Maybe wrong thread but I don`t get this Burton hating thing. Imho I think he will be good next season because he can bring in others with his holdup play and will I think be able to score 12 - 15 in League 1
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]Maybe wrong thread but I don`t get this Burton hating thing. Imho I think he will be good next season because he can bring in others with his holdup play and will I think be able to score 12 - 15 in League 1
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]Maybe wrong thread but I don`t get this Burton hating thing. Imho I think he will be good next season because he can bring in others with his holdup play and will I think be able to score 12 - 15 in League 1
12-15????????????
I'd say more like 2-5.
He scored a hat trick last week, I think it's safe to say Deon the goal machine has finally been unleashed B-)
[cite]Posted By: tom_cafc[/cite]Surely if we offered him 3k he would have accepted aswel!
Heard that that was what we did and he did. Ditto Spring.
Not true.
We felt we had to offer more in order to get him ahead of Cheltenham.
I'll leave people to ponder how that made us look to the rest of football when it came to negotiating deals...
I'm not seeing any new camamatous commercial decisions as actually worsening our image any further, to be honest. At the moment I'd have thought we look a bit like an underfunde Ambramovic, carrying a sign that advertises we're looking for magic beans and will pay in top dollar (and will sell the cow if necessary, to meet payments).
[cite]Posted By: tom_cafc[/cite]I would love to know some of the players wages.. I bet we'd all be in for a huge suprise.
The only wage I've heard about is Deon Burtons. He was due to sign for Chesterfield for 3k a week. Until we came in with a double wage+ offer. Crazy! Surely if we offered him 3k he would have accepted aswel! Really makes my blood boil!
heard exactly the same as Henry, probably from the same person too.
[cite]Posted By: tom_cafc[/cite]I would love to know some of the players wages.. I bet we'd all be in for a huge suprise.
The only wage I've heard about is Deon Burtons. He was due to sign for Chesterfield for 3k a week. Until we came in with a double wage+ offer. Crazy! Surely if we offered him 3k he would have accepted aswel! Really makes my blood boil!
heard exactly the same as Henry, probably from the same person too.
Just to confirm, when I first ran the Christensen story, there were about five other players mentioned in the original copy. In order to give the club a proper chance to consider the matter, I set out a list of about 15 statements, which would make up the body of the story, inviting them to observe if any of them were incorrect. These originally included statements pertaining to wages, contracts, negotiations, transfers and the employment of management and scouting teams.
The club considered the list, which I was told got passed to the very highest level, and then replied that they didn't wish to comment. Had any of the figures been wrong, they would obviously have corrected me. I have since learned that the one slight error in relation to Christensen came because I had not been made aware that his contract increased during its lifespan, so next year's deal is worth more than this year's was.
It wasn't a matter of being something "I heard" or what someone "told me", but more of something the newspaper saw, studied and reported. We wouldn't have published something we 'heard' from someone without being able to stand it up. I'm not saying everyone works like that, and I know stories do get put out in the hopes they'll survive scrutiny, but I'm lucky and I've got a very good sports desk and they go through things with a fine-toothed comb.
In summary then, the Christensen figures were almost completely accurate, but if they were wrong, they veered on the side of making the deal look smaller, not larger, than it was. The other deals, Burton, which has been mentioned, and a number of others which have not, were put to the club (and the board) and attracted, after discussion, neither comment nor correction.
[cite]Posted By: Off_it[/cite]I want to know who the **** was with the Range Rover. Can someone whisper me please?
Ta
Bet it was Ambrose
Heard Ambrose was one of the few players to volunteer a reduction in his income last season so very much doubt it was him
True. It's baffling that people would randomly speculate that he is the culprit of a rumoured "crime" when he's probably the least likely of any of the playing staff to be in any way out of order with the staff.
[cite]Posted By: MickCollins[/cite]Just to confirm, when I first ran the Christensen story, there were about five other players mentioned in the original copy. In order to give the club a proper chance to consider the matter, I set out a list of about 15 statements, which would make up the body of the story, inviting them to observe if any of them were incorrect. These originally included statements pertaining to wages, contracts, negotiations, transfers and the employment of management and scouting teams.
The club considered the list, which I was told got passed to the very highest level, and then replied that they didn't wish to comment. Had any of the figures been wrong, they would obviously have corrected me. I have since learned that the one slight error in relation to Christensen came because I had not been made aware that his contract increased during its lifespan, so next year's deal is worth more than this year's was.
It wasn't a matter of being something "I heard" or what someone "told me", but more of something the newspaper saw, studied and reported. We wouldn't have published something we 'heard' from someone without being able to stand it up. I'm not saying everyone works like that, and I know stories do get put out in the hopes they'll survive scrutiny, but I'm lucky and I've got a very good sports desk and they go through things with a fine-toothed comb.
In summary then, the Christensen figures were almost completely accurate, but if they were wrong, they veered on the side of making the deal look smaller, not larger, than it was. The other deals, Burton, which has been mentioned, and a number of others which have not, were put to the club (and the board) and attracted, after discussion, neither comment nor correction.
Interesting stuff. Of course a no comment isn't directly a confirmation or denial, but to be fair your investigation only confirmed what I always suspected, so I'm not doubting any of the conclusions. I'll be interested to read the whole uncensored tale one day.
If players --- thats IF, did put money into a kitty the club should have said something. It shows they are in tune with the outside World-- it shows some feelings. It MAY even shame the ones who put nothing into the pot as well. Im not saying those who may have put their hands in their pckets and wedged out some of the little earned dosh should be named.
[quote][cite]Posted By: McLovin[/cite][quote] Interesting stuff. Of course a no comment isn't directly a confirmation or denial, but to be fair your investigation only confirmed what I always suspected, so I'm not doubting any of the conclusions. I'll be interested to read the whole uncensored tale one day.[/quote]
Again, just to confirm, when we sent in the list, it was with a specific request to please tell us if anything was incorrect, as we were going to publish the figures and this was a chance for them to be altered if it was felt we had got any wrong. When they come back, having discussed it, with a 'no comment' it's because they're right. If they were wrong, someone would have said!
Not necessarily, Mick, as if they had commented on/ corrected some specifics, then you could have said the story and the figures were confirmed by the club, and maybe they wanted to avoid this?
[cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]If players --- thats IF, did put money into a kitty the club should have said something. It shows they are in tune with the outside World-- it shows some feelings. It MAY even shame the ones who put nothing into the pot as well. Im not saying those who may have put their hands in their pckets and wedged out some of the little earned dosh should be named.
Thing is i DONT believe they have put a penny in.
Is it really any of our business though GH, surely that is something confidential between the staff who are moving on and those who gave any money.
Whenever a card has been passed around with a collection where I've worked I'd hate the idea of everyone knowing how much everyone else put in.
Comments
Not the way I heard it.
Henry usually knows what he's chatting about!
Wheres adam ?
12-15????????????
I'd say more like 2-5.
He scored a hat trick last week, I think it's safe to say Deon the goal machine has finally been unleashed B-)
I'm not seeing any new camamatous commercial decisions as actually worsening our image any further, to be honest. At the moment I'd have thought we look a bit like an underfunde Ambramovic, carrying a sign that advertises we're looking for magic beans and will pay in top dollar (and will sell the cow if necessary, to meet payments).
heard exactly the same as Henry, probably from the same person too.
Maybe Large, maybe : - )
Ta
Ta[/quote]
Snap
Bet it was Ambrose
And me please.
And I'll name the "watchman!"
Heard Ambrose was one of the few players to volunteer a reduction in his income last season so very much doubt it was him
The club considered the list, which I was told got passed to the very highest level, and then replied that they didn't wish to comment. Had any of the figures been wrong, they would obviously have corrected me. I have since learned that the one slight error in relation to Christensen came because I had not been made aware that his contract increased during its lifespan, so next year's deal is worth more than this year's was.
It wasn't a matter of being something "I heard" or what someone "told me", but more of something the newspaper saw, studied and reported. We wouldn't have published something we 'heard' from someone without being able to stand it up. I'm not saying everyone works like that, and I know stories do get put out in the hopes they'll survive scrutiny, but I'm lucky and I've got a very good sports desk and they go through things with a fine-toothed comb.
In summary then, the Christensen figures were almost completely accurate, but if they were wrong, they veered on the side of making the deal look smaller, not larger, than it was. The other deals, Burton, which has been mentioned, and a number of others which have not, were put to the club (and the board) and attracted, after discussion, neither comment nor correction.
Thing is i DONT believe they have put a penny in.
Poor bloke cant breath without getting stick
Deon Burton's Mrs!
Interesting stuff. Of course a no comment isn't directly a confirmation or denial, but to be fair your investigation only confirmed what I always suspected, so I'm not doubting any of the conclusions. I'll be interested to read the whole uncensored tale one day.[/quote]
Again, just to confirm, when we sent in the list, it was with a specific request to please tell us if anything was incorrect, as we were going to publish the figures and this was a chance for them to be altered if it was felt we had got any wrong. When they come back, having discussed it, with a 'no comment' it's because they're right. If they were wrong, someone would have said!
You share your Mrs with Deon Burton??
Is it really any of our business though GH, surely that is something confidential between the staff who are moving on and those who gave any money.
Whenever a card has been passed around with a collection where I've worked I'd hate the idea of everyone knowing how much everyone else put in.