Arriba
 Offline
Posts: 21289
|
 |
« Reply #255 on: Friday, January 28, 2011, 12:13:29 » |
|
1.2m plus add ons is exaclty what i predicted weeks ago and decent value imo..
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Frigby Daser
Offline
Posts: 3847
|
|
« Reply #256 on: Friday, January 28, 2011, 12:15:38 » |
|
1.2m plus add ons is exaclty what i predicted weeks ago and decent value imo..
Even in light of the fact we had 4 clubs interested? I don't think so. Nicky bloody Maynard gets Crewe over £2.5m. Austin gets us less than half that. It's just not good enough. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
magicroundabout
Fanta Pants
Offline
Posts: 8746
|
|
« Reply #257 on: Friday, January 28, 2011, 12:15:58 » |
|
right lets move on
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RJack
Offline
Posts: 1307
|
|
« Reply #258 on: Friday, January 28, 2011, 12:16:21 » |
|
Didn't you know it's their mission to buy every striker that another League one club is looking at?  I see we're linked to nobody on their as per usual  |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: Friday, January 28, 2011, 12:18:03 by RJack »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Gnasher
Offline
Posts: 5204
Prefers animals to people (in a non sexual way)
|
|
« Reply #259 on: Friday, January 28, 2011, 12:17:46 » |
|
1.2m would be a disgrace. I hope that isn't the figure AF has accepted.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Cats are better than dogs FACT
|
|
|
Arriba
Offline
Posts: 21289
|
|
« Reply #260 on: Friday, January 28, 2011, 12:18:56 » |
|
Even in light of the fact we had 4 clubs interested? I don't think so. Nicky bloody Maynard gets Crewe over £2.5m. Austin gets us less than half that. It's just not good enough.
the club wouldn't have accpeted the offer if it wasn't good enough.it appears only ipswich and burnley met our demands. the add ons could be anything? which would make the offer better than it seems. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Trashbat?
Offline
Posts: 1571
|
|
« Reply #261 on: Friday, January 28, 2011, 12:19:35 » |
|
If the fee is really 1.2m i can see alot of angry fans myself, taking away Pooles sell on fee leaves us 1m i believe.
I hate these add ons, I cant think of any player we have ever sold that we saw one of these add ons actually come in
FML
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mrverve
Offline
Posts: 1429
|
|
« Reply #262 on: Friday, January 28, 2011, 12:20:31 » |
|
1.2m is derisory, I'm sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Sippo
Living in the 80s
Offline
Posts: 15589
I ain't gettin on no plane fool
|
|
« Reply #263 on: Friday, January 28, 2011, 12:21:27 » |
|
Is prob 1.2 up front.
I'm happy with that considering what we bought him for.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If my calculations are correct, when this baby hits 88 miles per hour, you're gonna see some serious shit...
|
|
|
Gnasher
Offline
Posts: 5204
Prefers animals to people (in a non sexual way)
|
|
« Reply #264 on: Friday, January 28, 2011, 12:21:48 » |
|
Based on this we should be able to get Le Fondre for 300k But then it's only Swindon who give away their best players. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Cats are better than dogs FACT
|
|
|
Barry Scott
Offline
Posts: 9113
|
|
« Reply #265 on: Friday, January 28, 2011, 12:28:36 » |
|
But then it's only Swindon who give away their best players.
Yeah, we wanted to get rid of him didn't we? He didn't want to leave and he wanted to stay around, I can't believe we resorted to trying to shift him on for pittance...  £1.2m, if true, is a decent profit. I won't lose sleep over it because we don't actually have a clue what the fee is, we're believing a company known to fabricate with the best of them. If he's finally gone I'll be a relieved man, so we can now move on and hopefully the team can settle. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Spencer_White
|
|
« Reply #266 on: Friday, January 28, 2011, 12:32:23 » |
|
If we are going to accept 1.2m then I would suggest that Charlies behaviour has cost the club approx £600k.
Not good at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
tans
You spin me right round baby right round
Offline
Posts: 25154
|
|
« Reply #267 on: Friday, January 28, 2011, 12:33:34 » |
|
If we are going to accept 1.2m then I would suggest that Charlies behaviour has cost the club approx £600k.
Not good at all.
This is very true. Perhaps theyve just said fuck it, weve had enough |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
NorwayRed
Not quite Hitler
Offline
Posts: 643
|
|
« Reply #268 on: Friday, January 28, 2011, 12:33:53 » |
|
How can they loan a player who's a free agent?? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ran the fanclub: Swindon Town Supporters Club of Norway between 1992 and 1998. Now runs the non-commercial online website for Norwegian Swindon-fans.
Twitter: duncanshearer
|
|
|
Phil_S
Offline
Posts: 1534
Who changed my Avatar ?!
|
|
« Reply #269 on: Friday, January 28, 2011, 12:37:27 » |
|
I still think that 2.3 mill is / was his true value. Having said that I'm not upset by this report.
At a guess Ipswich offered more up front which was accepted. Burnleys initial bid was probably the 1.2 mill, which was rejected.
It's obvioyusly now been accepted so that means that Burnley would have offered better/ more on the add ons.
A F is no fool & would not have accepted the bid from Burnley if it wasn't at least as good as Ipswich's bid. We already know that it WAS different. Seeing as it will be the cLub's money not mine I put my trust in AF to get it right as they will lose more if they get it wrong. My risk is half a season ticket theirs is millions.
Standard add ons would be number of games played, promotions, call ups & of course we will have wanted a hefty sell on clause.
I would guess that most transfers are for initial sums well below the headline figure. eg Charlie was supposed to have cost us £50,000 but it's alleged we only paid £15k up front, although of course Poole will end up with a lot more than either sum now. Either way it's all relative.......... We will undoubtably sign a replacement at some time which would be on a similar basis
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
From the Dark Side
|
|
|
|
