ianm Posted October 7, 2011 Author Share Posted October 7, 2011 I've known Gerald for several years, respect him as a writer and have no doubt he wouldn't spin rubbish like the tabloids so yes, I'm very happy to accept what he says has been told to him and he has reported it. However, there is a whole leap then to get to disputes, splits etc. My conclusion is I believe Gerald, I think Nigel will sign a new contract and Glick's a decent bloke There is no leap whatsoever, Gerald in his piece said stated "look after my staff and then we can negotiate". Pretty clear then that Nigel is not happy in some way with proposals towards his staff. Pretty obvious then that there is an issue or there is no reasons why contracts would already have been signed and whether you think Glick is a good bloke or not (I don't trust a word he says) there is an issue and he has not been honest about it. I believe Nigel will not sign unless he gets the deal he wants for his staff. That is why Gerald has gone to print. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 He said similar last year during our good run when asked about his contract renewal. Then it was I'll talk about my contract when my players are sorted out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianm Posted October 7, 2011 Author Share Posted October 7, 2011 He said similar last year during our good run when asked about his contract renewal. Then it was I'll talk about my contract when my players are sorted out. I think there is slightly more to this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CumbrianRam Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Maybe he is waiting to see where we are in January/February time and see if we don't have a repeat of last season. Why does everything always have to be a big conspiracy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zippy Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 I think its telling that the last time I saw Nigel on telly he alluded to how well the team were doing in spite of having very little money to spend on players (he was only just containing his frustration) If I were Nigel I would probably be trying to get some level of commitment to investment from the board. I can't see him going to Forest for the same reason, no point going to another club where he has no funding. By the same token, if there is no chance of him getting the funding he needs to take Derby to the Prem, could he potentially be tempted away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyB Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 The board are playing a dangerous game. If a club with better prospects than an under funded Detby County come a knocking Clough's head may be turned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CumbrianRam Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 Not really, they'd still be able to ask for compensation if any clubs come in for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyB Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 Not really, they'd still be able to ask for compensation if any clubs come in for him. But not much compensation as his contract doesn't have long left to run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CumbrianRam Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 Yeah, but he won't be free to move until June. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyB Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 It's still a risk I wish we weren't taking. Stability on the football side while things are going well is what I'm looking for. Change at board level on the other hand would be very welcome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rynny Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 There is no leap whatsoever, Gerald in his piece said stated "look after my staff and then we can negotiate". Pretty clear then that Nigel is not happy in some way with proposals towards his staff. Pretty obvious then that there is an issue or there is no reasons why contracts would already have been signed and whether you think Glick is a good bloke or not (I don't trust a word he says) there is an issue and he has not been honest about it. I believe Nigel will not sign unless he gets the deal he wants for his staff. That is why Gerald has gone to print. I think there is a massive leap there, 'look after my staff then we will negotiate' as you keep saying Nigel told Gerald Mortimer, could mean once you have sorted the back room staff with their new contract we will sort mine out, not the spiel you have turned it into, saying that there is a problem that gse arent sorting them a contract out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianm Posted October 9, 2011 Author Share Posted October 9, 2011 I think there is a massive leap there, 'look after my staff then we will negotiate' as you keep saying Nigel told Gerald Mortimer, could mean once you have sorted the back room staff with their new contract we will sort mine out, not the spiel you have turned it into, saying that there is a problem that gse arent sorting them a contract out. Sorry the tone of the article is quite clear I don't know if you actually read it. Look at things with rose tinted spectacles if you want but there is no doubt there is difference there. Whether the differences are so deep that they are likely to be resolved or not is the real thing that is up for speculation, hence the Forest stuff in some downmarket newspapers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VulcanRam Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 There is no leap whatsoever, Gerald in his piece said stated "look after my staff and then we can negotiate". Pretty clear then that Nigel is not happy in some way with proposals towards his staff. Pretty obvious then that there is an issue or there is no reasons why contracts would already have been signed and whether you think Glick is a good bloke or not (I don't trust a word he says) there is an issue and he has not been honest about it. I believe Nigel will not sign unless he gets the deal he wants for his staff. That is why Gerald has gone to print. Mate it's a bit pointless going round in circles with someone who can't even accept that other people have different opinions to their's, but if you're going to quote someone to back up your argument can you at least get the quote right? Gerald Mortimer actually wrote: "Look after his staff and Clough will negotiate". No quotes, no reference to source. It was a piece of his own opinion, informed or otherwise, not as you would have us believe a direct quote from Nigel Clough. Only a couple of words different, but it gives it a completely different slant. If you know a lot more than everyone else and therefore you know you are right and the rest of the world is wrong, I suggest you substantiate your point a little better. Otherwise I presume you're as much in the dark as the rest of us as to the truth of what is going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rynny Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 Sorry the tone of the article is quite clear I don't know if you actually read it. Look at things with rose tinted spectacles if you want but there is no doubt there is difference there. Whether the differences are so deep that they are likely to be resolved or not is the real thing that is up for speculation, hence the Forest stuff in some downmarket newspapers. I was simply highlighting that there is more than 1 conclusion to your quotations, which turned out to be incorrect. And just because I have offered another reason behind the article that happens to defend the board doesnt mean i wear rose tinted spectacles, they are yellow and everything here is rather bright!! 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':P' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianm Posted October 9, 2011 Author Share Posted October 9, 2011 I was simply highlighting that there is more than 1 conclusion to your quotations, which turned out to be incorrect. And just because I have offered another reason behind the article that happens to defend the board doesnt mean i wear rose tinted spectacles, they are yellow and everything here is rather bright!! 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':P' /> My quotations were not incorrect at all. Have you actually read the article? There is no other conclusion to draw the article is perfectly clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianm Posted October 9, 2011 Author Share Posted October 9, 2011 Mate it's a bit pointless going round in circles with someone who can't even accept that other people have different opinions to their's, but if you're going to quote someone to back up your argument can you at least get the quote right? Gerald Mortimer actually wrote: "Look after his staff and Clough will negotiate". No quotes, no reference to source. It was a piece of his own opinion, informed or otherwise, not as you would have us believe a direct quote from Nigel Clough. Only a couple of words different, but it gives it a completely different slant. If you know a lot more than everyone else and therefore you know you are right and the rest of the world is wrong, I suggest you substantiate your point a little better. Otherwise I presume you're as much in the dark as the rest of us as to the truth of what is going on. There is no opinion at all. You claim to know Gerald in an earlier post, if this is so you will know full well that Gerald would not have put this in the paper without knowing it to be the case and Nigel been happy for it to go in. So don't go trying to pull my posts apart and trying to be Mr Clever Dick just because it is not what you want to hear. I never remotely have said it was a direct quote from Nigel Clough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rynny Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 My quotations were not incorrect at all. Have you actually read the article? There is no other conclusion to draw the article is perfectly clear. Sorry another poster has 'sort HIS staff out and CLOUGH will sign' and yours is 'sort MY staff out and I will sign' the first implies GM is giving an opinion and no discontent, really, whereas yours implies a direct qoute from Clough that could be mean any number of things depending how you want you want it to. Like I said in my previous post just pointing out that there are more than 1 conclusion to your quotations of GM's article, and we will find out if no new contract emerges for the backroom staff and Clough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianm Posted October 9, 2011 Author Share Posted October 9, 2011 Sorry another poster has 'sort HIS staff out and CLOUGH will sign' and yours is 'sort MY staff out and I will sign' the first implies GM is giving an opinion and no discontent, really, whereas yours implies a direct qoute from Clough that could be mean any number of things depending how you want you want it to. Like I said in my previous post just pointing out that there are more than 1 conclusion to your quotations of GM's article, and we will find out if no new contract emerges for the backroom staff and Clough. Again for the umpteenth time if you read the article it is totally clear. It may not be what you want to hear and that is your call but the article from Mr Mortimer leaves no doubt as to the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trekkie_ram Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 Again for the umpteenth time if you read the article it is totally clear. It may not be what you want to hear and that is your call but the article from Mr Mortimer leaves no doubt as to the situation. Broken record anyone? Is this article available online, if so link us. You've obviously made your mind up, the rest of us all think you're overreacting, this circular discussion is now boring, but I would like to humour you by reading the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rynny Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 Again for the umpteenth time if you read the article it is totally clear. It may not be what you want to hear and that is your call but the article from Mr Mortimer leaves no doubt as to the situation. You could type up the article so we can see if it is as clear as you say. Why isn't it what I want to hear? How do you know what I want to hear? I haven't given my opinion, just merely giving an option of what he might have been refering to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.