In other words:-
'bugger he's using my own special head mental logic against me'.
In other words:-
Well Ramirez played the same number of games, and scored more goals. If they hadn't bought Rhodes, I imagine they'd have gone for someone else.
His 6 goals in 18 games is hardly proof he'd get us promoted.
![]()
Unless he's playing at the AMEX.His record in the Championship is stunning overall.
Unless he's playing at the AMEX.
I would repeat money is the language of negotiation and persuasion.
Just to keep everybody happy I will reiterate that is my opinion and had the amount of money offered been too good to refuse iI think it would have worked,.
No doubt Murray is the top earner, but at a reported £30k a week, an outlay of £1.5m for a striker of his quality was great business.
Oh I see.Not the point i was making at all. BG is adamant that bournemouth are paying all his wages and we are paying them a weekly fee to cover that with a loan fee on top
Oh I see.
Not sure how true this idea of a 'loan fee' is anyway, or whether it's just an urban myth. In the past, the borrowing club just paid the player's wages. I know Wayne Bridge was an exception to this.
My best guess would be we are just paying his wages.
Good!Bournemouth have said that we are paying all his wages but no loan fee
Lets gets this straight I said that I read that we are paying a fee probably equal to his wages or slightly more to Bournemouth and they are paying his wages so we are not breaking our wage structure for any player. It may not be correct I dont know just what I read. So time to move on and let those that want to try to be clever and pedantic.
Where on earth do you read this stuff BG ?
"They have thrashed out a loan arrangement instead, with no fee involved, to secure his services, while Bournemouth benefit by removing high-earning Murray from their wage bill."
http://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/14595567.Murray_can_be__perfect__in_the_Bobby_role/ (Jul 4)
I cannot remember where I read it as I read so much but it seemed like we were paying them a fee equivalent to or slightly more than his wages and they used it to pay his wages so he was effectively off their wage bill and we werent paying his wages so the rest of the team wouldnt get the hump and want more. It may well be all wrong I dont know the full details as indeed nobody on here does. It does seem a logical way to overcome the wages for both clubs.
So you made it all up then![]()
So you made it all up then![]()
Where on earth do you read this stuff BG ?
"They have thrashed out a loan arrangement instead, with no fee involved, to secure his services, while Bournemouth benefit by removing high-earning Murray from their wage bill."
http://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/14595567.Murray_can_be__perfect__in_the_Bobby_role/ (Jul 4)
Do you not think he will consider it realising what might have been had he splahed the cash and GM signed in January.