yeovilred Posted May 31, 2006 Report Share Posted May 31, 2006 Said he was disappointed with Fulham cos when Johnson signed him on loan they told City that he would be available at the end of the season. Now they have offered him a contract it means we will have to pay a fee and Lansdown says he is not prepared to pay £100k!Why? although I have a lot of time for Steve I cannot comprehend this, Fulham clearly see Fontaine's potential as do we and if we are seriously going to contend for automatic promotion we need pay whatever it takes. I may have been day dreaming whilst driving back from work this afternoon but I think lansdown said something along the lines that it wouldn't be the end of the world as we have signed this guy from Lincoln. (6ft 6in and as mobile as Heywood)Rant over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooter Posted May 31, 2006 Report Share Posted May 31, 2006 Said he was disappointed with Fulham cos when Johnson signed him on loan they told City that he would be available at the end of the season. Now they have offered him a contract it means we will have to pay a fee and Lansdown says he is not prepared to pay £100k!Why? although I have a lot of time for Steve I cannot comprehend this, Fulham clearly see Fontaine's potential as do we and if we are seriously going to contend for automatic promotion we need pay whatever it takes. I may have been day dreaming whilst driving back from work this afternoon but I think lansdown said something along the lines that it wouldn't be the end of the world as we have signed this guy from Lincoln. (6ft 6in and as mobile as Heywood)Rant over McCombe is definitely MORE mobile than Heywood, after seeing him in about half a dozen games over 2 Seasons for Lincoln City on Sky Sports, though as far as his "Aerial" ability goes, I couldn't choose between them...Another advantage McCombe has other Heywood is Endurance over 90 Minutes, of which how many times has Heywood lasted? And that's even with McCombe doing more running over those 90 Minutes as well, and he can travel forward if needed, though most of the time, will stay back to fulfill the role he's out there to do!I can't really say much more than that, and yes I do know that when you're "Live" on Sky, you do tend to "up" your game a bit, but over the few matches I have seen him, he's looked fairly consistent to me, and I always rated him better than his counterpart Futcher, who has since moved onto Grimsby!Bleeding 'eck... I've just realised that the whole of the Football League seems to be growing Peter Crouches all of a sudden! Also, I best add that I would like to see Fontaine partner with McCombe if we could get the deal done and dusted, but where would that leave an "in-form" Carey at the moment?!I guess we'll have to wait until the Friendly fixtures, and see what transpires then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fat Controller Posted May 31, 2006 Report Share Posted May 31, 2006 McCombe is definitely MORE mobile than Heywood, after seeing him in about half a dozen games over 2 Seasons for Lincoln City on Sky Sports, though as far as his "Aerial" ability goes, I couldn't choose between them...Another advantage McCombe has other Heywood is Endurance over 90 Minutes, of which how many times has Heywood lasted? And that's even with McCombe doing more running over those 90 Minutes as well, and he can travel forward if needed, though most of the time, will stay back to fulfill the role he's out there to do!I can't really say much more than that, and yes I do know that when you're "Live" on Sky, you do tend to "up" your game a bit, but over the few matches I have seen him, he's looked fairly consistent to me, and I always rated him better than his counterpart Futcher, who has since moved onto Grimsby!Bleeding 'eck... I've just realised that the whole of the Football League seems to be growing Peter Crouches all of a sudden! Also, I best add that I would like to see Fontaine partner with McCombe if we could get the deal done and dusted, but where would that leave an "in-form" Carey at the moment?!I guess we'll have to wait until the Friendly fixtures, and see what transpires then! Being Devil's advocate- back 3 maybe, or have we learnt from this in the past?I can see some very nice potential selection problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taz Posted May 31, 2006 Report Share Posted May 31, 2006 If that's the case why wasn't a pre-contract negotiated and agreed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ron Posted May 31, 2006 Report Share Posted May 31, 2006 Bleeding 'eck... I've just realised that the whole of the Football League seems to be growing Peter Crouches all of a sudden! Oh dear god no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoke_Gifford_Red Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 If that's the case why wasn't a pre-contract negotiated and agreed? You have to question the reasoning behind this not happening. Or maybe Fulham have seen how well he has done, and either a) want to keep him or b) realise they can demand a fee. Of course there is always the chance that someone in Ashton Gate has made a mistake, but then that would never happen would it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeRed Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 I also think SL is still bitter over the Liam Rosenior fiasco and feels that Fulham "legged us over" (to use a current phrase!) & that if Liam was valued by Fulham at only £55K as a player stepping UP to a Premier club, and now a first teamer, then for Fulham to ask £100K for Fontaine who is stepping DOWN to league 2 is unreasonable, especially as Fulham clearly are prepared to let him leave and therefore don't think Fontaine will make it at their level.SL is normally quite relaxed on air but he definately came over as very P'''ed Off with Fulham.Of course if the person who was responsible for contracts at AG had posted off Rosenior's new contract BEFORE the old one expired then we might be approaching this from a better perspective.I would think £50K is a fair fee for Fontaine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tunley Legend Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 Said he was disappointed with Fulham cos when Johnson signed him on loan they told City that he would be available at the end of the season. Now they have offered him a contract it means we will have to pay a fee and Lansdown says he is not prepared to pay £100k!Why? although I have a lot of time for Steve I cannot comprehend this, Fulham clearly see Fontaine's potential as do we and if we are seriously going to contend for automatic promotion we need pay whatever it takes. I may have been day dreaming whilst driving back from work this afternoon but I think lansdown said something along the lines that it wouldn't be the end of the world as we have signed this guy from Lincoln. (6ft 6in and as mobile as Heywood)Rant over Presumably you have seen McCoombe play plenty of times and obviously know exactly how mobile he is (or in your opinion isn't) and you clearly have better judgement than both Gary Johnson and Dario Gradi (who only has a poxy 25 years or so unrivalled track record in unearthing young talent from the lower leagues).Why do so many of our supporters judge players before they have even seen them play? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 I'm surprised we took a Fulham player on loan, obviously I know about him previously being at Yeovil etc, but dealings between the clubs were never going to be that smooth and easy? I guess GJ must really rate him and was able to convince SL to go after him, (I bet SL cringed a bit when he found it was Fulham he had to deal with!) Trouble is he has done well here and Fulham have a player that we want, but they also could keep him too. They are in a win/win situation.We would be the same with our dealings I'm sure. If we loaned out a player we still wanted rather than those we want to offload, wouldn't we be looking for a fee? Er, with our past record maybe not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seend Red Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 Said he was disappointed with Fulham cos when Johnson signed him on loan they told City that he would be available at the end of the season. Now they have offered him a contract it means we will have to pay a fee and Lansdown says he is not prepared to pay £100k!Why? although I have a lot of time for Steve I cannot comprehend this, Fulham clearly see Fontaine's potential as do we and if we are seriously going to contend for automatic promotion we need pay whatever it takes. I may have been day dreaming whilst driving back from work this afternoon but I think lansdown said something along the lines that it wouldn't be the end of the world as we have signed this guy from Lincoln. (6ft 6in and as mobile as Heywood)Rant over Why do you think Steve should part with HIS money so simply, Fulham are taking the michael, they have no intention of playing him but know he's a wanted man in the lower leagues. There is obviously a principle at stake here and Lansdown with not be screwed over by Fulham again-good on him. Bottom line- SL is a top businessman and I'm not so ill trust his judgement on this one, if we don't get Fontaine it's not the end of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 We should just sign him and then if they try to take us to a tribunal, find some excuse to sue them to make the legal costs prohibitive.Play dirty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTone Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 You have to question the reasoning behind this not happening. Or maybe Fulham have seen how well he has done, and either a) want to keep him or b) realise they can demand a fee. Of course there is always the chance that someone in Ashton Gate has made a mistake, but then that would never happen would it.Perhaps Fulham are using this as a ploy to try and drag back any cash they would have to pay us if they were to sell on Liam Rosenior who has made it very clear that he will leave if he does'nt get regular 1st team football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 What I can't understand is that we are apparently quite happy to shell out £300,000 for a div 3 ( old money) striker (Reddy) but aren't prepared to pay £100000 for a defender coming from a prem club. Admittedly, he'd not a proven prem player, but we have all seen his ability during his time at City. Given that the improvement over the second half of the season was mainly down to the strong and stable defence of whixch he was a part, this smacks of penny pinching. Having said that, SL may be trying to convince Fulham that we won't play ball in the hope that they will then lower the price in order to off load Fontaine. I hope so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shepton red Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 Remember Lee Miller? Not wanted at City, went to Hearts on loan, scored a hatful of goals and City upped the price accordingly. No real difference over this and Fontaine in my eyes, you pay your money etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redhyde Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 Tell him to sign his contract.This will leave Fulham out of pocket for a year say 50k.Then we can pay them less to take him off their hands! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 Since compensation from tribunals these days is based on cost of development I find it extremely unlikely that any fee would be over 100k - and the chances of them backing down completely make it worth the risk IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puckle_red Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 I think we should be prepared to pay around 250k. But about McCombe, he is a LOT more mobile than Matt Heywood, and he can also kick a ball properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rednready Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 Fontaine is a good young player for our division. However why should we shell out 100k when we have a similar player on contract. Keogh is also 20 this year, similar height and weight, and imo just as good. With Heywood Carey, McCombe, Keogh plus Wilson and Skuse, the center back area already is threatened with over population. If Fulham want 100k, I say forget it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reg Hill Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 Fontaine is a good young player for our division. However why should we shell out 100k when we have a similar player on contract. Keogh is also 20 this year, similar height and weight, and imo just as good. With Heywood Carey, McCombe, Keogh plus Wilson and Skuse, the center back area already is threatened with over population. If Fulham want 100k, I say forget it.We need cover/competition at left back. Fontaine provides that as well as central role. Similarly with Carey and right back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordofthebling Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 It all depends on what Liam wants to do...If he wants to go, then a fee can be agreed.If he wants to stay with Fulham, then he signs and goes back there. However there may be a possibility of a loan.However, it is all part of the game... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCAGFC Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 £50k up front, £50k after 50 apps (roughly a season) and £25k on promotion.If it has to go to tribunal there is no way Fulham will get more than £100k and even that will be in stages (apps etc) as long as we (BCFC) get our case presented correctly.BCAGFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 I can't see them backing down completly. Why should they ? They are due a fee - just a question of how much.If we want him, we are either going to have to go to tribunal (and I don't think it is as cut and dried as you think) or pay for him - it just depends how much and how it's structured. I'd be amazed if it we got him for a lot less less than what Fulham are asking. IMO the quick compromise is 100k, but structured to the clubs benefit not Fulhams.Anyway, it's all academic as it's down to SL to decide the best way forward for the club.They would back down if the amount they looked like receiving from a tribunal barely covered their legal fees.There is a method for calculating the compensation they're entitled to embedded in one of the FA documents (programme for excellence maybe?) and it isn't much. Tribunals can change the structure and to an extent the amount in exceptional circumstances, however when they hear that Fulham have offered Fontaine the minimum and were intent on releasing him 6 months ago I doubt they will vary from that. That will make the whole exercise pointless from Fulham's point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Boy Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 Well, we've paid "whatever it takes," in the past and we are still here Every player has his price, coming in or going out and I know GJ shares that sentiment.I'd like to see Fontaine come but if GJ thinks he can sign someone as good or better for less than £100k, then so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiderHider Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 I've said it before and i'll say it again, Fontaine is a player we desperatly need for next season. For a youngster who stepped straight into the squad i thought he was awsome and help changed the outcome of our season.I remain very confident that were going to sign him, i'm 99% sure of it in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taz Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 Offer Fulham the same money that they had to pay us for Rosenior, and knock off any clauses that may have been inserted in his contract as well as any potential clause that would be put into Fontaines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcfc seattle Posted June 2, 2006 Report Share Posted June 2, 2006 Or perhaps we just need to offer a large % of future transfer a nominal fee (25k and 25% or 0 and 35% or something like that). Make any money they get on him progressing as a player and in this day of bosmans and free transfers they'd likely get shafted in the end (which given the Rosenior situation isn't a bad thing)speaking of which did we get money for him getting u-21 caps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPER REDS Posted June 3, 2006 Report Share Posted June 3, 2006 Yes same board not backing the manager a prem defender who helped save us from relgation for 100000 its a snip,quess we have to unload to spend again Brooker next that million from norwich far to tempting for this board Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samj100 Posted June 3, 2006 Report Share Posted June 3, 2006 Said he was disappointed with Fulham cos when Johnson signed him on loan they told City that he would be available at the end of the season. Now they have offered him a contract it means we will have to pay a fee and Lansdown says he is not prepared to pay £100k!Why? although I have a lot of time for Steve I cannot comprehend this, Fulham clearly see Fontaine's potential as do we and if we are seriously going to contend for automatic promotion we need pay whatever it takes. I may have been day dreaming whilst driving back from work this afternoon but I think lansdown said something along the lines that it wouldn't be the end of the world as we have signed this guy from Lincoln. (6ft 6in and as mobile as Heywood)Rant over If signing fontaine helps to secure promotion that 100k is a small price to pay imo. him and carey look sound at the back. The defence is looking very solid the last thing we want to do is start changing it if we can help it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.