Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, terrytini said:

Again, I didn't see anyone (I might have missed one or two ?) who said we needed to do it back then - only that IF nothing came to fruition we should do it - as it seems Tony pretty much has by paying Lescott to clear off.

I'm not going to name names for multiple reasons but it happened and went on for a couple of weeks at least, I'm surprised you don't recall it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I'm not going to name names for multiple reasons but it happened and went on for a couple of weeks at least, I'm surprised you don't recall it.

Ok.

Well on the one hand I don't want to go on about it, I'm just glad he's gone, but equally I'm pretty sure peoples views (now wholly vindicated BTW) are being misrepresented  I was quite involved in the discussion and, as I have now said 3 times, I recall nobody, at all, (though I accept there may have been a poster I missed) saying we had to pay people off THEN.

I do recall, and very much said myself, we should look at it if the alternative was getting stuck with these players.

Which, indeed, appears to be exactly what we are doing.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

Page 29 of the RDM thread.

 

 

Well I must be blind, I've just re-read the whole Page and it is exactly as I remember it. And there is no mention anywhere Ican see where anyone says they should be paid off THEN, only that it must be done if we can't get rid.

And indeed we appear to have pretty much done that to get rid of Lescott.

Still not sure why you appear to be  misrepresenting the debate ?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, terrytini said:

Well I must be blind, I've just re-read the whole Page and it is exactly as I remember it. And there is no mention anywhere Ican see where anyone says they should be paid off THEN, only that it must be done if we can't get rid.

And indeed we appear to have pretty much done that to get rid of Lescott.

Still not sure why you appear to be  misrepresenting the debate ?

In fairness, having just re-read it I agree it doesn't.

I'm not misrepresenting anything, I know I saw people advocating it, not you I should add, but I'm not about to trawl the site looking for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, terrytini said:

Ok.

Well on the one hand I don't want to go on about it, I'm just glad he's gone, but equally I'm pretty sure peoples views (now wholly vindicated BTW) are being misrepresented  I was quite involved in the discussion and, as I have now said 3 times, I recall nobody, at all, (though I accept there may have been a poster I missed) saying we had to pay people off THEN.

I do recall, and very much said myself, we should look at it if the alternative was getting stuck with these players.

Which, indeed, appears to be exactly what we are doing.

 

Exactly this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, terrytini said:

Well I must be blind, I've just re-read the whole Page and it is exactly as I remember it. And there is no mention anywhere Ican see where anyone says they should be paid off THEN, only that it must be done if we can't get rid.

And indeed we appear to have pretty much done that to get rid of Lescott.

Still not sure why you appear to be  misrepresenting the debate ?

I shouldn't worry chap they are referring to me. But it was not my view, as you rightly say, that players should be paid off then only if we were unable to get rid . Misrepresentation of opinion again

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay,fair enough.

 Maybe someone did, but I don't recall it and I was heavily into the discussion at the time, and you cant find it - so hardly perhaps representative of the MAIN argument at the time which was to the effect that with wealthy owners we should make sure these guys were off our books by paying them if necessary.  And that's what is happening, they are either sold, sold discounted, off on a free, wages paid or whatever, which is really what 'we' were saying all along.

The gist of the debate from 'the other side' was that it was a ridiculous suggestion that the Club would pay players to not play.

I'm very very pleased RDM and the Owner feel it is worth whatever it costs to get rid of those that cannot be reintegrated.

In fact it clears up maybe the chief concern I had, so it adds to my general good feelings about the owner, and the direction of the Club.

Edited by terrytini
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TheStagMan said:

Ermmmmm - are we sure that they signed Lescott?

Maybe we tricked them into thinking they were signing LeScott Dann.... we do have a strong french connection

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Richard said:

I shouldn't worry chap they are referring to me. But it was not my view, as you rightly say, that players should be paid off then only if we were unable to get rid . Misrepresentation of opinion again

Oh its you is it lol !

I should have guessed !!:D

Well FWIW I would second that that was indeed your view.

And how nice it must feel that the good Doctor and RDM saw the sense in your logic !!;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, terrytini said:

Okay,fair enough.

 Maybe someone did, but I don't recall it and I was heavily into the discussion at the time, and you cant find it - so hardly perhaps representative of the MAIN argument at the time which was to the effect that with wealthy owners we should make sure these guys were off our books by paying them if necessary.  And that's what is happening, they are either sold, sold discounted, off on a free, wages paid or whatever, which is really what 'we' were saying all along.

The gist of the debate from 'the other side' was that it was a ridiculous suggestion and the Club wouldn't pay players to not play.

I'm very very pleased RDM and the Owner feel it is worth whatever it costs to get rid of those that cannot be reintegrated.

In fact it clears up maybe the chief concern I had, so it adds to my general good feelings about the owner, and the direction of the Club.

I did actually go back and remove the post referring to that page when I realised but you'd already quoted it.

I still think some of the views in the main argument were completely unrealistic but thankfully its a moot point now thanks to some pretty decent activity in the market by the club.

I certainly agree with your last point in the above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He certainly has.

Part of me thinks "it'll all end in tears" but I'm glad to say the part that says "make the most of it while it feels good" is winning, and that's not happened for a lonnnggg time !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The only thing that slightly disappoints me with the impending exit of Lescott is that he won't return to VP this season with an opposition.

I would have quite liked to have seen the reception he received, it would have been vociferous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TrentVilla said:

 

The only thing that slightly disappoints me with the impending exit of Lescott is that he won't return to VP this season with an opposition.

I would have quite liked to have seen the reception he received, it would have been vociferous. 

Yeah but he would have scored against us for sure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

 

The only thing that slightly disappoints me with the impending exit of Lescott is that he won't return to VP this season with an opposition.

I would have quite liked to have seen the reception he received, it would have been vociferous. 

Yeah and Gestede towers above him and snashes a header on into the net and Lescott is left lying on the ground stunned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

 

The only thing that slightly disappoints me with the impending exit of Lescott is that he won't return to VP this season with an opposition.

I would have quite liked to have seen the reception he received, it would have been vociferous. 

Normally I would agree, but despite the opportunity it would have given for a really venomous welcome, I STILL would rather I never saw him again, which, playing up there, I never ever ever will. Ha !

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, terrytini said:

Oh its you is it lol !

I should have guessed !!:D

Well FWIW I would second that that was indeed your view.

And how nice it must feel that the good Doctor and RDM saw the sense in your logic !!;)

I've gone back and re read my posts in the matter and it is a view I have explicitly referenced on four occasions . But I guess people will read what they want won't they 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, terrytini said:

Well I must be blind, I've just re-read the whole Page and it is exactly as I remember it. And there is no mention anywhere Ican see where anyone says they should be paid off THEN, only that it must be done if we can't get rid.

And indeed we appear to have pretty much done that to get rid of Lescott.

Still not sure why you appear to be  misrepresenting the debate ?

From the transfer speculation thread:

On 29/05/2016 at 10:50, Richard said:

I'd like the first couple of signings to be on legal documents cancelling the contracts of a few, gabby, lescott etc or in transferring some out , bacuna , Richards, Guzan, Sinclair , Clark .

id like some of the poison cleared out before introducing new players to the club 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites