dcfcdavecov Posted July 6, 2011 Author Share Posted July 6, 2011 Well green, Leacock and Pearson would possibly have a combined wage of more than £20k a week, that's a million not counting national insurance. Yes, but Leacock wasn't included in the list of 5 CBs Clough stated he had this morning in the DET. He'll be gone. Same with Bywater. That leaves Pearson and Green. Looking at 600k tops. But you can't spend that, you have to buy two players and pay there wages within that 600k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 He said that who goes out will effect who comes in. He didn't say it would stop players coming in if none of them left - just effect who would come in. If the rumours of bids on Waghorn are true then his purchase will not be effected by sales. Unless we do the dirty on Leicester and pull out last minute after they have signed a replacement And in my post I did say that I thought not all of those listed would leave this Summer, which fits nicely with the quote from Clough. Tried to keep up to date with posts in my absence,albeit a little groggily,and was relatively clear headed last night.Today not so good,so please bear with me. First point,to those who say we have to clear the decks before incomings,if we flog none and bring in loanees,then squad size would still increase and loanees would need paying.I find it a little disturbing that the prospect of loans has reared its head-the last time this mutated into 'there's better value in loans' and we then got the phenomenem of the loan that was expensive.Twas very amusing to see a Bueno loan fee starting at £500k,rising to £700k (in line with a reassessment of the Hulse fee),and in recent times rising to £1m (obviously a loan fee with add ons,dependant on QPR's promotion).Don't know where YR's £800k came from-suspect he doesn't know the rules of the game. In more mentally alert times I would have archived comments made by Glick and manager on transfers,but will have to rely on memory. I thought Nigel initially instantly dismissed (weeks ago) a suggestion that any players would have to leave before incomings and said that we would plough on regardless.In YR's defence,I also remember him saying that 6 incomings would be Championship players (and I don't think Ward and Robinson were included in the 6).He was asked if they'd be 'names' (as in high profile) and said that they would certainly be Championship names (neat sidestep),which I took to mean that their names would identify them as Championship players.Whilst the SPL may or may not be on a par with the Championship,it's not really the point in relation to YR's argument.Bryson and Maguire may turn out to be gems,as I'm sure we all hope they will. I must admit I'm finding it hard to fit in the possibility of the (up to)£3m player in all of this-appears to me to be S/T sale hype (though I'd love to be proved wrong). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UTR.93 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 get yer' tits out along with Clough out and Yanks out. Boooooooooo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiffy Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 I have to agree with Ramblur, up to now, the sum spent, and the players bought in are not of the amount and class promised, apart from two, Shackell and Tyson. Still time though, Eustace and Waghorn would make it closer to the mark, and a left back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeds Ram Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 thank you ramblur for actually understanding my argument and defending it :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 thank you ramblur for actually understanding my argument and defending it :D No problems-I found your logic easy to follow even in my groggy state.Would have intervened earlier,but noticed my gruesome attempt at spelling McEveley and realised it was time for a long break.Having said that,I've just noticed my mis-spelling of phenomenon,so it's probably time for another break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CumbrianRam Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 I like to spell his name is McNotsoclevery.:rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 I like to spell his name is McNotsoclevery.:rolleyes: Had always managed to get the name right before.My first attempt was McEvely-realised this wasn't right and changed it to MacEverly:confused: Knew phenomenen was wrong as well-relieved I didn't try to change it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RotherhamRam Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Nowt was happening, can't get new members signing up and posting if you don't post controversial stuff. there is contraversial and then there are the ones that get people running for the nearest blunt knife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeds Ram Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 No problems-I found your logic easy to follow even in my groggy state.Would have intervened earlier,but noticed my gruesome attempt at spelling McEveley and realised it was time for a long break.Having said that,I've just noticed my mis-spelling of phenomenon,so it's probably time for another break. indeed :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RotherhamRam Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 indeed :D you and Ramblur the same people lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeds Ram Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 who knows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curb Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Had always managed to get the name right before.My first attempt was McEvely-realised this wasn't right and changed it to MacEverly:confused: Knew phenomenen was wrong as well-relieved I didn't try to change it. When you start typing loose instead of lose, and using their, there, and they're in the wrong context we'll start to worry. We'll let you off with phenomenon. (phenomenon doo doo de doo doo, phenomenon doo doo do do) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.