Boycie Posted October 16, 2010 Share Posted October 16, 2010 If Varney isn't going to play for us, it makes sense to move him on as soon as possible. The wages saved and any fee can be used to pay for players that will actually play, like Porter and Davies. Just like the wages saved on Hulse released money to sign a new proven striker you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornwallRam Posted October 16, 2010 Share Posted October 16, 2010 Just like the wages saved on Hulse released money to sign a new proven striker you mean? I think the intended irony got lost in there somewhere. My big criticism of the current regime, both GSE and management is the way they seem to continually hope/pretend that the injuries will suddenly disappear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
froggg Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 sad thing is he looked good against the mancs today:mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeds Ram Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 varney has proved he can play at the to[p level yet clough is convinced he's rubbish, he needs to open his eyes, good to see yet another win on saturday with a terrific performence, shame we aint going to dign bueno anytime soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Ram Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 varney has proved he can play at the to[p level yet clough is convinced he's rubbish, he needs to open his eyes, good to see yet another win on saturday with a terrific performence, shame we aint going to dign bueno anytime soon I really don't think Clough is convinced that Varney is rubbish at all. What makes you say that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiffy Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 I really don't think Clough is convinced that Varney is rubbish at all. What makes you say that?Dont suppose the facts that he hardly played him, sent him out on loan, and made him avaliable for transfer had anything to do with it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Ram Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 Dont suppose the facts that he hardly played him, sent him out on loan, and made him avaliable for transfer had anything to do with it ? Ah, Mr Sarcasm is here. To answer your question, Smiffy, no. Those things were all financial. It's clear it didn't work out for Varney at Derby, but that doesn't mean Mr Clough thinks he's rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiffy Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 Ah, Mr Sarcasm is here.To answer your question, Smiffy, no. Those things were all financial. It's clear it didn't work out for Varney at Derby, but that doesn't mean Mr Clough thinks he's rubbish.Never mind the insults, proove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Ram Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 Never mind the insults, proove it. No insult, just stating the fact that you were, as usual, being sarcastic. When Varney left, Mr Clough was clear that it was due to high wages that he wanted to move him on. Talk of appearance fees is speculation... but it seems to make sense. Can you prove Mr Clough DIDN'T rate him, Smiffy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 Well, if there wasn't another payment due to Charlton, I don't see why Clough wouldn't play him? If he's on £10 or £10 000, if he helped us win where's the problem? Hull want to sell the ugly runt, him with the massive head on a small body, but nobody wants him. They still play him, after realising they were cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Ram Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 Well, if there wasn't another payment due to Charlton, I don't see why Clough wouldn't play him? If he's on £10 or £10 000, if he helped us win where's the problem? Hull want to sell the ugly runt, him with the massive head on a small body, but nobody wants him. They still play him, after realising they were cutting off their noses to spite their faces. All of which lends credence to the "another instalment due" argument. I happen to believe this is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 Maybe, i'm sure it'll all come out after he's gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Ram Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 Maybe, i'm sure it'll all come out after he's gone. In his long-awaited autobiography, "My BUSiness..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Ram Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 Nigel did say in an interview last week he would of like to have kept Varney as an 'option' but couldn't because of his wages. From Vicky, in another thread about Varney. So not quite as clear as Mr Clough thinking he was rubbish then. That's all I'm saying, that just because a player isn't picked and then moves on doesn't necessarily mean the manager doesn't rate him. This is modern football... all about money. Sad, but true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted October 18, 2010 Author Share Posted October 18, 2010 You've got alot to learn about Vicky, shes says it was last week when in fact it could of been the Charlton manager saying that a couple of years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Ram Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 You've got alot to learn about Vicky, shes says it was last week when in fact it could of been the Charlton manager saying that a couple of years ago. Lol! I'll take that on board! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted October 18, 2010 Author Share Posted October 18, 2010 Just been back searching on the DET in an attempt to find this interview but I can't find it, I did find a couple which said alonng the lines of...Varney was a high earner but that's not his fault, he has also had a bad time at Derby and they felt it was better to move him on, he also admitted that other circumstances came into it. I'm guessing it could be a mixture of things, Clough didn't didn't think he was value for money and felt he could get a better player on less money, maybe a future payment to Charlton could also have some truth in it. End of the day he's not a player that should be one of our high earners, we can thank Jewell for that, and it's alright saying look how he's playing now at Blackpool and slating Clough for getting rid, the thing is whilst he was here he had nothing but stick from the fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredbear73 Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 Just been back searching on the DET in an attempt to find this interview but I can't find it, I did find a couple which said alonng the lines of...Varney was a high earner but that's not his fault, he has also had a bad time at Derby and they felt it was better to move him on, he also admitted that other circumstances came into it. I'm guessing it could be a mixture of things, Clough didn't didn't think he was value for money and felt he could get a better player on less money, maybe a future payment to Charlton could also have some truth in it. End of the day he's not a player that should be one of our high earners, we can thank Jewell for that, and it's alright saying look how he's playing now at Blackpool and slating Clough for getting rid, the thing is whilst he was here he had nothing but stick from the fans. Bang on Dav....no one liked him lets be fair. We saw a fair bit of him when he first came and he did nowt apart from run fast....and that became the standing joke certainly in our pub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duracell Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 Just been back searching on the DET in an attempt to find this interview but I can't find it, I did find a couple which said alonng the lines of...Varney was a high earner but that's not his fault, he has also had a bad time at Derby and they felt it was better to move him on, he also admitted that other circumstances came into it. I'm guessing it could be a mixture of things, Clough didn't didn't think he was value for money and felt he could get a better player on less money, maybe a future payment to Charlton could also have some truth in it. End of the day he's not a player that should be one of our high earners, we can thank Jewell for that, and it's alright saying look how he's playing now at Blackpool and slating Clough for getting rid, the thing is whilst he was here he had nothing but stick from the fans. I'd say he certainly isn't value for money. He's on a reported £15k a week, that's about 5 times what Barker earns. He's not 5 times better than Barker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiffy Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 I'd say he certainly isn't value for money. He's on a reported £15k a week, that's about 5 times what Barker earns. He's not 5 times better than Barker.Barker must be on more than 3k a week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.