Tinker on.

[Marky147]

Can't believe you fed the troll, Tighty

Standard football bants - laugh at the other guys team when they are doing shite. Lolster are terrible this season and it makes me very happy. Vardy spends the entire game giving the thumbs up to one of his colleagues who just lumped it 40 yds in his vague direction. Never on the end of it though-it's to fun.

Danny Donkwater for England anyone ? Allbutgone on the wide right. Muggan, Simple, Fucked and Hoof at the back - just incred what they did last year but loving the sheer mediocrity this

Of course, but I think you ran well, with Tighty being up half the night

[nirvana]

Can't believe you fed the troll, Tighty

Standard football bants - laugh at the other guys team when they are doing shite. Lolster are terrible this season and it makes me very happy. Vardy spends the entire game giving the thumbs up to one of his colleagues who just lumped it 40 yds in his vague direction. Never on the end of it though-it's to fun.

Danny Donkwater for England anyone ? Allbutgone on the wide right. Muggan, Simple, Fucked and Hoof at the back - just incred what they did last year but loving the sheer mediocrity this

Of course, but I think you ran well, with Tighty being up half the night

Serendipitous to be sure

[RickBFA]

Ulloa won't play for Leicester again.

"Betrayed" by Ranieri.

These footballers live in a fantasy world.

[TightEnd]

Ulloa won't play for Leicester again.

"Betrayed" by Ranieri.

These footballers live in a fantasy world.

its a sad one because he seems like a nice guy but i think he's badly advised

he is a decent player who has scored important goals but was really a bit part player last year

then we "strengthened" cough cough in the summer, and he's played even less (Slimani)

the clubs interested in him are sunderland, and we don't want to sell toa club near the bottom and they only bid £3.5m and galatasaray who want him on loan but not to pay all of his wages

so he tries to force a move and say he won't play for us again, which if he does will be breach of contract.

[arbboy]

Ulloa won't play for Leicester again.

"Betrayed" by Ranieri.

These footballers live in a fantasy world.

its a sad one because he seems like a nice guy but i think he's badly advised

he is a decent player who has scored important goals but was really a bit part player last year

then we "strengthened" cough cough in the summer, and he's played even less (Slimani)

the clubs interested in him are sunderland, and we don't want to sell toa club near the bottom and they only bid £3.5m and galatasaray who want him on loan but not to pay all of his wages

so he tries to force a move and say he won't play for us again, which if he does will be breach of contract.

Don't you think it gets really boring listening to owners say we don't have to sell, we can hang them out to dry etc?  West ham just made a public statement in the same manner and bottled it putting him in the reserves.   All these owners are hundred+ times richer than all their players yet they still submit to them.  I would have loved either Leicester or West Ham to call their bluff and just dump them in the reserves to send a statement for the good of the game.  Everyone talks about player power but the only player who allow player power are the billionaire owners who could club together and snap it in a second.

It has never really happened at Stoke but i really wish it would because i couldn't see the Coates family being held to ransom by a brain dead footballer over an amount of money they make daily at 365.  Maybe their recruitment and management is just too good that it never happens.

[TightEnd]

we haven't had much of it either, until now

clubs end up selling (players force their hands with statements such as today's ) for less than their idea of "fair value" a fortnight previously as sticking them with the U23s is seen as corrosive to team spirit and holding them to end of contract a) still costs them the wages and b) gets less value when the contract runs down

of course we'd all like them to do it, but easier said than done. the players still have plenty of power.

[Cavey007]

I'd like to think if West Ham hadn't brought in a replacement that they'd of let him rot in the reserves, but I don't know. End of the day, £25m is a lot of money for a 29yr old taking up £125k a week who doesn't want to play for you. - Supposedly he wanted to go back to Marseille for family reasons (we'll never know obviously) but he has taken a pay cut and had to pay £500k back to West Ham to get away, so maybe that was true. They also didn't let him go to a rival, so again, decent enough business from the Davids really. Despite them not needing the money. It all made sense.

Sorry for jumping on the Leicester thread, but what do you think of the West Ham board offering shirts for £25 if you bring your Payet shirt in? I've not seen any other club offer that on players who are sold, but they seem to be getting slated for only offering £12 discount on a new shirt (they've just been reduced) instead of giving a repacement for free. I mean would you be happy for Leicester to offer a Slimani shirt for trading in your Ulloa shirt and a £25? Of course they're trying to shift shirts from their warehouse, but at least they offered something.

[TightEnd]

like what WHUFC did with the shirts. good PR

of course a few months ago they said they would keep Payet no matter waht, so fans bought his named shirt.

Players view changes, WHUFC get a reasonable price and give fans something back. Well done

(of course there is a probably a kit change end of season and thousands of soon to be worthless 2016-17 shirts in Sullivan's lock up depreciating by the minute, but i'm not too cynical in this instance)

[arbboy]

we haven't had much of it either, until now

clubs end up selling (players force their hands with statements such as today's ) for less than their idea of "fair value" a fortnight previously as sticking them with the U23s is seen as corrosive to team spirit and holding them to end of contract a) still costs them the wages and b) gets less value when the contract runs down

of course we'd all like them to do it, but easier said than done. the players still have plenty of power.

It isn't a dig at Leicester or ham more a general comment amongst the clubs outside of the big boys who are privately owned (like leics/stoke/ham are) by hugely rich self made families.  They could (and should) imo for the long term good of the game and themselves being called out (think of the message it would send to future gold diggers looking at your club as a pension fund knowing they would easily be dumped in the reserves for a season).  I just think long term these clubs now have all the power if they choose to call the bluff.  I think it would massively win over cynical fans who say the game is dead and all about money as well and this is a huge longer term revenue stream as the game gets more and more corporate.

Just buy the shirt with no name on the back.  If you are stupid enough to put a name on the back you get whatever you deserve imo. 

[arbboy]

I'd like to think if West Ham hadn't brought in a replacement that they'd of let him rot in the reserves, but I don't know. End of the day, £25m is a lot of money for a 29yr old taking up £125k a week who doesn't want to play for you. - Supposedly he wanted to go back to Marseille for family reasons (we'll never know obviously) but he has taken a pay cut and had to pay £500k back to West Ham to get away, so maybe that was true. They also didn't let him go to a rival, so again, decent enough business from the Davids really. Despite them not needing the money. It all made sense.

Sorry for jumping on the Leicester thread, but what do you think of the West Ham board offering shirts for £25 if you bring your Payet shirt in? I've not seen any other club offer that on players who are sold, but they seem to be getting slated for only offering £12 discount on a new shirt (they've just been reduced) instead of giving a repacement for free. I mean would you be happy for Leicester to offer a Slimani shirt for trading in your Ulloa shirt and a £25? Of course they're trying to shift shirts from their warehouse, but at least they offered something.

Why offer to pay him £125k a week when he is 34 then?  Just pay him £200k a week for 3 years if you want to give him £30m because he will be effectively worthless at 34 in a modern day EPL.  The initial contract was just a joke.  Just make better decisions in the first place.  Similar to paying Rooney £300k a year in 2020 or whenever the last year of his contract is.

[TightEnd]

we haven't had much of it either, until now

clubs end up selling (players force their hands with statements such as today's ) for less than their idea of "fair value" a fortnight previously as sticking them with the U23s is seen as corrosive to team spirit and holding them to end of contract a) still costs them the wages and b) gets less value when the contract runs down

of course we'd all like them to do it, but easier said than done. the players still have plenty of power.

It isn't a dig at Leicester or ham more a general comment amongst the clubs outside of the big boys who are privately owned (like leics/stoke/ham are) by hugely rich self made families.  They could (and should) imo for the long term good of the game and themselves being called out (think of the message it would send to future gold diggers looking at your club as a pension fund knowing they would easily be dumped in the reserves for a season).  I just think long term these clubs now have all the power if they choose to call the bluff.  I think it would massively win over cynical fans who say the game is dead and all about money as well and this is a huge longer term revenue stream as the game gets more and more corporate.

i didn't take it as a dig.

Ulloa is 30 years old. think he's got 18 months left on a contract

depreciation of value is a major issue if you want to make a stand and put him in the kids dressing room. yes the private owners can afford it, but still not straightforward

[Cavey007]

I'd like to think if West Ham hadn't brought in a replacement that they'd of let him rot in the reserves, but I don't know. End of the day, £25m is a lot of money for a 29yr old taking up £125k a week who doesn't want to play for you. - Supposedly he wanted to go back to Marseille for family reasons (we'll never know obviously) but he has taken a pay cut and had to pay £500k back to West Ham to get away, so maybe that was true. They also didn't let him go to a rival, so again, decent enough business from the Davids really. Despite them not needing the money. It all made sense.

Sorry for jumping on the Leicester thread, but what do you think of the West Ham board offering shirts for £25 if you bring your Payet shirt in? I've not seen any other club offer that on players who are sold, but they seem to be getting slated for only offering £12 discount on a new shirt (they've just been reduced) instead of giving a repacement for free. I mean would you be happy for Leicester to offer a Slimani shirt for trading in your Ulloa shirt and a £25? Of course they're trying to shift shirts from their warehouse, but at least they offered something.

Why offer to pay him £125k a week when he is 34 then?  Just pay him £200k a week for 3 years if you want to give him £30m because he will be effectively worthless at 34 in a modern day EPL.  The initial contract was just a joke.  Just make better decisions in the first place.  Similar to paying Rooney £300k a year in 2020 or whenever the last year of his contract is.

Fair point, the Payet contract was obviously an attempt to keep the breakout player of the year last year, for another season or two, and to push through the Europa and challenge for a top 6 spot in the league. He probably wanted to move to a bigger club in the summer, but saw that 500k a month and thought I can do this for a while, i'll be the big fish in this pond, get my team through the group stages in Europe and increase my standing even more. Obviously that all went very wrong, very quickly. Starting with resting him for the majority of the preliminary campaign which didn't help. Teams don't expect top players to reach the end of their contracts these days. They put them on big deals to maximize their sell on value

In principal I agree with you completely, but it would only work if everyone did it, if it's just one team that does it, and lets a guy rot in the reserves, then other players may look at that club and think, well I don't want that to happen to me if I act like a petulant child in future and want to move, I want to be at a club I can get my own way. It would probably restrict their ability to bring in other players.

As It happens for West Ham, while Snodgrass isn't as good as Payet, him and £15m in the bank is actually a pretty good deal

[arbboy]

we haven't had much of it either, until now

clubs end up selling (players force their hands with statements such as today's ) for less than their idea of "fair value" a fortnight previously as sticking them with the U23s is seen as corrosive to team spirit and holding them to end of contract a) still costs them the wages and b) gets less value when the contract runs down

of course we'd all like them to do it, but easier said than done. the players still have plenty of power.

It isn't a dig at Leicester or ham more a general comment amongst the clubs outside of the big boys who are privately owned (like leics/stoke/ham are) by hugely rich self made families.  They could (and should) imo for the long term good of the game and themselves being called out (think of the message it would send to future gold diggers looking at your club as a pension fund knowing they would easily be dumped in the reserves for a season).  I just think long term these clubs now have all the power if they choose to call the bluff.  I think it would massively win over cynical fans who say the game is dead and all about money as well and this is a huge longer term revenue stream as the game gets more and more corporate.

i didn't take it as a dig.

Ulloa is 30 years old. think he's got 18 months left on a contract

depreciation of value is a major issue if you want to make a stand and put him in the kids dressing room. yes the private owners can afford it, but still not straightforward

I really think it is straight forward and if you nip it in the bud you protect your club long term from signing gold diggers who are looking for a pension/contract to seal their future.  I think the owners need to see the bigger picture and take a hit short term to set the mark for the longer term future.  I just can't have it that the Coates family  (worth circa £10 BILLION) would ever be told what was happening by a footballer playing for them worth sub £20m at best.  I have worked for them years ago and left the company and they are ruthless when it comes to business but extremely loyal to people who don't fuck them over.  I think there is a reason why this type of thing has never happened at Stoke.  I am sure it is also to do with the scouting influence and how much they research players and their motives more than most clubs do.  They really don't have many big money signings/contract busts over the last 8 years.

[arbboy]

I'd like to think if West Ham hadn't brought in a replacement that they'd of let him rot in the reserves, but I don't know. End of the day, £25m is a lot of money for a 29yr old taking up £125k a week who doesn't want to play for you. - Supposedly he wanted to go back to Marseille for family reasons (we'll never know obviously) but he has taken a pay cut and had to pay £500k back to West Ham to get away, so maybe that was true. They also didn't let him go to a rival, so again, decent enough business from the Davids really. Despite them not needing the money. It all made sense.

Sorry for jumping on the Leicester thread, but what do you think of the West Ham board offering shirts for £25 if you bring your Payet shirt in? I've not seen any other club offer that on players who are sold, but they seem to be getting slated for only offering £12 discount on a new shirt (they've just been reduced) instead of giving a repacement for free. I mean would you be happy for Leicester to offer a Slimani shirt for trading in your Ulloa shirt and a £25? Of course they're trying to shift shirts from their warehouse, but at least they offered something.

Why offer to pay him £125k a week when he is 34 then?  Just pay him £200k a week for 3 years if you want to give him £30m because he will be effectively worthless at 34 in a modern day EPL.  The initial contract was just a joke.  Just make better decisions in the first place.  Similar to paying Rooney £300k a year in 2020 or whenever the last year of his contract is.

Fair point, the Payet contract was obviously an attempt to keep the breakout player of the year last year, for another season or two, and to push through the Europa and challenge for a top 6 spot in the league. He probably wanted to move to a bigger club in the summer, but saw that 500k a month and thought I can do this for a while, i'll be the big fish in this pond, get my team through the group stages in Europe and increase my standing even more. Obviously that all went very wrong, very quickly. Starting with resting him for the majority of the preliminary campaign which didn't help. Teams don't expect top players to reach the end of their contracts these days. They put them on big deals to maximize their sell on value

In principal I agree with you completely, but it would only work if everyone did it, if it's just one team that does it, and lets a guy rot in the reserves, then other players may look at that club and think, well I don't want that to happen to me if I act like a petulant child in future and want to move, I want to be at a club I can get my own way. It would probably restrict their ability to bring in other players.

As It happens for West Ham, while Snodgrass isn't as good as Payet, him and £15m in the bank is actually a pretty good deal

Snod is a championship player.  I totally disagree with you on this factor.

[TightEnd]

we haven't had much of it either, until now

clubs end up selling (players force their hands with statements such as today's ) for less than their idea of "fair value" a fortnight previously as sticking them with the U23s is seen as corrosive to team spirit and holding them to end of contract a) still costs them the wages and b) gets less value when the contract runs down

of course we'd all like them to do it, but easier said than done. the players still have plenty of power.

It isn't a dig at Leicester or ham more a general comment amongst the clubs outside of the big boys who are privately owned (like leics/stoke/ham are) by hugely rich self made families.  They could (and should) imo for the long term good of the game and themselves being called out (think of the message it would send to future gold diggers looking at your club as a pension fund knowing they would easily be dumped in the reserves for a season).  I just think long term these clubs now have all the power if they choose to call the bluff.  I think it would massively win over cynical fans who say the game is dead and all about money as well and this is a huge longer term revenue stream as the game gets more and more corporate.

i didn't take it as a dig.

Ulloa is 30 years old. think he's got 18 months left on a contract

depreciation of value is a major issue if you want to make a stand and put him in the kids dressing room. yes the private owners can afford it, but still not straightforward

I really think it is straight forward and if you nip it in the bud you protect your club long term from signing gold diggers who are looking for a pension/contract to seal their future.  I think the owners need to see the bigger picture and take a hit short term to set the mark for the longer term future.  I just can't have it that the Coates family  (worth circa £10 BILLION) would ever be told what was happening by a footballer playing for them worth sub £20m at best.  I have worked for them years ago and left the company and they are ruthless when it comes to business but extremely loyal to people who don't fuck them over.  I think there is a reason why this type of thing has never happened at Stoke.  I am sure it is also to do with the scouting influence and how much they research players and their motives more than most clubs do.  They really don't have many big money signings/contract busts over the last 8 years.

Agent

"so you can go to club x and club y for the same deal. be careful though club x has just stiffed over player z who had 18 months left and let him rot with the kids, so prevented him getting one more contract. i think you should go to club y"

think that is a real factor in modern day football