Henners, I can understand why you don't want people starting new threads for every single bit of news that comes out. However, can we have a change to the usual policy? Something like updating the thread name if something changes. For example, I stopped reading threads like the takeover one months ago because it was filled up with total rubbish.
I entered this thread because the name grabbed my attention unlike more unread posts in the "No offers for Bailey" thread. Some poeple are able to spend the time looking on this site for hours every day, I find it very useful at times for getting the latest news, gossip and non football fun but I can't sit through hours upon hours of new posts just because something might have changed.
So while it makes sense to have everything in one thread can we at least have something that lets us know if anything new has occurred?
fair point but down to the thread starter or admin to do that.
plenty of people seem happy to jump on a duplicate thread with "SINK" or "Man the lifeboats" but some people, not you Col, seem to have a problem if I point out that there's already a thread they might want to join instead.
So now we have two threads alongside each other discussing the same topic. Where's the logic in that?
Norwich have today signed a midfielder from Colchester for an undisclosed fee so maybe they are out of the running for Bailey before they were ever really in it. I think that is there fourth signing so far.
Like I said I can see your point (and that spanner scum yesterday was clearly on a wind up) but I'm sure there are people like me who would not have known this news about Bailey until they got home from work and had time to go through the site if it wasn't for this new thread. With the sink stuff, I'm sure a lot of that is people wanting to belittle other posters who haven't update a previous thread because they don't know how the forum works.
So in conclusion, I do agree that it is silly to have two separate threads but there must be someway to overcome both problems.
[cite]Posted By: colthe3rd[/cite]Like I said I can see your point (and that spanner scum yesterday was clearly on a wind up) but I'm sure there are people like me who would not have known this news about Bailey until they got home from work and had time to go through the site if it wasn't for this new thread. With the sink stuff, I'm sure a lot of that is people wanting to belittle other posters who haven't update a previous thread because they don't know how the forum works.
So in conclusion, I do agree that it is silly to have two separate threads but there must be someway to overcome both problems.
I agree, especially about the "Spanner scum" on a wind up ; - ) (Pavlov's dog will be here soon)
Coltsgoalie is new so cut him some slack and just point out that it's better to have a look to see if there is an existing discussion on that topic before posting.
With longer time posters a "man the lifeboats : - )" is ok as a joke IMHO.
Would be good if admin or the original poster updated the title and I notice that they sometimes do that but they may not always be around or notice themselves.
whenever he ends up i hope we don't get mugged. we should be demanding over a million for him. we paid £750k for him and since then he's had two good seasons, scoring double figures in both. just because we need the money, we shouldn't let people take the piss.
[cite]Posted By: Saints fan[/cite]Not sure if I would want him here. All season I was reading on multi fan forums nothing but bad things about him from non Charlton fans.
That's because he's one of those players you like if he's in your team but don't if he's in someone elses. Apart from theatrics (which he appeared to have calmed down somewhat towards the end)and occasional bad games not really anything negative about him.
colthe3rd, i kind of agree with you, though its hard to find an exacting answer.
Only 40 threads are shown on the front page, and when there is actually some football to discuss, you can get 40 new starting threads within a couple of hours. I don't know what people's viewing habits are when they are not viewing the site as regularly as i do. Do people when they only visit once or twice a day just look at the first couple of most recent threads, do you scan down the whole front page, do you scan the titles of the first two or three pages ? I'd be interested to know.
It is frustrating when people start topics on the same topic of an existing thread because:
a. It automatically adds to the number of threads on the board, making it longer for people who want to read them to get through, and
b. you end up with two threads with the incomplete story, or the same thing being said twice.
Sadly, its not possible to merge threads, and merged threads on other platforms always look a bit messy to me. Where possible, we try and educate users into having a brief scan of the forum, or tapping something into the search facility before starting a thread to help avoid the two things above. It only takes about 10 seconds, but some choose not to out of either intentional or unintentional ignorance. Sometimes the former can be clear, and can be frustrating. This thread for example could have been avoided if the thread starter had just hit Search and then typed in Bailey, that's all, and picked what seemed to be the most recent thread.
You do raise a good point about highlighting out news / important stuff / good reads etc, and it is something i'm currently considering how we can do it better. To a lesser degree we do try and do that with the stickied threads, yet ironically some people tell me that they are the threads they don't bother reading, for some reason.
[quote][cite]Posted By: LargeAddick[/cite]don't think we paid 750k for him. Thought it was 400k plus add-on's. Believe Southend have a 20% sell on clause.[/quote]
reckon we've paid most of the add-ons by now. but yeah Southend will get 20%. so ideally we want anything over £1.3m so we still get at least £1m.
Can any discussion concerning restarting threads be moved to a new thread as they are not relevant under this thread which should have been under an old thread according to the off topic discussion in this thread.
[cite]Posted By: reserves[/cite]Can any discussion concerning restarting threads be moved to a new thread as they are not relevant under this thread which should have been under an old thread according to the off topic discussion in this thread.
I just saw an f365 story about Leeds in negotiation with an "unnamed player" and for some reason, thought in my heart of hearts, "well, he's off then". Then I find this thread.
Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe we have an asset in demand. Although I'd be disappointed to see him go, would think a higher league would be a good thing, both to avoid him beating us for a year, and to maximise the payment.
[cite]Posted By: reserves[/cite]Can any discussion concerning restarting threads be moved to a new thread as they are not relevant under this thread which should have been under an old thread according to the off topic discussion in this thread.
Haha!
Dunno if I'm going off topic, or on, but the way I see it, is that the other Bailey thread is about no interest for him, this is a thread about interest for him, so irrespective of the two threads being about Nicky Bailey, they both are different subjects.(on a technicality) :-)
In terms of THIS subject, I would be loathe to see Bailey at Southampton. I'd much rather see him going for it at a club in a higher division, like Boro for example, & knowhere near us in divisonal terms. But, if they offer the most £££, then there can be no arguement.
If this interest in him is true, he has a dilema. Follow your natural ambition & join a club in a higher division, but one that (I think) may struggle a bit, or join a side that is almost a cert for promotion, & if built upon wisely, another, relatively soon after that.
Either way, we've just gotta hold out for the best deal for us, if we can, & not be taken prison stylee.
What would everyone take out of Bailey to Southampton for £1.5m or a Championship side for £750k? Not saying it could happen like that, but as much as we don't want to see Bailey in this league playing against us, we also need the best offer possible.
Cash is king Scoham and if Saints offer the most then thats what we should take. If Saints don't get Bailey they'll get another decent player instead, although I do hope he doesn't go there.
[cite]Posted By: Scoham[/cite]What would everyone take out of Bailey to Southampton for £1.5m or a Championship side for £750k? Not saying it could happen like that, but as much as we don't want to see Bailey in this league playing against us, we also need the best offer possible.
We will not offer you £1.5m for Bailey, especially when we could offer Doncaster £1m and get Brian Stock.
Comments
Do you have to be so Arsey and curt.
He's new so he's allowed to start another thread if he wants to even if there is already a thread about Bailey on the first page ; - )
I entered this thread because the name grabbed my attention unlike more unread posts in the "No offers for Bailey" thread. Some poeple are able to spend the time looking on this site for hours every day, I find it very useful at times for getting the latest news, gossip and non football fun but I can't sit through hours upon hours of new posts just because something might have changed.
So while it makes sense to have everything in one thread can we at least have something that lets us know if anything new has occurred?
plenty of people seem happy to jump on a duplicate thread with "SINK" or "Man the lifeboats" but some people, not you Col, seem to have a problem if I point out that there's already a thread they might want to join instead.
So now we have two threads alongside each other discussing the same topic. Where's the logic in that?
Can an admin not merge the 2 threads?
So in conclusion, I do agree that it is silly to have two separate threads but there must be someway to overcome both problems.
I agree, especially about the "Spanner scum" on a wind up ; - ) (Pavlov's dog will be here soon)
Coltsgoalie is new so cut him some slack and just point out that it's better to have a look to see if there is an existing discussion on that topic before posting.
With longer time posters a "man the lifeboats : - )" is ok as a joke IMHO.
Would be good if admin or the original poster updated the title and I notice that they sometimes do that but they may not always be around or notice themselves.
Don't think so.
That's because he's one of those players you like if he's in your team but don't if he's in someone elses. Apart from theatrics (which he appeared to have calmed down somewhat towards the end)and occasional bad games not really anything negative about him.
Only 40 threads are shown on the front page, and when there is actually some football to discuss, you can get 40 new starting threads within a couple of hours. I don't know what people's viewing habits are when they are not viewing the site as regularly as i do. Do people when they only visit once or twice a day just look at the first couple of most recent threads, do you scan down the whole front page, do you scan the titles of the first two or three pages ? I'd be interested to know.
It is frustrating when people start topics on the same topic of an existing thread because:
a. It automatically adds to the number of threads on the board, making it longer for people who want to read them to get through, and
b. you end up with two threads with the incomplete story, or the same thing being said twice.
Sadly, its not possible to merge threads, and merged threads on other platforms always look a bit messy to me. Where possible, we try and educate users into having a brief scan of the forum, or tapping something into the search facility before starting a thread to help avoid the two things above. It only takes about 10 seconds, but some choose not to out of either intentional or unintentional ignorance. Sometimes the former can be clear, and can be frustrating. This thread for example could have been avoided if the thread starter had just hit Search and then typed in Bailey, that's all, and picked what seemed to be the most recent thread.
You do raise a good point about highlighting out news / important stuff / good reads etc, and it is something i'm currently considering how we can do it better. To a lesser degree we do try and do that with the stickied threads, yet ironically some people tell me that they are the threads they don't bother reading, for some reason.
Paul Lambert endearing himself to the Colchester faithful once again!
reckon we've paid most of the add-ons by now. but yeah Southend will get 20%. so ideally we want anything over £1.3m so we still get at least £1m.
Sink
: - )
Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe we have an asset in demand. Although I'd be disappointed to see him go, would think a higher league would be a good thing, both to avoid him beating us for a year, and to maximise the payment.
Haha!
Dunno if I'm going off topic, or on, but the way I see it, is that the other Bailey thread is about no interest for him, this is a thread about interest for him, so irrespective of the two threads being about Nicky Bailey, they both are different subjects.(on a technicality) :-)
In terms of THIS subject, I would be loathe to see Bailey at Southampton. I'd much rather see him going for it at a club in a higher division, like Boro for example, & knowhere near us in divisonal terms. But, if they offer the most £££, then there can be no arguement.
If this interest in him is true, he has a dilema. Follow your natural ambition & join a club in a higher division, but one that (I think) may struggle a bit, or join a side that is almost a cert for promotion, & if built upon wisely, another, relatively soon after that.
Either way, we've just gotta hold out for the best deal for us, if we can, & not be taken prison stylee.
We will not offer you £1.5m for Bailey, especially when we could offer Doncaster £1m and get Brian Stock.