons for Knight's and Wilkins' seismic falling out was because Wilkins wanted Hammond to stay at any price.

ANY price.

It's not a case of the chairman not supporting the manager - Knight was happy for Hammond to stay, I wish people would remember that - more the manager happy to insist that the club smash the wage structure to keep his player. Two separate sources (one OK and one usually reliable) said that Hammond's wage demands were a four-fold increase on the top earner. I've no idea how true that is, and something tells me it's a pretty big exaggeration, but I do believe it appears indicative of the fact that Hammond's wage demands were just not acceptable to the club.

And that doesn't even take into account the agent's own demands.

I appreciate there does have to be financial control - as you say though the figures being quoted are probably an exaggeration. Who knows, I'd think it unlikely that Hammond and his agent would make demands completely out of our league so to speak, particularly as I've been told by a source that Hammond wanted to stay and was told in no uncertain terms he would never play for the club again.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

particularly as I've been told by a source that Hammond wanted to stay and was told in no uncertain terms he would never play for the club again.

I think he did want to stay, but on his terms as opposed to the offers we were willing to make. I assume he was told he would 'rot in the reserves' if he did not sign for Colchester rather than lose him on a free at the end of the season.

 

[The Large One]

I appreciate there does have to be financial control - as you say though the figures being quoted are probably an exaggeration. Who knows, I'd think it unlikely that Hammond and his agent would make demands completely out of our league so to speak, particularly as I've been told by a source that Hammond wanted to stay and was told in no uncertain terms he would never play for the club again.

He was only told that after it was apparent that they couldn't reach an agreement - hence he was sold in order that we didn't let him go for nothing. In hindsight, I wonder what sort of player Hammond would have been for us if he'd stayed for those extra four months, knowing he was going. But that's another matter entirely.

As for the demands, I understand they were pretty high - hence the inability to reach an agreement. Don't forget, Hammond knew of Colchester's interest as they went into negotiations - and that is a handy lever to have.

To clarify, Knight wanted to back his manager and keep Hammond, but the club just couldn't afford the wage demands.

 

[Storer68]

But how much do we need Hammonds drive and goals from the midfield now what ever the price, that why Wilkins was the manager, there are few midfielder who are pound for pound better than Dean especially at Lge 1.
I am sure it could have been dealt better with by Knight after all he is a miracle worker.

Hammond;s goals from midfeild?
14 goals from 139 games. Pretty average ratio and many of them were penalties

 

[Rougvie]

To clarify, Knight wanted to back his manager and keep Hammond, but the club just couldn't afford the wage demands.

100% The case