coggy
Youth Player
Posts: 340
|
Post by coggy on Sept 2, 2010 17:12:48 GMT
Agreed, but it's Sunderland who had to pay him the lumper, not Stoke. Like I say - good for Stoke's bank balance, but not a glowing endorsement from a former emloyer. NQ/SB - "Kenny, Stoke want you but they cant afford to pay you £xxxx. They're only offering wages of £xxxx." KJ - "What happened to Tottenham and Liverpool?" NQ/SB - "It's been two and a half years since Andy Gray made you SKY player of the month Kenny, and in the interim period you've hardly been setting the world alight. Even Harry Redknapp is going to wise up to you eventually." KJ - "Well, given that I've expressed no interest whatsoever in leaving my cushy little number here at Sunderland, why on earth would I want to take that offer from Stoke?" SNQ/SB - "I see your point Kenny, but we don't want you here, so how about we just pay the difference to you upfront and you p*ss off so we can get someone we want in?" You are talking absolute shite, marra. Both Sunderland AND Stoke paid Jones a "lumper" each. The one from us was the one we were contractually obliged to and would have had to have paid him regardless of what he negotiated with Stoke. Stoke paid him a "lumper" to make it worth his while to accept a lower wage, so as to not break their existing wage structure and cause contention within the existing squad. Spot on Captain !
|
|
|
Post by nqsdiscopants on Sept 2, 2010 17:13:19 GMT
Agreed, but it's Sunderland who had to pay him the lumper, not Stoke. Like I say - good for Stoke's bank balance, but not a glowing endorsement from a former emloyer. NQ/SB - "Kenny, Stoke want you but they cant afford to pay you £xxxx. They're only offering wages of £xxxx." KJ - "What happened to Tottenham and Liverpool?" NQ/SB - "It's been two and a half years since Andy Gray made you SKY player of the month Kenny, and in the interim period you've hardly been setting the world alight. Even Harry Redknapp is going to wise up to you eventually." KJ - "Well, given that I've expressed no interest whatsoever in leaving my cushy little number here at Sunderland, why on earth would I want to take that offer from Stoke?" SNQ/SB - "I see your point Kenny, but we don't want you here, so how about we just pay the difference to you upfront and you p*ss off so we can get someone we want in?" You are talking absolute shite, marra. Both Sunderland AND Stoke paid Jones a "lumper" each. The one from us was the one we were contractually obliged to and would have had to have paid him regardless of what he negotiated with Stoke. Stoke paid him a "lumper" to make it worth his while to accept a lower wage, so as to not break their existing wage structure and cause contention within the existing squad. You seem to know a lot about this deal. Did you work on it or is this just wild conjecture? I think if Pulis had come out to the press and said that "Sunderland paid him a lumper to make up for his lower wages", when that wasn't in fact the case, then someone from SAFC would have been in the press the next morning setting the record straight and asking Pulis not to tell lies to the national media!!
|
|
|
Post by nqsdiscopants on Sept 2, 2010 17:15:42 GMT
Agreed, but it's Sunderland who had to pay him the lumper, not Stoke. Like I say - good for Stoke's bank balance, but not a glowing endorsement from a former emloyer. NQ/SB - "Kenny, Stoke want you but they cant afford to pay you £xxxx. They're only offering wages of £xxxx." KJ - "What happened to Tottenham and Liverpool?" NQ/SB - "It's been two and a half years since Andy Gray made you SKY player of the month Kenny, and in the interim period you've hardly been setting the world alight. Even Harry Redknapp is going to wise up to you eventually." KJ - "Well, given that I've expressed no interest whatsoever in leaving my cushy little number here at Sunderland, why on earth would I want to take that offer from Stoke?" SNQ/SB - "I see your point Kenny, but we don't want you here, so how about we just pay the difference to you upfront and you p*ss off so we can get someone we want in?" That's total rubbish mate YOUR manager says different. "The wages he was earning at Sunderland we could not afford. He was on quite a bit of money, but he is not on that at Stoke," confirmed Pulis. "So they have looked after that as well to enable him to come down to the structure we have at this club, which is very important for us."
|
|
coggy
Youth Player
Posts: 340
|
Post by coggy on Sept 2, 2010 17:16:20 GMT
You are talking absolute shite, marra. Both Sunderland AND Stoke paid Jones a "lumper" each. The one from us was the one we were contractually obliged to and would have had to have paid him regardless of what he negotiated with Stoke. Stoke paid him a "lumper" to make it worth his while to accept a lower wage, so as to not break their existing wage structure and cause contention within the existing squad. You seem to know a lot about this deal. Did you work on it or is this just wild conjecture? I think if Pulis had come out to the press and said that "Sunderland paid him a lumper to make up for his lower wages", when that wasn't in fact the case, then someone from SAFC would have been in the press the next morning setting the record straight and asking Pulis not to tell lies to the national media!! The word naive springs to mind reading that i am afraid
|
|
|
Post by nqsdiscopants on Sept 2, 2010 17:19:36 GMT
You seem to know a lot about this deal. Did you work on it or is this just wild conjecture? I think if Pulis had come out to the press and said that "Sunderland paid him a lumper to make up for his lower wages", when that wasn't in fact the case, then someone from SAFC would have been in the press the next morning setting the record straight and asking Pulis not to tell lies to the national media!! The word naive springs to mind reading that i am afraid If you'd matched his wages pound for pound you'd still have paid him a signing on fee. I think Pulis is pretty clear in what he said - if Sunderland hadn't paid the difference in his wages he'd still be with us. Which is very, very clearly not what we wanted.
|
|
coggy
Youth Player
Posts: 340
|
Post by coggy on Sept 2, 2010 17:21:36 GMT
The word naive springs to mind reading that i am afraid If you'd matched his wages pound for pound you'd still have paid him a signing on fee. I think Pulis is pretty clear in what he said - if Sunderland hadn't paid the difference in his wages he'd still be with us. Which is very, very clearly not what we wanted. Ok if that makes you feel better then mate then you go with that scenario
|
|
|
Post by nqsdiscopants on Sept 2, 2010 17:25:58 GMT
If you'd matched his wages pound for pound you'd still have paid him a signing on fee. I think Pulis is pretty clear in what he said - if Sunderland hadn't paid the difference in his wages he'd still be with us. Which is very, very clearly not what we wanted. Ok if that makes you feel better then mate then you go with that scenario To be honest, it doesn't make me feel better at all. It is however clearly what happened - like I say Pulis laid it out in black and white and there's nothing from any source to suggest he was lying. It's not very often any manager signs a player and says "we couldnt afford his wages so thankfully [selling club] have taken care of the difference", so it clearly isn't the 'norm'. Whether he would have got a game for us or not I don't agree with paying %x of his wages just to get shot of him, I think that's bad business for any player no matter how good or bad they may be. At the very least he would have given us an option from the bench now that Fraizer Campbell is crocked.
|
|
|
Post by heworksardtho on Sept 2, 2010 17:28:25 GMT
go on RTG Sunderland they have threads on stoke,they hate us
|
|
|
Post by captainfishpaste on Sept 2, 2010 18:17:06 GMT
The word naive springs to mind reading that i am afraid If you'd matched his wages pound for pound you'd still have paid him a signing on fee. I think Pulis is pretty clear in what he said - if Sunderland hadn't paid the difference in his wages he'd still be with us. Which is very, very clearly not what we wanted. It is called propaganda and spin, marra. It's been around for centuries. You should look it up. If you choose to believe everything you hear, even when it is in conflict with whatever little common sense you have, then you probably have a bit of a problem.
|
|
|
Post by ColonelMustard on Sept 2, 2010 18:24:56 GMT
Snore, snore, snore. Who cares what they think. We'll do the business on the pitch. Goodbye. then, next post Just read that thread, what a bunch of arrogant cunts. I could understand if it were just the odd couple, but every post in that thread is sheer arrogance. made me laugh mate
|
|
|
Post by gb on Sept 2, 2010 18:51:23 GMT
Has anyone ever been to Sunderland , its a terible place, you think Stoke is a bit dull you want to try woking in Sunderland for a couple of months. All the lads were issued with anti-depressants when they arrived. I always thought Newcastle was a dump until i went to Blunderland ...
|
|
|
Post by pmjh on Sept 2, 2010 19:08:21 GMT
Captain you sound like a reasonable fella and you are understandabally defending your club. It does seem though that a fair share of your fans are arrogant knobs who are convinced that none of our players would get in to your team and that we deserve to be relegated. Opinions are divided it seems on Kenwyne but he is a stoke player now and it only matters how he plays for us.Some of your fans also seem to have a superiority complex because we have a number of your ex players. The undisputable facts are that despite your protestations of superiority, we have held our own in the games so far and have finished above you twice.This must mean then that despite you having better players we have a better team and thus a better manager.
|
|
|
Post by jason on Sept 2, 2010 19:11:12 GMT
Snore, snore, snore. Who cares what they think. We'll do the business on the pitch. Goodbye. then, next post Just read that thread, what a bunch of arrogant cunts. I could understand if it were just the odd couple, but every post in that thread is sheer arrogance. made me laugh mate LOL I couldn't resist mate
|
|
|
Post by captainfishpaste on Sept 2, 2010 19:24:05 GMT
Captain you sound like a reasonable fella and you are understandabally defending your club. It does seem though that a fair share of your fans are arrogant knobs who are convinced that none of our players would get in to your team and that we deserve to be relegated. Opinions are divided it seems on Kenwyne but he is a stoke player now and it only matters how he plays for us.Some of your fans also seem to have a superiority complex because we have a number of your ex players. The undisputable facts are that despite your protestations of superiority, we have held our own in the games so far and have finished above you twice.This must mean then that despite you having better players we have a better team and thus a better manager. Football fans will always favour their own. Sometimes to do that you have to put the rest down to see your own rise above, especially when there is nothing especially about your own club. It is very difficult for anyone to be entirely objective about their own club and it would be shit if we were. We are all as guilty of it. For example, Asamoah Gyan has been put down a lot on here since we signed him for what is seen as an average scoring record in the French League. Mind, I haven't seen many, if any, Stoke fans mentioning that Gudjohnson couldn't manage a single goal in that division. I do agree however that there is a large element of unjustified pretention over on our message board. It's something I have mentioned over there too.
|
|
|
Post by fortressbritannia on Sept 2, 2010 19:30:04 GMT
Captain
very true all football fans are biased towards their own clubs everyone has their own agenda like your hate of Newcastle and our hate are Arsenal and Whinger. I think Sunderland have the best players but Stoke play better as a team
|
|
|
Post by captainfishpaste on Sept 2, 2010 19:34:54 GMT
Captain very true all football fans are biased towards their own clubs everyone has their own agenda like your hate of Newcastle and our hate are Arsenal and Whinger. I think Sunderland have the best players but Stoke play better as a team I'd say that was a very accurate assessment.
|
|
|
Post by fortressbritannia on Sept 2, 2010 19:47:20 GMT
SSN are just as bad soe over sensationalising things
|
|
|
Post by bristolpotter on Sept 3, 2010 4:55:30 GMT
Christ you all sound like a bunch of kids, my dads bigger than yours bla, who cares what Sunderland fans say about us, it pretty much summaries up what every other clubs fans say about us, nothing new or informative, just same old same old. Some fair, some outright bollox but we're fucking Stoke City and we don't give a fuck, no fucker likes us and never will.
Take it as a compliment because who'd want to be like Fulham, ah bless em nice little club nice fans pims by the river blaarrr I love being hated, we're horrible by our style of play and our fans and it's fucking great!!!!!
Long live the terrace dandies!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by foster on Sept 3, 2010 6:21:06 GMT
I would hazard a guess that Steve Bruce will be the first managerial casualty in the Prem..! Hope so. Can't stand any of the ex-Man Utd (players) managers. He also needs to get that nose of his sorted out. You would have thought he could afford it with the money he's on. He also needs grow some balls and stop talking in his whispery little girl voice. .
|
|
|
Post by thepremierbanksy on Sept 3, 2010 7:50:05 GMT
If you'd matched his wages pound for pound you'd still have paid him a signing on fee. I think Pulis is pretty clear in what he said - if Sunderland hadn't paid the difference in his wages he'd still be with us. Which is very, very clearly not what we wanted. It is called propaganda and spin, marra. It's been around for centuries. You should look it up. If you choose to believe everything you hear, even when it is in conflict with whatever little common sense you have, then you probably have a bit of a problem. I thought there were reputable sunderland ITKs who seemed to think that Sunderland are paying a % of KJ's wages in addition to his loyalty bonus and Stoke paying him a massive signing on fee to lower his weekly?
|
|
|
Post by nqsdiscopants on Sept 3, 2010 9:33:44 GMT
It is called propaganda and spin, marra. It's been around for centuries. You should look it up. If you choose to believe everything you hear, even when it is in conflict with whatever little common sense you have, then you probably have a bit of a problem. I thought there were reputable sunderland ITKs who seemed to think that Sunderland are paying a % of KJ's wages in addition to his loyalty bonus and Stoke paying him a massive signing on fee to lower his weekly? I would class Tony Pulis as a reputable ITK on this one, and he was quite clear in what he said about the deal - Stoke couldnt afford his wages so Sunderland "took care of that" so that the deal could happen. Captain Fishpaste seems intent on peddling some conspiracy theory whereby Sunderland didnt make that payment, but rather only made a bog standard "loyalty payment". If that was true Pulis was lying; and surely someone from SAFC would have spoken out publicly to put him right? I've always thought Pulis was the type to call a spade a spade, and if he reckons we agreed to pay Jones off, in order to get him out of the club, then I'm inclined to believe him - especially when there's not one shred of evidence to suggest he's lying.
|
|
|
Post by mailman44 on Sept 3, 2010 9:46:27 GMT
What is a "marra" for our international posters?
|
|
kert
Youth Player
Posts: 464
|
Post by kert on Sept 3, 2010 10:00:22 GMT
marra = mate/friend.
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Sept 3, 2010 10:07:41 GMT
I find it a bit bizarre that our Geordie friends ( ) think that Eidur is some sort of mercenary. ??? He is being payed the same money that he was at Monaco (after a deal was struck between the two clubs) but the differences now are that: a) He'll be playing now instead of sitting in the stands and b) He'll now be paying tax with about half of his salary being payed to him from England and not Monaco. Therefore his net income will have dropped. Perhaps my understanding of the definition of the word is incorrect?
|
|
blaow
Youth Player
Posts: 430
|
Post by blaow on Sept 3, 2010 10:24:06 GMT
captain mate you should think about a career in politics or negotiation...
even when i dont believe what you're saying i can't help but agree with you because youre so well reasoned
you bastard
x
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Sept 3, 2010 10:29:14 GMT
I thought there were reputable sunderland ITKs who seemed to think that Sunderland are paying a % of KJ's wages in addition to his loyalty bonus and Stoke paying him a massive signing on fee to lower his weekly? I would class Tony Pulis as a reputable ITK on this one, and he was quite clear in what he said about the deal - Stoke couldnt afford his wages so Sunderland "took care of that" so that the deal could happen. Captain Fishpaste seems intent on peddling some conspiracy theory whereby Sunderland didnt make that payment, but rather only made a bog standard "loyalty payment". If that was true Pulis was lying; and surely someone from SAFC would have spoken out publicly to put him right? I've always thought Pulis was the type to call a spade a spade, and if he reckons we agreed to pay Jones off, in order to get him out of the club, then I'm inclined to believe him - especially when there's not one shred of evidence to suggest he's lying. Pulis has got his own agenda. It's fairly obious that what fishpaste has said is what has gone on, and even your own alleged ITKs can grasp it oatcakefanzine.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=Potters&thread=131287&page=1#2136463
|
|
|
Post by jason on Sept 3, 2010 10:31:45 GMT
Seriously, who cares? Obviously coates can afford it so stop moaning and smile.
|
|
coggy
Youth Player
Posts: 340
|
Post by coggy on Sept 3, 2010 10:35:09 GMT
I would class Tony Pulis as a reputable ITK on this one, and he was quite clear in what he said about the deal - Stoke couldnt afford his wages so Sunderland "took care of that" so that the deal could happen. Captain Fishpaste seems intent on peddling some conspiracy theory whereby Sunderland didnt make that payment, but rather only made a bog standard "loyalty payment". If that was true Pulis was lying; and surely someone from SAFC would have spoken out publicly to put him right? I've always thought Pulis was the type to call a spade a spade, and if he reckons we agreed to pay Jones off, in order to get him out of the club, then I'm inclined to believe him - especially when there's not one shred of evidence to suggest he's lying. Pulis has got his own agenda. It's fairly obious that what fishpaste has said is what has gone on, and even your own alleged ITKs can grasp it oatcakefanzine.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=Potters&thread=131287&page=1#2136463 ;D
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Sept 3, 2010 12:25:27 GMT
What a strange thread!
some Sunderland fans got the impression from Eidur's interview that he was underwhelmed to be signing for Stoke
maybe he is,maybe he's just laid back time will tell
there is no way in a million years that Sunderland fans are as arrogant as Newcastle (collectively there are always exceptions) as thats nigh on impossible
|
|
|
Post by captainfishpaste on Sept 3, 2010 14:24:26 GMT
I would class Tony Pulis as a reputable ITK on this one, and he was quite clear in what he said about the deal - Stoke couldnt afford his wages so Sunderland "took care of that" so that the deal could happen. Captain Fishpaste seems intent on peddling some conspiracy theory whereby Sunderland didnt make that payment, but rather only made a bog standard "loyalty payment". If that was true Pulis was lying; and surely someone from SAFC would have spoken out publicly to put him right? I've always thought Pulis was the type to call a spade a spade, and if he reckons we agreed to pay Jones off, in order to get him out of the club, then I'm inclined to believe him - especially when there's not one shred of evidence to suggest he's lying. Pulis has got his own agenda. It's fairly obious that what fishpaste has said is what has gone on, and even your own alleged ITKs can grasp it oatcakefanzine.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=Potters&thread=131287&page=1#2136463The ITK on our message board who made that post is as solid as they come. If he said felt confident enough in the information to post it on the SMB then it is true. Certainly in the 6 years or so I have been posting over there he has been by far and away the most consistent and accurate ITK, anyway. Although I disagree with him about Pulis being "silly". I actually think Pulis put some very clever spin on it.
|
|