Jump to content

Jordan Rhodes

BottrillRAM

By BottrillRAM
in Transfer Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 465
  • Created
  • Last Reply
RamNut

RamNut

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

Who are the four I've missed? 

4 when jordan rhodes to boro collapsed you implied that actually boro had changed their minds because personal terms had already been agreed, and that they had changed tack and gone for another striker who would cost them more - i guess you were alluding to maccormack but didn't name him - why? There was no truth in any of that. No indication at all that in than brief moment before the deal was resurrected that they went for maccormack or anyone else and had to give up on plan b too.

3 you suggested sheffield wednesday were going to sign rhodes even though they'd already signed hooper. There has been no suggestion that wednesday were in for Rhodes in this window.

2. You said charlie austin was 100% staying at qpr until the summer.

1 you said derby were in for a striker who was considered to be a promotion guarantee. Again it is assumed you meant maccormack so why not name him? There is no evidence at all that we have even bid for him.

so  0/4 on those.

You are dropping little hints and snippets as if you have privileged access to inside info but all these nods and winks have turned out to be wrong. 

Sorry mate but you are miles out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bris Vegas

Bris Vegas

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, RamNut said:

4 when jordan rhodes to boro collapsed you implied that actually boro had changed their minds because personal terms had already been agreed, and that they had changed tack and gone for another striker who would cost them more - i guess you were alluding to maccormack but didn't name him - why? There was no truth in any of that. No indication at all that in than brief moment before the deal was resurrected that they went for maccormack or anyone else and had to give up on plan b too.

3 you suggested sheffield wednesday were going to sign rhodes even though they'd already signed hooper. There has been no suggestion that wednesday were in for Rhodes in this window.

2. You said charlie austin was 100% staying at qpr until the summer.

1 you said derby were in for a striker who was considered to be a promotion guarantee. Again it is assumed you meant maccormack so why not name him? There is no evidence at all that we have even bid for him.

so  0/4 on those.

You are dropping little hints and snippets as if you have privileged access to inside info but all these nods and winks have turned out to be wrong. 

Sorry mate but you are miles out.

Personal terms had been agreed with Rhodes, Boro pulled out because they saw how much the deal was going to cost them. Rhodes' camp confirmed this... And Boro did then turn their intentions back on McCormack. http://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2016/01/31/gb-middlesbrough-back-for-ross-mccormack/ 

I didn't say Sheffield Wednesday were going to sign Rhodes. I said they were keen to sign him, and they were... Just because a player doesn't sign, doesn't mean there wasn't interest.

Charlie Austin said he was staying at QPR.  http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11711/10101256/charlie-austin-intends-to-finish-season-with-qpr 

I didn't mention McCormack, but we were interested in him. Again, that's a fact.

Sorry, mate, but I haven't been wrong on anything. You're simply assuming I'm saying one thing when I clearly haven't.

Just because a player doesn't sign for a club, doesn't mean the information is false when I've never said X player is going to sign for club, everything agreed, papers signed blah blah.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RamNut

RamNut

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Bris Vegas said:

Sorry, mate, but I haven't been wrong on anything.

Lol. Hilarious. Thats why i can't resist reading your posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bob Loblaw

Bob Loblaw

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Bris Vegas said:

So name something I've been wrong on regarding transfers? Go on...

To be fair Bris, 'just because it didn't happen, doesn't mean there wasn't truth in it' is a very easy out. I don't really care whether you're ITK or whatever but some people are never going to believe that reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bris Vegas

Bris Vegas

Posted
Posted
Just now, Bob Loblaw said:

To be fair Bris, 'just because it didn't happen, doesn't mean there wasn't truth in it' is a very easy out. I don't really care whether you're ITK or whatever but some people are never going to believe that reason.

But by that logic, the only people who ever get things right are the clubs who confirm the deals. Everyone else in the football world knows nothing.

If I've said that everything is agreed, papers signed, photographs taken, interviews made and then player hasn't done any of this, then I've lied and should be called on it.

But people are implying I've made up false rubbish and been out for saying X club are interested in X player, and said player doesn't end up signing for said club. How does that make the information false?

SDSR has a few contatcs, he was told Pritchard was likely to join Bunrley. Is he wrong because he ended up at West Brom? No, he isn't, because Burnley were very much keen on him and made an offer. Pritchard just opted for West Brom at the end. That doesn't mean his information was made up hoohah.

Anybody can make up rumours and fall back on the 'it just didn't come off card' but if you've ever read any of comments re transfers, all of it has had substance for a reason.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bob Loblaw

Bob Loblaw

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

But by that logic, the only people who ever get things right are the clubs who confirm the deals. Everyone else in the football world knows nothing.

If I've said that everything is agreed, papers signed, photographs taken, interviews made and then player hasn't done any of this, then I've lied and should be called on it.

But people are implying I've made up false rubbish and been out for saying X club are interested in X player, and said player doesn't end up signing for said club. How does that make the information false?

SDSR has a few contatcs, he was told Pritchard was likely to join Bunrley. Is he wrong because he ended up at West Brom? No, he isn't, because Burnley were very much keen on him and made an offer. Pritchard just opted for West Brom at the end. That doesn't mean his information was made up hoohah.

Anybody can make up rumours and fall back on the 'it just didn't come off card' but if you've ever read any of comments re transfers, all of it has had substance for a reason.

It's not logic, but that's the way it is. I don't know why you bother arguing with doubters or even replying. Who cares if they don't believe you. Why do you care? There are plenty of others on here who lick your arse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bris Vegas

Bris Vegas

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Bob Loblaw said:

It's not logic, but that's the way it is. I don't know why you bother arguing with doubters or even replying. Who cares if they don't believe you. Why do you care? There are plenty of others on here who lick your arse. 

I don't care, I don't even know why I post on here half the time to be honest. But for felllow Rams fans who might be interested in stuff linked with us, I'm happy to share it.

Anyone who ever posts info on here will always have people out to try and rubbish them. I wouldn't be bothered if it's just me, that I don't care, but rubbishing the site I post for I think is out of order.

When you get guys posting rubbish about them, it soon snowballs and the site can pick up a bad repuation for posting false rumours when that was never the case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SaintRam

SaintRam

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

I don't care, I don't even know why I post on here half the time to be honest. But for felllow Rams fans who might be interested in stuff linked with us, I'm happy to share it.

Anyone who ever posts info on here will always have people out to try and rubbish them. I wouldn't be bothered if it's just me, that I don't care, but rubbishing the site I post for I think is out of order.

When you get guys posting rubbish about them, it soon snowballs and the site can pick up a bad repuation for posting false rumours when that was never the case. 

The HITC homepage doesn't do it any favours. Especially the articles written by Dan Coombs.

I don't have any problem with you posting the information you gather on here, but the general impression most people have of HITC regarding things like transfer news is that it's just repeating what other journalists have said, and that's not going to be an easy impression to change.

I read a lot of HITC writer's theory crafting posts though, I think they're interesting

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kernow

Kernow

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Bris Vegas said:

So name something I've been wrong on regarding transfers? Go on...

The shirt Callum O'Dowda wears is quite yellow for a Derby shirt isn't it?

Not saying it's your fault but to say "I haven't been wrong on anything" is just a little arrogant and misleading wouldn't you say? I don't expect anybody to be right about absolutely everything in any walk of life. Then again I don't expect people to claim to be.

It's like B4 starting a thread telling us all that he won a nationwide spelling bee competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...