Unan Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 http://www.bcfc.co.uk/news/article/2016-17/club-statement-3573477.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Don Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 I wonder what the agreed transfer policy moving forwards is.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unan Posted February 13, 2017 Author Share Posted February 13, 2017 1 minute ago, The_Don said: I wonder what the agreed transfer policy moving forwards is.... Nothing, we fairly got him. Even if we didn't, a fine would almost definitely be less money than what they could gain via sell on clauses etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stortz Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 AKA, the Gas realise they'll be made even more of a laughing stock if the extent of their ineptitude is revealed in a EFL hearing so they've cut their losses. Jokers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JammyOne Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 What kind of transfer agreement could the two clubs possibly have?! That almost implies that we've done something (at least morally) wrong here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unan Posted February 13, 2017 Author Share Posted February 13, 2017 4 minutes ago, JammyOne said: What kind of transfer agreement could the two clubs possibly have?! That almost implies that we've done something (at least morally) wrong here. SL says we won't sue you for character defamation and Wally says okay boss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lack of Action Man Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 12 minutes ago, The_Don said: I wonder what the agreed transfer policy moving forwards is.... Rovers have signed a 1000 year agreement to be our feeder club, offering us first refusal on their best players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INCRED Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 As usual Gas legal team haven't got a leg to stand on and SL threatened to take Wael to the cleaners end of! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 It was dumb of them to even raise the issue - a classic example of sour grapes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loco Rojo Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 18 minutes ago, JammyOne said: What kind of transfer agreement could the two clubs possibly have?! That almost implies that we've done something (at least morally) wrong here. I agree. Why would we agree to 'an agreed transfer policy' going forward if we did nothing wrong. If we did nothing wrong and can prove it, why have we not just said - see you in court? Something not quite right here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steviestevieneville Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 34 minutes ago, The_Don said: I wonder what the agreed transfer policy moving forwards is.... Free lifetime supply of tissues too dry their eyes . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Army 75 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 12 minutes ago, Robbored said: It was dumb of them to even raise the issue - a classic example of sour grapes. Yep I agree with this . Even gasheads I know have said just move on . Rovers only got themselves to blame. But they can't do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Why the **** are we pandering to these muppets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Brent Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 34 minutes ago, JammyOne said: What kind of transfer agreement could the two clubs possibly have?! That almost implies that we've done something (at least morally) wrong here. Just means that we can continue to sign their best players for next to nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 The Rovers board achieved what they set out to do, suggest some sort of wrongdoing on the part of City and avoid the rage of their bitter bonehead fans who lap up any old shit especially if it makes them look like victims. The morons have actually fallen for it as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Rob Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Maybe the club have offered to sell Wally a treasure map so they can find the missing money the Supporters Club dropped? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Bill Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 24 minutes ago, Robbored said: It was dumb of them to even raise the issue - a classic example of sour grapes. They really are not very bright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Isewater Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 43 minutes ago, JammyOne said: What kind of transfer agreement could the two clubs possibly have?! That almost implies that we've done something (at least morally) wrong here. That we take what we want from them at a price that suits us or we reveal their incompetence to the world at large . Seems fair to me . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Isewater Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 12 minutes ago, Nibor said: Why the **** are we pandering to these muppets? We just like being patronising to a little club run by amateurs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Ellis Harrison won't be signing for his dream club then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 10 minutes ago, Davefevs said: Ellis Harrison won't be signing for his dream club then He'll just have to make do with watching us from the stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P'head Red Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 This did make me laugh from a Rovers Fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Don Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 1 hour ago, Matty Taylor [BCFC] said: Nothing, we fairly got him. Even if we didn't, a fine would almost definitely be less money than what they could gain via sell on clauses etc. I think you misread my post, the article states the clubs have agreed on a future transfer policy. I wondered what that was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Cyril Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 The agreed transfer policy is simple. From now on Steve Lansdown will match pound for pound every transfer fee Al-Qadi invests in Rovers and also their stadium facilities. So that won't cost us a thing then. And they fell for it! Muppets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Port Said Red Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 1 hour ago, The_Don said: I wonder what the agreed transfer policy moving forwards is.... We will continue to sign their players for a pittance whilst letting Wael post tweets that suggest that we have been done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 They really are a joke. Oh the gift.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unan Posted February 13, 2017 Author Share Posted February 13, 2017 10 minutes ago, The_Don said: I think you misread my post, the article states the clubs have agreed on a future transfer policy. I wondered what that was. There can't be one that goes around the rules so it couldn't be anything to worry about, probably something along the lines of if we sign their next star we can't rub it in their faces like we did this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawey Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 ime given to understand that we promised to buy a new tent and plastic chairs at the new training ground . the tent must be blue and the chairs white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Army 75 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 I expect that if we sign another player. The gas have the right to let there fans chuck stones at him outside the wellington. Before he can come to us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samo II Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 What an embarrassment that club's hierarchy are to them. All sound and fury over getting totally shafted comes to nothing. Again. Delighted to see Mr Taylor settling in too; whatever happens this season, looks like we've nabbed a decent player for a fraction of his value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanterne Rouge Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 I expect it`s all about City being seen to take the piss and we`ve promised not to do it again. Mind you SL did have his fingers crossed behind his back when he said it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoldenBall Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Victim FC realizing for once it IS their fault? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Orns Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 What is there to talk about? Mt had a release clause, widely banded around on various media, we made a bid that matched it. Taylor wanted the move to a bigger club, in a higher league and probably quadrupled his wages Isn't that how transfers work? ******* amateurs, **** off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slartibartfast Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Their board is like the old Tote....All wind and piss till it gets to the nitty-gritty, then turn tail! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Port Said Red Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Maybe we have agreed to only take players when they are OOC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pickle Rick Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 They need to draw up the positives. £300k can buy a lot of extra plastic chairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Port Said Red Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 I see the Blue few have jumped to the conclusion that we have paid them some extra money to keep quiet. http://gaschat.co.uk/thread/9274/club-persuing-complaint-league I wonder how that will appear on each clubs statement of accounts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivorguy Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 The club statement is indeed rather odd. Why should we have a transfer policy with just one league club. We have never had such an agreement before. What on earth could it say. As usual a total lack of transparency from the club. It really is sickening. It is also daft because someone at Rovers is bound to leak it. If The Post was doing its job they would ask these questions and obtain answers. Why does the club treat us fans with such contempt? It really is like living in some past century when we peasants are expected to give our support without our views being considered and are then subject to media spin which enlightens us not at all. The worst aspect for me is how many fans are happy to be treated in this way. I shall from now on limit my remarks on otib because of the personal abuse fans like me receive if we dare question how the club is being run. People like me will continue to support City but will continue to worry about the way the club is run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Port Said Red Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 2 minutes ago, Ivorguy said: The club statement is indeed rather odd. Why should we have a transfer policy with just one league club. We have never had such an agreement before. What on earth could it say. As usual a total lack of transparency from the club. It really is sickening. It is also daft because someone at Rovers is bound to leak it. If The Post was doing its job they would ask these questions and obtain answers. Why does the club treat us fans with such contempt? It really is like living in some past century when we peasants are expected to give our support without our views being considered and are then subject to media spin which enlightens us not at all. The worst aspect for me is how many fans are happy to be treated in this way. I shall from now on limit my remarks on otib because of the personal abuse fans like me receive if we dare question how the club is being run. People like me will continue to support City but will continue to worry about the way the club is run. Careful you don't fall too far from that high horse there Ivor! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivorguy Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, Port Said Red said: Careful you don't fall too far from that high horse there Ivor! Thanks for that. It makes my point most eloquently. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Port Said Red Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, Ivorguy said: Thanks for that. It makes my point most eloquently. Thanks I thought so, just a little dig without being nasty. Seriously though, I think you are reading a bit much into it, we don't have to know the in's and out's of everything behind the scenes, but reading between the lines, that looks to me like a statement that our club being gracious enough to let their board walk away whilst saving a little face in the process. We may have to deal with them again in the future, so why antagonise them any further? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, Port Said Red said: I thought so, just a little dig without being nasty. Seriously though, I think you are reading a bit much into it, we don't have to know the in's and out's of everything behind the scenes, but reading between the lines, that looks to me like a statement that our club being gracious enough to let their board walk away whilst saving a little face in the process. We may have to deal with them again in the future, so why antagonise them any further? I think we've agreed to do a bank transfer next time instead of paying with a great big bag of 2p pieces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Port Said Red Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 1 minute ago, CotswoldRed said: I think we've agreed to do a bank transfer next time instead of paying with a great big bag of 2p pieces. Maybe their board has agreed not to tout a player to every other club before reluctantly selling him to us, next time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dastardly and Muttley Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 I suspect it's more along how the clubs communicate. It's been alleged that they didn't immediately let Taylor know the clause was activated. I guess it will be an agreement that Rovers will inform any agent of any bid immediately, and we will make any approach formally to a named person at Rovers. Maybe we had to go to Taylor's agent, as they hadn't and the deadline was approaching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChippenhamRed Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 50 minutes ago, Ivorguy said: The club statement is indeed rather odd. Why should we have a transfer policy with just one league club. We have never had such an agreement before. What on earth could it say. As usual a total lack of transparency from the club. It really is sickening. It is also daft because someone at Rovers is bound to leak it. If The Post was doing its job they would ask these questions and obtain answers. Why does the club treat us fans with such contempt? It really is like living in some past century when we peasants are expected to give our support without our views being considered and are then subject to media spin which enlightens us not at all. The worst aspect for me is how many fans are happy to be treated in this way. I shall from now on limit my remarks on otib because of the personal abuse fans like me receive if we dare question how the club is being run. People like me will continue to support City but will continue to worry about the way the club is run. Sickening? Treating us with contempt? It's a statement about football transfers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepy1968 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 56 minutes ago, Dastardly and Muttley said: I suspect it's more along how the clubs communicate. It's been alleged that they didn't immediately let Taylor know the clause was activated. I guess it will be an agreement that Rovers will inform any agent of any bid immediately, and we will make any approach formally to a named person at Rovers. Maybe we had to go to Taylor's agent, as they hadn't and the deadline was approaching. Well that makes a ton of sense to me & similar to what I was thinking (I quickly discounted the rumour that we were bunging them an extra fifty quid and half a dozen packs of ready salted crisps). Why the **** do they have to be so cloak and dagger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unan Posted February 14, 2017 Author Share Posted February 14, 2017 Hahahaha rational post of the day "Did conversation go...Wael- So, you've made some bad choices lately Steve. Appointed the son of a cockey midget as manager to find he used to play for you, and was hated by the fans then. Extended his contract, just before he embarked on a catastrophic run of results, leaving you on the brink of relegation, dodgy deal that bought you MT against EFL rules, which could cost you x £m plus x number of points, this all on top of sinking some £80+m so far into a poor championship side, get your cheque book out and we'll take it no further." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Orns Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 12 minutes ago, Matty Taylor [BCFC] said: Hahahaha rational post of the day "Did conversation go...Wael- So, you've made some bad choices lately Steve. Appointed the son of a cockey midget as manager to find he used to play for you, and was hated by the fans then. Extended his contract, just before he embarked on a catastrophic run of results, leaving you on the brink of relegation, dodgy deal that bought you MT against EFL rules, which could cost you x £m plus x number of points, this all on top of sinking some £80+m so far into a poor championship side, get your cheque book out and we'll take it no further." And that mug believes every word of that Tinpot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WessexPest Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 Good news. As much as I hate the Rent Boys I never had them down for sour grapes and pettiness. Besides, their legal team has a lot on its plate right now - what with trying to get Wycombe retroactively relegated from the Football League and the results of the supporters' charity game - in which those rotten Teds cheated by fielding some ex-pros - expunged from the records. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 2 hours ago, Port Said Red said: I see the Blue few have jumped to the conclusion that we have paid them some extra money to keep quiet. http://gaschat.co.uk/thread/9274/club-persuing-complaint-league I wonder how that will appear on each clubs statement of accounts? As I said...morons. If that had happened it would suggest City had knowingly done something wrong in the first place...and if that was the case then why would their owners let us get away with a dodgy backhander? They had their pants very publicly pulled down on deadline day so you'd think they'd want to put the record straight. Either they knew they were talking bollocks from the very beginning or they didn't have the balls to take us on? Either way, they don't come out of the whole thing looking very good. No wonder Matty was desperate to leave as soon as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 17 minutes ago, AzerbaijanApeman said: Good news. As much as I hate the Rent Boys I never had them down for sour grapes and pettiness. Besides, their legal team has a lot on its plate right now - what with trying to get Wycombe retroactively relegated from the Football League and the results of the supporters' charity game - in which those rotten Teds cheated by fielding some ex-pros - expunged from the records. Ha, I'd forgotten about them crying over that. Of course what they failed to mention was that they'd invited some of their own ex pro's who didn't show up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
42nite Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 7 hours ago, Nibor said: Why the **** are we pandering to these muppets? 8 hours ago, Matty Taylor [BCFC] said: SL says we won't sue you for character defamation and Wally says okay boss. Question fairly well answered I'd guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carey 6 Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 Release clauses for players at the Gas are now for anybody but us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 basically we've done them a favour so they can save face, they's been unprofessional we have been very professional Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hello Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 9 hours ago, Ivorguy said: The club statement is indeed rather odd. Why should we have a transfer policy with just one league club. We have never had such an agreement before. What on earth could it say. As usual a total lack of transparency from the club. It really is sickening. It is also daft because someone at Rovers is bound to leak it. If The Post was doing its job they would ask these questions and obtain answers. Why does the club treat us fans with such contempt? It really is like living in some past century when we peasants are expected to give our support without our views being considered and are then subject to media spin which enlightens us not at all. The worst aspect for me is how many fans are happy to be treated in this way. I shall from now on limit my remarks on otib because of the personal abuse fans like me receive if we dare question how the club is being run. People like me will continue to support City but will continue to worry about the way the club is run. The statement is an odd one (the same from both sides). I guess we won't no what happened in the talks, but it would suggest that at the very least both side have an issue over what actually happened and would probably be difficult to prove either way. Whether this means Rovers have been compensated over and above the transfer fee or not, who knows. Agreed Transfer policy seems a very odd phrase which now everyone on both side will speculate on. To me it sounds as if there was at least a lot of 'chatter' about the proposed transfer that went on 'outside of the boardrooms' and perhaps wasn't formally done (ignoring the alleged release clause for a second) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 1 minute ago, Hello said: The statement is an odd one (the same from both sides). I guess we won't no what happened in the talks, but it would suggest that at the very least both side have an issue over what actually happened and would probably be difficult to prove either way. Whether this means Rovers have been compensated over and above the transfer fee or not, who knows. Agreed Transfer policy seems a very odd phrase which now everyone on both side will speculate on. To me it sounds as if there was at least a lot of 'chatter' about the proposed transfer that went on 'outside of the boardrooms' and perhaps wasn't formally done (ignoring the alleged release clause for a second) yea we did have an issue, you didn't like the fact we bid for one of your players (you didn't tell said player we matched his clause until the last minute after you whore'd him to every club) and we didn't like the fact you cried foul and went running to the press before actually making any complaint, almost all clubs would complain in private and not tell the press before they do anything, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kodjias Wrist Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 1 minute ago, Hello said: The statement is an odd one (the same from both sides). I guess we won't no what happened in the talks, but it would suggest that at the very least both side have an issue over what actually happened and would probably be difficult to prove either way. Whether this means Rovers have been compensated over and above the transfer fee or not, who knows. Agreed Transfer policy seems a very odd phrase which now everyone on both side will speculate on. To me it sounds as if there was at least a lot of 'chatter' about the proposed transfer that went on 'outside of the boardrooms' and perhaps wasn't formally done (ignoring the alleged release clause for a second) Yeah the gas will be all over this like a rash. All their ITK making all sorts of conspiracy theories, I was told by someobe in the club blah blah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hello Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 1 minute ago, Monkeh said: yea we did have an issue, you didn't like the fact we bid for one of your players (you didn't tell said player we matched his clause until the last minute after you whore'd him to every club) and we didn't like the fact you cried foul and went running to the press before actually making any complaint, almost all clubs would complain in private and not tell the press before they do anything, 1 minute ago, Kodjias Wrist said: Yeah the gas will be all over this like a rash. All their ITK making all sorts of conspiracy theories, I was told by someobe in the club blah blah. As suggested/leaked above, I suspect it means that any release clauses do not relate to BCFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hello Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 2 minutes ago, Monkeh said: yea we did have an issue, you didn't like the fact we bid for one of your players (you didn't tell said player we matched his clause until the last minute after you whore'd him to every club) and we didn't like the fact you cried foul and went running to the press before actually making any complaint, almost all clubs would complain in private and not tell the press before they do anything, I don't think we should have complained publicly. it was daft and I bet nearly half of all transfers (if not more) are hardly done by the letter of the rules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stortz Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 11 minutes ago, Hello said: Whether this means Rovers have been compensated over and above the transfer fee or not, who knows. Let me answer that for you: No you ******* haven't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myol'man Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 Is the agreed transfer policy "you haven't got any other players worth buying" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 12 minutes ago, Hello said: As suggested/leaked above, I suspect it means that any release clauses do not relate to BCFC. I assume this is tongue in cheek. A release clause is a 2 way street. Why would a player agree to that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hello Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 5 minutes ago, CotswoldRed said: I assume this is tongue in cheek. A release clause is a 2 way street. Why would a player agree to that? because there are how many clubs across the world? Why do Barcelona/Real Madrid etc put mental release clauses in contracts? So they don't have to sell them to rivals unless they want to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 1 minute ago, Hello said: because there are how many clubs across the world? Why do Barcelona/Real Madrid etc put mental release clauses in contracts? So they don't have to sell them to rivals unless they want to I understand that, but why would a player agree to a caveat stating any release clause won't apply to BCFC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 32 minutes ago, Hello said: As suggested/leaked above, I suspect it means that any release clauses do not relate to BCFC. you can't exclude clubs in a release clause, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petehinton Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 hahahahaha this is still absolutely hilarious a few weeks on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
City Ben Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 10 minutes ago, Monkeh said: you can't exclude clubs in a release clause, Why not? Each contract will be individual, right? I do doubt however that the Gas would be so petty as to get their release clauses to disapply if the bid is from City. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 1 minute ago, City Ben said: Why not? Each contract will be individual, right? I do doubt however that the Gas would be so petty as to get their release clauses to disapply if the bid is from City. because it's a fee involved, you can't have a minimum fee 300k for cardiff and not Bristol City, it will open it up to all kinds of abuse and just makes lower league clubs feeder clubs for bigger teams, more so then it is already Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glynriley Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 4 minutes ago, City Ben said: Why not? Each contract will be individual, right? I do doubt however that the Gas would be so petty as to get their release clauses to disapply if the bid is from City. Do you really?? I don't! Their hatred of us knows no bounds... and I love it!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stortz Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 The continual, desperate straw grabbing is just making them look even more tinpot, if that's possible. Just have a scintilla of dignity, accept you had your pants pulled down and stfu! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.