Thetownend.com

Will they, not seen the comparative wage offers posted anywhere, can you link please?


The only time I saw him play in the flesh was at LB at Carlisle and he was beyond shite, whilst not helped by Bennett going AWOL in the first half he only improved very moderately after the formation switch.

It shouldn't be difficult to keep up...


 :sherlock: from this we can work out that Cambridge topped the reduced offer.  It's kind of what happens in football, player moves for more money....

We didn't offer Knoyle reduced terms though, thats why we will get a fee for Knoyle and not a free transfer.

This is just guesswork Reg and you know that.

I wouldn't be surprised if its due to location with Cambridge being almost an hour closer to East London than Swindon, as RobT says that could be the difference to a player not earning shitloads of money on a similar contract there as to what we offered him.

No we can't. We can assume that (and it would be a reasonable assumption), but there's nothing there that categorically states that Cambridge made an improved offer, just that the original offer we made to him was reduced. There's nothing to even indicate that that would have been less than last season

Exactly.

Hang on, you are not saying that reg is making something up suit his tired 'I told you so narrative', will the world ever spin freely on its axis again!  :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:

The alternative view by implication is that we offered Knoyle a reduced contract, and then he chose to reject it to move to Cambridge as they offered him the same, or less.  I'll carry on with my assumption then, thanks all the same.

So just in order that we can be clear, this is not true then?

We offered Knoyle reduced terms comparative to the first contract offered.
Those reduced terms could still have been (...and probably were) an increase in terms compared with his expired contract.

If he was earning 1k a week and we offered him 4K a week then reduced the terms to 3k a week - we are still offering him more money on the ‘reduced’ terms than he was on originally

Just to be clear, it is an assumption based on the available evidence and the application of common sense.

It's rather like the debate between Bohr and Einstein in the 30's.... Bohr's contention being that quantum theory suggested the moon wasn't there if you are not looking... Einstein's argument, common sense tells you it is there when you're not looking.

So no then.

That's fine. But it's an assumption, whereas you said it was a deduction, which it wasn't.

Not at all.... I stand by the assumption based on the available evidence and application of common sense.  Ignoring as to whether the epistomology here is a priori or a posteriori... what makes you think Knoyle signed foir Cambridge for less money?

This.

If he was on £1,000 a week and we offered him a rise to £1,200 a week and then we withdrew it and offered him at least the same contract he was on £1,000 a week then we are still entitled to a transfer fee being he is under 24, the fee is based usually upon the division he was playing in, the amount of appearances he made and his wages.

I may have deduced, hence the  :sherlock:  to get to the assumption, but I'll continue to hold it, until such time as someone like yourself Venkman or Horlock can provide me with evidence, that Knoyle chose to leave us on the back of being offered less money by Cambridge.... not expecting pay slips or owt like that, just what we know and common sense will do.

I don’t think it’s massively unrealistic to think our offer was financially similar to Cambridge, but Knoyle prefered the shorter commute / not working with Wellens

I wasn't claiming he did. I objected to your presenting an assumption as something we could deduce from the newspaper article you quoted. Facts, Reg, facts.

A Cambridge fan has said they have a reduced budget from last season and also have financial difficulties.

I’ll stick to my theory that Wellens wasn’t that fussed about him staying and, tbf, although he said he was a good one on one defender he didn’t provide any assists when he got in good positions - an accusation that could be levied at most of them.

So you're happy with the assumption that Cambridge will have offered more.  I don't really see why that is so controversial a view, happens all the time in football, a club want a player so offer a bit more to get them.

Oh, fuck off

Jesus wept. I've made no judgement either way on your assumption. FWIW, I think it may be valid, it may not. What wasn't valid was your presenting an assumption, however reasonable, as a viable deduction from known facts. It's this kind of playground sophistry that badly undermines much of your analysis and your oft-stated claim to only deal in *facts*. Clear enough?

So your argument is that you present something as fact (when its nothing of the sort) and its up to others to provide factual evidence that your, at best, assumption is not fact.

You tried to play bobby big bollocks by making a statement to serve your boring narrative as a fact, you have been found out that it was nothing of the sort, but instead of admitting it you are just spinning semantic bollocks further and further like a pretty dreadful tory politician!

Christ I hope no one ever has to look up and see you sat on a jury!

I'm not asking for judgement on my assumption, rather what is your assumption on the Knoyle situation?  It may coincide with mine, it may not.  This is a football forum, what constitutes a fact in a philosophical sense is hard to arrive at in any given sphere of thought. 

Often when I present something based on statistical analysis, it is historical, and will always carry the proviso that history doesn't always repeat itself, hence we're talking about tendencies.  Tendencies shouldn't be conflated with facts.

It's an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Its like having our own little Jacob Rees-Mogg, gets caught out and instead of just admitting it attempts to muddy the waters by using evermore long words to say very little, I am expecting some Latin to be thrown in next.

I've acknowledged my interpretation is an assumption... I think reasonable. In the spirit of debate, I've asked for a counter argument, not based on epistomology... again I think reasonable.

I don't have a "narrative" other than being a Town fan, and looking at what is going at our club. 

It really isn't. For a man who's proud boast is "I deal in facts", you're looking increasingly like a Farage/Trump-style "post-truth"-er. Please stop trying to pass off your opinion and guesswork as facts.

I always try to append I assume or I guess etc to what might be considered an opinion, in posts which are not stone cold stats situations. 

However, there will always be those who take issue with the interpretation of seemingly incontrovertible facts. By way of example, every season since Power has owned 2 clubs we've achieved a lower league position, that is a fact.

The interpretation of the significance of that fact is a matter of opinion.

Caveat Emptor.

Some of you need to get laid..

Except when you don't. Which happens quite frequently. Hence this sub-thread

Absolutely but I think Reg does alright in that department.

Fuck it's only June.

Regards getting laid - is anyone offering?

Is this based upon what Reg has told you, based upon this thread I would not be so sure?  ;)

I have previously suggested we arrange a crowd funder for that very purpose on the hope that he might become a little less belligerent and a little more relaxed!  :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:

Time to move on from Knoyle. Only thing mildly interesting now is what amount of compo we’ll get.

 :popcorn:

I object your honour. You could easily say the same about McDonald/Corbyn/Watson etc.

From the known facts:

We offered Knoyle a contract
He didn't sign
We offered a lower contract
He didn't sign
Cambridge offered a contract
He signed

There isn't much beyond that we can know.

It is possible we offered an improved contract vs. his current one, then offered a still improved contract or at least the same - which would be the most sensible thing to do knowing that it ensures we'd get some money if he didn't stay.  I'd suggest that this is the most likely scenario for our part of the bargain.

It is also possible Cambridge offered an almost identical deal to us and that Knoyle weighed up other factors such as commute and where he stood in the squad pecking order here vs. Cambridge.

Therefore - Cambridge need not have beaten us in financial terms.

That seems more likely, based on what we know, than your assessment Reg.  Which bit di you think I am wrong on?

Maybe instead of financials, commute, pecking order, manager he simply feels that Cambridge have a better immediate future and are a better prospect than Town.

So, the fact we offered him a contract doesn’t actually mean Wellens wanted to keep him.

Let us not forget that the new Cambridge kit is bloody beautiful, and, AND, made by Hummel.

That too could have been a factor.

Do we know that Knoyle lives in London?

I did point out that the ease of commute might have been a factor.....


I don't know though..... how much would you save on petrol a month?  I got shot of the motor years ago out climate change concern so seriously have no idea.

I think Wellens was ok with keeping him in the squad, just not sold on him.  The signing of another RB so quickly suggests he was going to get him anyway.  It's entirely possible he was happy to have Knoyle around - that doesn't mean he was placing absolute confidence in him though.  Money down here is not big, so players will no doubt jump for some security, a few quid here or there can make a difference.  Cambridge could have sold him on being first choice etc.

Maybe he just fancies punting down the river, or the sights of the university, whatever, we will never know the reasons why he chose Cambridge over us, so for fuck sake, stop the argument, its beyond petty with big words.

We had to offer him a contract to ensure compensation.

You can waste a good 5k-10k on travel costs a year when you start commuting an hour or over each day.

In recent seasons we've often offered contracts to players we seemingly don't want... McGivern last seasion for example and Moore the keeper, when I say seemingly, I mean the fans don't want so assume the club must be similar. With Knoyle most would have been happy for him to stay, so again the assume the club must be similar

How many days do they come in, in a chronological year.   It's not te overall cost, that is of interest but  the difference in petrol costs of London to Calne/London to Cambridge

It's not just about petrol costs!

It kills your car - If you do double the driving, it's double the servicing and tyre costs, ruins the residual value and you need to buy a new cars more often. 

The alternative of not driving every day means you have to rent digs somewhere.

All these extra costs come out of net pay, so you have to double them to cover the tax before you can compare the salaries.
 
There's also a massive difference in time cost.  What value do you put on being able to spend every night with your partner or an extra couple of hours with the kids everyday. 

Maybe he just really fucking hates Wellens.

Its done. I don't like it but there it is. Lets move on.

And at the risk of opening a new front, I don't think Einstein's going to be very happy with your representation of his method as "basically, common sense, innit", but in a Swiss accent.

I do know from personal experience that when you set out on a career, you have to make decisions about location, housing etc, which are not perhaps what you'd like but just what you have to do, in order to progress said career.

This is why people are puzzled, as it appears that on the surface in order to progress his career Knoyle sees Cambridge as a better bet.

This thread is just so post-season.

Roll on August.

I really hope someone has pointed Kyle in the direction of this thread.  He'll be having a little chuckle.

Actually, maybe he'll register and let us all know the truth?

The definitive reason has been found.

https://twitter.com/phildelves/status/1136955895282315264?s=21

That is cool.

Wise move from Knoyle, that shirt has just made Cambridge promotion certs.

Fucking lovel Hummel shirts.

Hummel and Umbro shirts  8)

If the Cambridge away shirt is a "homage to the 93 shirt", perhaps we can bring back the potato peel shirt if we are also  serious about promotion?

If Cambridge get promoted I’ll eat my own shit - or anyone else’s for that matter (fecal)

Pfft, IIRC we're still waiting for you to come good in the Hitler 'tache tattoo pledge

Can’t even remember what that was for, tbh.

Anyway, I cant do it now - the Greeks aren’t too keen on the Hun

I suspect that your shit will be safe from consumption.
The L2 table next May will show if Kyle was correct in his decision to "kick on" at Cambridge.

Not sure that it will.

Didn't we have managers before who insisted that players should live within a set radius of Swindon?

Possibly less flexibility on this insistence at L2 level, but I wonder if RW would love to introduce a similar requirement.

Pretty sure he said something along those lines just after he had taken over

Pfft, all I'm hearing is excuses

No they’re not, same as the Dutch.

Maybe, like Hazard going to Real, it was Kyle’s childhood dream to play for Cambridge.