Jump to content
IGNORED

Taylor - a Gas view


Former Pirate

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, S_Y_G said:

 

 

5:28!!!  Worth a listen I think.

   5;28!!!    Could the reason only one team came in for MT, be because we had inside information about his release clause? where other clubs believed he would cost too much ( maybe £5 million upwards ) to risk making the step up to championship level? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KURTZ said:

   5;28!!!    Could the reason only one team came in for MT, be because we had inside information about his release clause? where other clubs believed he would cost too much ( maybe £5 million upwards ) to risk making the step up to championship level? 

 

 

Hardly inside information though, as the Daily Mail printed the figure the week before, so it was out there for any club to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, In the Net said:

Hardly inside information though, as the Daily Mail printed the figure the week before, so it was out there for any club to see.

   I did'nt realise the Daily Mail printed about the clause the week before.

    Wtf could DC be hinting at?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, In the Net said:

Hardly inside information though, as the Daily Mail printed the figure the week before, so it was out there for any club to see.

Genuine question, given what you have said, why do your club put themselves and the fans through nonsense like this?, I mean it's not as if you have had a lot of success from the your appeals or litigations.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Genuine question, given what you have said, why do your club put themselves and the fans through nonsense like this?, I mean it's not as if you have had a lot of success from the your appeals or litigations.

 

If I may, to show the fans that the board are not an inept bunch of fools who'd let their top goal scorer go for a song, allowing a desperately low release clause to be added while also screwing themselves over regard said players wages being paid up.

In other words "it wasn't our fault".

why don't they just admit they were desperate to resign MT at any cost last summer and unfortunatley for the gas MT held all the cards!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, redcityman said:

If I may, to show the fans that the board are not an inept bunch of fools who'd let their top goal scorer go for a song, allowing a desperately low release clause to be added while also screwing themselves over regard said players wages being paid up.

In other words "it wasn't our fault".

why don't they just admit they were desperate to resign MT at any cost last summer and unfortunatley for the gas MT held all the cards!

i'm sure you are correct but it will still end up with a big fat L in the W L D column.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, GrahamC said:

Can I also add that whilst he was first choice keeper over the other side of the river I saw him shopping in Sainsbury's in Ashton Gate more than once.

Hardly the part of town you would choose to spend your time in if this load of old nonsense was all true, is it?

The perfect platform to trash talk his former employers live on Radio Bristle with all his tales of how horrible our fans our. Conveniently he forgot to mention all the well wishers and those who thought he was just useless   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Hello said:

I think he is trying to paint it as Taylor isn't THAT good

I agree. In fact I know that C'ship scouts have been looking at him and the general consensus (as of last summer at least) was that he is not quite good enough to make the step up. Hence why it was only L1 clubs in for him, until now of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

I agree. In fact I know that C'ship scouts have been looking at him and the general consensus (as of last summer at least) was that he is not quite good enough to make the step up. Hence why it was only L1 clubs in for him, until now of course.

And I tend to agree with them...but hope to be proved wrong. Small gamble though. It's just like swapping Freeman for another gamble. May work...may not. Sometimes you've got to risk your hand if the price is right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

I agree. In fact I know that C'ship scouts have been looking at him and the general consensus (as of last summer at least) was that he is not quite good enough to make the step up. Hence why it was only L1 clubs in for him, until now of course.

That would suggest we've f**ked up by signing him then. Let's hope they're wrong or we'll have to sell him to a L1 club at a vastly inflated price! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Genuine question, given what you have said, why do your club put themselves and the fans through nonsense like this?, I mean it's not as if you have had a lot of success from the your appeals or litigations.

 

I honestly have no idea - I thought that we'd moved away from this sort of thing when the new owners came in.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, 8menhadadream said:

If he hasn't asked for a transfer and there isn't some form of clause in the contract he signed, you are obliged to honour the terms of his contract with you, just as we are still paying Steve Cotterill.

I sincerely doubt that is the case; although you can never say never.

If I was a betting man my money would be that the release clause was drafted and took effect such that if a club commits to paying a certain amount, the player has an option to bring his contract to an end at that date. ie; MT would no longer be under contract with Bristol Rovers upon receipt of said fee. Therefore, his contract ends and there's no obligation to pay him for however many years he initially signed for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just thinking about it, probably the most significant thing about that DC interview is that he's finally admitted "we can't compete financially with some of the clubs in this division". Does this FINALLY put to bed the myth about Wael's alleged millions?

Still no significant fees paid for players and now they've flogged their top striker for nowt. Have the masses cottoned on yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 29AR said:

I sincerely doubt that is the case; although you can never say never.

If I was a betting man my money would be that the release clause was drafted and took effect such that if a club commits to paying a certain amount, the player has an option to bring his contract to an end at that date. ie; MT would no longer be under contract with Bristol Rovers upon receipt of said fee. Therefore, his contract ends and there's no obligation to pay him for however many years he initially signed for.

I totally agree with your likely scenario 29AR. I can't see how a release clause would work if it was anything different TBH. My earlier scenario was for a player that hadn't asked to leave but a release clause is essentially asking the player that question anyway IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Up The City! said:

He came accross quite well in that interview, until he started the sly digs.

A good interviewer would have followed up on his dig about only one club in for him. He should have been made to put up or shut up. Unfortunately far too many local interviews let City and Rovers' managers have an easy time. Jeremy Paxmon has semi retired, so perhaps he might be interested in a part-time job in Bristol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Just thinking about it, probably the most significant thing about that DC interview is that he's finally admitted "we can't compete financially with some of the clubs in this division". Does this FINALLY put to bed the myth about Wael's alleged millions?

Still no significant fees paid for players and now they've flogged their top striker for nowt. Have the masses cottoned on yet?

I very much doubt it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 8menhadadream said:

I totally agree with your likely scenario 29AR. I can't see how a release clause would work if it was anything different TBH. My earlier scenario was for a player that hadn't asked to leave but a release clause is essentially asking the player that question anyway IMHO.

It's why I sincerely disbelieve the suggestion that the fee was £300k plus his wages till the end of the contract. The release clause releases contractual obligations: them to him (those wages till the end of the term) and him to them (for services). The fee would be final, so if that was the case the fee would be higher. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Oh the gift, this tit actually uploaded this onto youtube FFS.

Betrayal is a big word apparently.

 

 

What a complete tool! Just needs Flinty to push him down the stairs, shaking his head, saying 'No No No...'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...