AndyB Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Hoggy are you being serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 I don't want them to take them to the brink of administration. On the brink isn't far enough 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' /> While the swear filter is slightly ill, I'll say this. **** 'em 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyB Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 YR I don't think evidence is needed to prove the obvious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 I don't want them to take them to the brink of administration. On the brink isn't far enough 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' /> While the swear filter is slightly ill, I'll say this. **** 'em 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' /> Nothing like some good old hate talk about the scum 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' /> apart from beating them 2-1 at their ground with 10 men you're right on the brink isn't far enough, as long as they go to 1 minute from being out business without going under I shall be happy and of course finishing at the bottom of the table without a win all season and with 1 point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 I do wonder if we were in another Varney situation, where we would have had to stump up extra if he crashed a set number of appearances. In that case maybe Clough was under the instruction that he could keep Shackell but would have to make up the difference of £x by selling in other areas (hence neutral budget still), or alternatively cash in on Shacks and strengthen in two or more areas rather than weaken others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Nothing like some good old hate talk about the scum 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' /> apart from beating them 2-1 at their ground with 10 men you're right on the brink isn't far enough, as long as they go to 1 minute from being out business without going under I shall be happy and of course finishing at the bottom of the table without a win all season and with 1 point. I repeat my previous statement. **** 'em! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 YR I don't think evidence is needed to prove the obvious! fair enough, however it certainly isn't obvious that clough had to sell shackell which was your original statement which you have still provided no evidence for. Also some of the most 'obvious' things require evidence when thought about. For example the colour of a chair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 I repeat my previous statement. **** 'em! An excellent point which cannot be made enough times 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyB Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 YR do you think Clough chose to sell Shackell? Do you think Clough wanted to sell Shackell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 YR do you think Clough chose to sell Shackell? Do you think Clough wanted to sell Shackell? I do not know and therefore I shall not comment. I have no empirical evidence to suggest he was forced to sell him and I have no empirical evidence to suggest he didn't want to sell shackell to improve the team in other areas. You have done a good job in not answering my initial question though. Wanting to sell and choosing are two very different things as well, as long as he chose to sell then I have no problem with the board. As there is no evidence he was coerced into selling him why can't we let the pointless rumour mill on this die a death? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 I think he wanted to sell Shackell and sign Kompany as a replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyB Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 YR what question haven't I answered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 YR what question haven't I answered? What evidence do you have that Nigel Clough had no choice and therefore was coerced into selling Jason Shackell which was your initial assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyB Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 If Clough had a reasonable budget he wouldn't have to sell. Our wage bill must be tiny by Championship standards by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 I think Clough is fully behind the sale of Shackell, you could argue that if the board gave him £2m he would never have sold him but we still don't know that. My personal opinion is that Clough isn't the type of bloke that would sit back and take the flack for something he had no control over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B4ev6is Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 board out get rid of them once and 4 all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 If Clough had a reasonable budget he wouldn't have to sell. Our wage bill must be tiny by Championship standards by now. So shall I take it no evidence at all. You have evidence that our wage budget is small, however unless the board coerced Nigel Clough to sell then he had a choice which he made. All you have proven is that we have a small budget (which everyone knew), in fact you haven't proven that but we all know it is. This doesn't equate with clough being 'forced' to sell him please do not conflate the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyB Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Daveo I agree Clough had to sell Shackell to give him some leeway to bring in other players. I think he would of kept him though had budget allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Daveo I agree Clough had to sell Shackell to give him some leeway to bring in other players. I think he would of kept him though had budget allowed. And if my auntie had boll... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyB Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 So Clough would have sold him if he didn't have to YR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.