by Smoking Kills Dancing Doe » 13 Jan 2009 15:07
by Tilehurst Mike » 13 Jan 2009 15:10
Smoking Kills Dancing Doe Shame really, would have been a great deal for us.
Lita's all about the money, wants to big signing on fee of a bosman.
Still think we need a striker with the potential to be better than Hunt. Lita not leaving will be our excuse not to do so.
by Smoking Kills Dancing Doe » 13 Jan 2009 15:11
Alan PartridgeSun Tzu Blades well and truely put in their place....
My earlier explanation seems to have been spot on as well !!
AP - wasn't the 'gentleman's agreement' part of the problme - Man Utd / Everton / Tim Howard or something ? i thought there had been a ruling that you simply could not have any influence on picking another team - except in the case of a loan deal
Thought I remember it happening with Defoe once before, I'm not all that sure to be honest just that it's happened. I would agree with the legislation that he could play against anyone. If you sell him, he's not your player anymore and he should be able to play against anyone.
by winchester_royal » 13 Jan 2009 15:12
Tilehurst MikeSmoking Kills Dancing Doe Shame really, would have been a great deal for us.
Lita's all about the money, wants to big signing on fee of a bosman.
Still think we need a striker with the potential to be better than Hunt. Lita not leaving will be our excuse not to do so.
Your complaining about Hunt with 12 goals so far!! How many other clubs would welcome a striker with that strike rate. Almost as good a bargain as Doyle was!
by Smoking Kills Dancing Doe » 13 Jan 2009 15:12
Tilehurst MikeSmoking Kills Dancing Doe Shame really, would have been a great deal for us.
Lita's all about the money, wants to big signing on fee of a bosman.
Still think we need a striker with the potential to be better than Hunt. Lita not leaving will be our excuse not to do so.
Your complaining about Hunt with 12 goals so far!! How many other clubs would welcome a striker with that strike rate. Almost as good a bargain as Doyle was!
by Thaumagurist* » 13 Jan 2009 15:16
CMRoyal The scenario I imagined was:-
Sheff U: How much for Lita?
RFC: A million (or whatever)
Sheff U: OK, done
RFC: Right, we'll put it to the player
...
RFC: Sheff U want you for a million. Interested?
Leroy: Nah, I'll wait till the summer
RFC: OK...
...
RFC: Sorry, guys, he's not interested
Somewhere in there, no doubt Sheff U representatives contacted Leroy's agent but weren't able to muster his request for all the tea in China to tempt him away from potential Premier League and/or being a free agent in the summer.
by Stranded » 13 Jan 2009 15:19
Thaumagurist*StrandedThaumagurist* Ah, I see that we didn't actually accept the bid. Why do other sources insist on making up stories?
From their point of view we had accepted it. If Leroy had said yes, he would have gone.
While I agree with your second sentence, I disagree with the idea that their point of view is that we had accepted it. Lita said no and we're obviously not keen on letting a player, who wants to stay, go, so I'd say that we hadn't accepted the bid at that point. We probably said "Thank you for the offer, we'll speak to the player." before coming back and saying "I'm afraid that the player does not wish to move, so we'll be turning down the offer."
by Alan Partridge » 13 Jan 2009 15:19
by brendywendy » 13 Jan 2009 15:23
by loyalroyal4life » 13 Jan 2009 15:29
by loyalroyal4life » 13 Jan 2009 15:29
The Prisoner The fact that the Blades have made this public is quite political.
If you look at the context of the overall article it is a defensive club statement trying to justify the sale of Beattie to less than amused fans, much in the same way that we would have to do if/when we sell Doyle or Shunt in the current window, or Wolves would have to do if Kightly/Ebanks-Blake were sold etc etc.
Reading between the lines (no pun intended) they had no choice but to sell because of parachute payments ending and the greater economic picture. I also suspect Beattie wanted to go otherwise the £6m or so they have saved/made in fees and wages looks small change in comparison to the rewards for promotion.
The fact that they have made the Lita bid public suggests that it is dead in that they can't afford him and/or he doesn't want to go to another Championship club permanently. If there was still a chance the Blades would not have alerted to the fact that a deal is there for the doing. They are just trying to convince their fans that they aren't going to pocket (all) of the Beattie cash and there is still ambition.
I'm not sure Coppell and Hammond will be quite so amused that this has been made public given the moves over the last week to try and get Lita to buckle down for the promo push?
by Gordons Cumming » 13 Jan 2009 15:30
Norfolk Royal ........................ and Lee Croft, the right winger, has done well this season despite looking like a pub player. .
by TBM » 13 Jan 2009 15:46
by bigmike » 13 Jan 2009 15:56
winchester_royalTilehurst MikeSmoking Kills Dancing Doe Shame really, would have been a great deal for us.
Lita's all about the money, wants to big signing on fee of a bosman.
Still think we need a striker with the potential to be better than Hunt. Lita not leaving will be our excuse not to do so.
Your complaining about Hunt with 12 goals so far!! How many other clubs would welcome a striker with that strike rate. Almost as good a bargain as Doyle was!
Shirley you are joking? Nhunt has been good, but he is a good championship striker at best,
by Royal Rother » 13 Jan 2009 15:58
by winchester_royal » 13 Jan 2009 15:59
by SteveRoyal » 13 Jan 2009 16:12
by Wycombe Royal » 13 Jan 2009 16:21
TBM Lita wont want to move up north, he's a southern boy!
by Wizard » 13 Jan 2009 16:22
by Royal With Cheese » 13 Jan 2009 16:24
winchester_royal Shirley you are joking? Nhunt has been good, but he is a good championship striker at best,
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Felt91, Four Of Clubs, Royals and Racers and 210 guests