RedM Posted September 6, 2017 Report Share Posted September 6, 2017 The best thing we can do is get the player fit and playing for us. Banging in the goals or clocking up the assists will make the fee paid for him even more of a bargain and what better way to rub it in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolcitysweden Posted September 6, 2017 Report Share Posted September 6, 2017 Get lost of the undisclosed nonsence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolcitysweden Posted September 6, 2017 Report Share Posted September 6, 2017 Tired of the bullshit. Same goes for prolonging contracts. Should be forced to be announced. The shit served is problem enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carey 6 Posted September 6, 2017 Report Share Posted September 6, 2017 We wouldn't have got a points deduction, or an embargo for this transfer, it was common knowledge some months before we bid that the clause existed. We also wouldn't have got a fine anywhere near 2 million. There is absolutely no reason for us to have paid that amount. Liverpool publicly came out and apologised over Van Dijk because they were worried about a deduction I believe. It was their second offence after tapping up a youth player a couple of months previous which they got a £100,000 fine for. Chelsea back with Ashley Cole got in trouble, had a 6 figure fine and a suspended 3 points deduction. But they were proved to have been meeting up with the player without Arsenals consent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Ian M Posted September 6, 2017 Admin Report Share Posted September 6, 2017 At the time of the first gas claims about this we looked back and I think we found the earliest claim in the media of the clause being valued at £300k was in November. We placed our bid after 20th January so they don't have a leg to stand on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoons Posted September 6, 2017 Report Share Posted September 6, 2017 1 hour ago, Kid in the Riot said: What I heard is that we'd actually made a bid of £300k for Taylor a week earlier but Rovers turned it down! We then had to get the lawyers involved and politely point the clause out to them. Knowing the kind of bitterness and inferiority complex their club has had for years, I would suggest this is a far more believable set of events that the OP! Snap ! Excactly what I've heard! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivorguy Posted September 6, 2017 Report Share Posted September 6, 2017 This whole sorry saga is a terrible condemnation of how our club treat us - like the proverbial mushrooms. Sadly so for the many of us who remain deeply sceptical of the way the club is run. This is one of the worst examples. I would like the club's lawyers and accountants to make a statement on the Taylor transfer so that rumours are laid to rest and the full and accurate story is in the public domain. Wake up, The Board ! and join the 21st century of openness and transparency. You will find that this will prove beneficial in every way for Bristol City, owner, Board, management, players and, not least, fans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastonboy Posted September 6, 2017 Report Share Posted September 6, 2017 7 minutes ago, Ivorguy said: This whole sorry saga is a terrible condemnation of how our club treat us - like the proverbial mushrooms. Sadly so for the many of us who remain deeply sceptical of the way the club is run. This is one of the worst examples. I would like the club's lawyers and accountants to make a statement on the Taylor transfer so that rumours are laid to rest and the full and accurate story is in the public domain. Wake up, The Board ! and join the 21st century of openness and transparency. You will find that this will prove beneficial in every way for Bristol City, owner, Board, management, players and, not least, fans Mate, so you think that the club should make a statement because of some **** making up shit on the internet? Seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivorguy Posted September 6, 2017 Report Share Posted September 6, 2017 2 minutes ago, eastonboy said: Mate, so you think that the club should make a statement because of some **** making up shit on the internet? Seriously? No, what I want explained is the so-called gentleman's agreement. If this had been done originally then rumours would not arise as n the first place. I believe the club may well have acted illegally, that is whip I want transparency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fat Controller Posted September 6, 2017 Report Share Posted September 6, 2017 9 minutes ago, Ivorguy said: This whole sorry saga is a terrible condemnation of how our club treat us - like the proverbial mushrooms. Sadly so for the many of us who remain deeply sceptical of the way the club is run. This is one of the worst examples. I would like the club's lawyers and accountants to make a statement on the Taylor transfer so that rumours are laid to rest and the full and accurate story is in the public domain. Wake up, The Board ! and join the 21st century of openness and transparency. You will find that this will prove beneficial in every way for Bristol City, owner, Board, management, players and, not least, fans If the club had to make a statement every time there was a rumour then the club website would become nothing but a series of similarly worded denials. Honestly what do you expect them to actually say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivorguy Posted September 6, 2017 Report Share Posted September 6, 2017 1 minute ago, Ivorguy said: No, what I want explained is the so-called gentleman's agreement. If this had been done originally then rumours would not arise in the first place. I believe the club may well have acted illegally, that is why I want transparency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Ian M Posted September 6, 2017 Admin Report Share Posted September 6, 2017 5 minutes ago, Ivorguy said: No, what I want explained is the so-called gentleman's agreement. If this had been done originally then rumours would not arise as n the first place. I believe the club may well have acted illegally, that is whip I want transparency. ....and you want them to admit it if they have? Have you thought this through? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bar BS3 Posted September 6, 2017 Report Share Posted September 6, 2017 Did you know that when we signed Peter Beadle from Port Vale, we had to pay Rovers £500k because he used to play for them..? No..? Probably because it's not true either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin phantom Posted September 6, 2017 Admin Report Share Posted September 6, 2017 2 hours ago, wendyredredrobin said: Presumably this £2m is going to show up in their accounts then. When are they published? This is the be all and end all to this.... Could you imagine trying to justify this addition in the accounts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolcitysweden Posted September 6, 2017 Report Share Posted September 6, 2017 Gentleman's agreement/letter of intent. You can't breach it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivorguy Posted September 6, 2017 Report Share Posted September 6, 2017 2 minutes ago, Ian M said: ....and you want them to admit it if they have? Have you thought this through? Well we have to assume they sought legal advice and was told all was ok. But I still challenge that advice even if it was sought and given. I cannot imagine The PFA would be happy about such a restraint of trade agreement between two clubs As I said in an earlier thread we don't know if this odd gentleman's agreement has a cut off date, whether it will last the change of owner in either club, whether it applies to loans or academy players as well as first team squad, etc. What I want is for our Board to be far more open. Only in this way will mad rumours be denied the oxygen they need to take off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolcitysweden Posted September 6, 2017 Report Share Posted September 6, 2017 3 minutes ago, Ivorguy said: Well we have to assume they sought legal advice and was told all was ok. But I still challenge that advice even if it was sought and given. I cannot imagine The PFA would be happy about such a restraint of trade agreement between two clubs As I said in an earlier thread we don't know if this odd gentleman's agreement has a cut off date, whether it will last the change of owner in either club, whether it applies to loans or academy players as well as first team squad, etc. What I want is for our Board to be far more open. Only in this way will mad rumours be denied the oxygen they need to take off Echo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexukhc Posted September 6, 2017 Report Share Posted September 6, 2017 Wasn't it 10 million? oh yeah it was 300k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phileas Fogg Posted September 6, 2017 Report Share Posted September 6, 2017 26 minutes ago, Ivorguy said: This whole sorry saga is a terrible condemnation of how our club treat us - like the proverbial mushrooms. Sadly so for the many of us who remain deeply sceptical of the way the club is run. This is one of the worst examples. I would like the club's lawyers and accountants to make a statement on the Taylor transfer so that rumours are laid to rest and the full and accurate story is in the public domain. Wake up, The Board ! and join the 21st century of openness and transparency. You will find that this will prove beneficial in every way for Bristol City, owner, Board, management, players and, not least, fans Oh come on now; parody confirmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolcitysweden Posted September 6, 2017 Report Share Posted September 6, 2017 A bunch of nuts, club owners, club officials, players and agents sit with the facts but the level headed fans who pays for it is not told about the total nut business in detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View from the Dolman Posted September 6, 2017 Report Share Posted September 6, 2017 18 minutes ago, Ivorguy said: No, what I want explained is the so-called gentleman's agreement. If this had been done originally then rumours would not arise as n the first place. I believe the club may well have acted illegally, that is whip I want transparency. Surely if you have reason to suspect this you have a moral obligation to inform the authorities? I'm sure you're the most noble of all the noble fellows in the land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BSRED Posted September 6, 2017 Report Share Posted September 6, 2017 1 hour ago, RedM said: The best thing we can do is get the player fit and playing for us. Banging in the goals or clocking up the assists will make the fee paid for him even more of a bargain and what better way to rub it in. We could then sell him for £10million and the blue few can remind us that Dopey was right after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRaw Posted September 6, 2017 Report Share Posted September 6, 2017 8 minutes ago, Ivorguy said: Well we have to assume they sought legal advice and was told all was ok. But I still challenge that advice even if it was sought and given. I cannot imagine The PFA would be happy about such a restraint of trade agreement between two clubs As I said in an earlier thread we don't know if this odd gentleman's agreement has a cut off date, whether it will last the change of owner in either club, whether it applies to loans or academy players as well as first team squad, etc. What I want is for our Board to be far more open. Only in this way will mad rumours be denied the oxygen they need to take off Mate, you just carry on supporting the club in the best way you see fit and let the board run the club accordingly. football transfers and relationships between clubs are generally a closed shop. No club is going to come out and publicly disclose intricate details of transfers and agreements other than what they are happy to be out there in the public domain i.e fees, loan agreements etc To suggest the board should disclose this sort of information just to appease some people's inquisitive mind is ludicrous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bar BS3 Posted September 6, 2017 Report Share Posted September 6, 2017 20 minutes ago, Ivorguy said: Well we have to assume they sought legal advice and was told all was ok. But I still challenge that advice even if it was sought and given. I cannot imagine The PFA would be happy about such a restraint of trade agreement between two clubs As I said in an earlier thread we don't know if this odd gentleman's agreement has a cut off date, whether it will last the change of owner in either club, whether it applies to loans or academy players as well as first team squad, etc. What I want is for our Board to be far more open. Only in this way will mad rumours be denied the oxygen they need to take off The gentlemans agreement which has only been reffered to by the master of blag..? I'm sure the European courts would find it interesting if a lower league player had the opportunity of progressing his career at a much bigger, wealthier club, but wasn't allowed to, by his boss, because he's a snivelling, whinging idiot who can't compete with what's on offer from the other club. Its illegal, fictitious and not worth the few seconds of air time that Wally got to save face after losing their best player for £300k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted September 6, 2017 Report Share Posted September 6, 2017 Back to the original question. Only 4 parties could've known / divulged the release clause. 1. Taylor 2. His Agent 3, Rovers 4. EFL (FA whoever) Spot the missing party! Bristol City. Unless we were present how could we have possibly known it. If someone wants to leak it, that's their problem not ours! I really don't see how we can be called to account. Tapping up Taylor and asking him what his release clause is, is however a different matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted September 6, 2017 Report Share Posted September 6, 2017 Please point me towards this mythical football club that is open when it comes to transfer dealings .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Orns Posted September 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted September 6, 2017 3 hours ago, ColeCiderRed said: what I find most shocking about this is Woodsy has a Gas mate. Unbelievable if true! An acquaintance I can accept, but a mate!! I use the term very loosely. The first time I had the displeasure of meeting him he was still banging in about the LDV game, several years after it happened. After a heated discussion he uttered the now immortal line 'are you gonna beat me up, because I've only got flip flops on'. Me and my real mates (!) still quote that 3 hours ago, Major Isewater said: Or a mate of any kind ... Only jesting Woodsy , too good to resist . The joke that is not Woodsy . Although I'm sure he has many attractive qualities. Go on, name one. Bet you can't.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bar BS3 Posted September 6, 2017 Report Share Posted September 6, 2017 1 hour ago, phantom said: This is the be all and end all to this.... Could you imagine trying to justify this addition in the accounts It should be easy enough to spot. Being the only 7 figure sum on the balance sheet. Apart from the interest payments to Wally, of course..! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big C Posted September 6, 2017 Report Share Posted September 6, 2017 Didn't their owner tweet that we paid 300K for someone we could have had for nothing? If there was any truth in this I'm sure he wouldn't have been able to contain himself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiale Posted September 6, 2017 Report Share Posted September 6, 2017 2 hours ago, Ian M said: At the time of the first gas claims about this we looked back and I think we found the earliest claim in the media of the clause being valued at £300k was in November. We placed our bid after 20th January so they don't have a leg to stand on. Was it not put onto the gas forums at about that time as well. So their own speculation would have more than justified a punt- £300,000 is not a lot of money in this context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.