marshy Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 +1 and like i said, his goals were mainly fks and pks Just a thought but when he was out on loan and we were on our bad run how many fks and pens were put away? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonesyOAFC Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Just a thought but when he was out on loan and we were on our bad run how many fks and pens were put away? How many penalties did we get? Plus the only free kick I can remember him scoring is trannies away... could be wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c.hill12 Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 arnfield was only a 'reported 400k' delph went to a top 6 prem club from a club not quite as skint as us edwards wont to wolves for 675k and luton payed 250k in the 1st place for him. they made just over 100% profit on him in around 2 years we made just over 100% profit on stephens in around 2 years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c.hill12 Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 How many penalties did we get? Plus the only free kick I can remember him scoring is trannies away... could be wrong. the only pen i remember while he was away was v notts county and was scored by lowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Those creaming themselves about his goals ratio from midfield must have been looking the other way when Eardley was playing there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonesyOAFC Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 the only pen i remember while he was away was v notts county and was scored by lowe So that's a moot point then... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c.hill12 Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 So that's a moot point then... you mean marshys comment about how many freekicks and pens were put away while he wasn't here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonesyOAFC Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 you mean marshys comment about how many freekicks and pens were put away while he wasn't here Aye. Seemed an odd argument anyway really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 1) what does it matter if he has 76 years on his contract? A buying club will look at what they get for wages plus fee minus potential sell on. So asking for the moon means we get :censored: all. 2) why is it that our :censored: players become great when they are sold? Eardley was a better midfielder than stephens and the only player we have been robbed for, and the fans played a big part in that. Trotters, philli and spencer we were laughing all the way to the bank It doesn't matter how many years he had on his contract as long as it was more than 1. If Stephens had only 12 months left and could leave at the season's end and we then get nowt (I don't think it would have applied but I get confused with the rules) then I'd have taken about £150k- he is no where near Eardley's class. Eardley wanted to leave to move up a level, the fact that some fans thought Lomax was better, he was getting dog's abuse at times, and didn't get on with Gregan all made matters worse. We could have offered him the moon on a stick but unless we were in the Championship come season's end he was leaving and we'd have got nowt. Stephens, however, had another 2 years left on his deal, has reportedly turned down Championship sides and stayed in league 1 and even though they've splashed the cash I can't see Charlton going up this year. He is one of our better players but just because he is doesn't mean we should have sold him for more. There will be replacements of his quality knocking around for free (unlike Eardley) and we can use his wages which will be pretty decent, especially as we did look quite weak defensively when we played 442 with Furman, Stephens, Morais and Taylor as our midfield. Last season we sold one of our best players, our top scorer, our penalty taker to Charlton for what seemed peanuts, he didn't do well and part of the reason we sold him was because he didn't fit into Dickov's system; the same could still apply. Time will tell if we sold at a decent price, if Dale does well at Charlton and gets a move to the Championship within 2 years for big money then we should have sold him for more. If he becomes another Trotman then we have done well, it may well depend on how well Charlton do in the first half. If they are still mid-table at xmas, Powell could be gone and Stephens could have been shunted aside for someone new. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 If we asked big money for him other clubs would have gone for other players on a free, offering bigger wages. He isnt eusabio for :censored:s' sake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshy Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 (edited) Aye. Seemed an odd argument anyway really. Wasn't an augment was a guanine question since people were saying most of the goals were from freekicks or pens! U feel it was a moot point fair enough! Edited June 29, 2011 by marshy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laticsrblue Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 People seem to be really over exaggerating Dales ability. He is/was not our best player, and, goals aside, was anonymous for large parts of last season. He is a good player, but getting nearly 400k for a guy who was our 3rd, maybe 4th best player isn't that bad business, is it? Look back through last seasons goals on Latics Player when Dale was around. I think you'll find he had a say in most of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilsonjunior Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Apparently Stephens has completed his moves...... http://www.southlondon-today.co.uk/sport.cfm?id=23555&headline=Charlton%20land%20Stephens%20and%20Green Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razza699 Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 How :censored: we was without Stephens shows how important he was for us. But if we can use his money to bring 3 top players in then its worth it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 How :censored: we was without Stephens shows how important he was for us. But if we can use his money to bring 3 top players in then its worth it I don't know, at Hudds, v Carlisle, Brizzle and the Mongs we dominated, and didn't get what we deserved. The wheels only truly came off v Peterborough and Bournemouth, then he was back in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razza699 Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 I don't know, at Hudds, v Carlisle, Brizzle and the Mongs we dominated, and didn't get what we deserved. The wheels only truly came off v Peterborough and Bournemouth, then he was back in. Im just still scarred about having to see Sam Mantom play, the mascot would have been better Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laticdickovarmy Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 375,000 less 20% remember lads so its more like 300,000 but saying that im sure if Charlton go up there will some extra money, in fact i would be hoping they do as i would be pretty sure Latics would have missed out on that chance perhaps the deal would raise to 500,000 on that basis This is why i hate undisclosed transfers, we pay players wages and don't get to see the value the club sold them for If we get a striker ot two, 2 keepers, 2 defenders and a midfielder i would be happy and i dont think with this money we will not be paying anyones wages late, i think we should concentrate on the positves from the deal Oh and I really hope we dont get idiots who boo him on his return, its a good chance to get a good crowd on a CAT a game what with him and Evina coming to town that should make us a few bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Burns Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 how football can expect 'financial fair play' whilst allowing undisclosed transfers is beyond me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 375,000 less 20% remember lads so its more like 300,000 but saying that im sure if Charlton go up there will some extra money, in fact i would be hoping they do as i would be pretty sure Latics would have missed out on that chance perhaps the deal would raise to 500,000 on that basis This is why i hate undisclosed transfers, we pay players wages and don't get to see the value the club sold them for If we get a striker ot two, 2 keepers, 2 defenders and a midfielder i would be happy and i dont think with this money we will not be paying anyones wages late, i think we should concentrate on the positves from the deal Oh and I really hope we dont get idiots who boo him on his return, its a good chance to get a good crowd on a CAT a game what with him and Evina coming to town that should make us a few bob Heard from a good source with various add ons and clauses, depending on goals, appearances, Charlton getting promoted and doing well in the league above it, could be anything up to £750k with a sell on clause. That's not too bad, BUT it's a gamble, £500k upfront would have been better imo. Anyhow, slept on it, not as pissed off as I was last night (or as wound as I was at a certain exam board i'm marking for) and I think if it helps Dicky bring in his targets then so be it, given that Stephens was written off after leaving on loan anyway, it was clear he wasn't part of the manager's plans anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laticdickovarmy Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 how football can expect 'financial fair play' whilst allowing undisclosed transfers is beyond me. Spot on I recently brought a house and even the price of that is in the public domain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldhamoafc Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Will the money REALLY be given to Dickov to bring players in? REALLY? We struggled to pay players on time a few months ago and now we are being told we will get the money straight back for transfers? People expect us to pay for Cody with the money? What about our loss's and the fact we have no money barring season ticket sales. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldhamandy1 Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 We were told by Hardy via the Chron that any money recieved for our players would go back into the transfer budget. With no evidence it would be unfair to accuse Hardy of lieing, the late payments came about because of investors backing out. We may not get the money for transfers but to act as if people are naive because they take a quote from Hardy at face value doesn't really seem fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldhamoafc Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 We were told by Hardy via the Chron that any money recieved for our players would go back into the transfer budget. With no evidence it would be unfair to accuse Hardy of lieing, the late payments came about because of investors backing out. We may not get the money for transfers but to act as if people are naive because they take a quote from Hardy at face value doesn't really seem fair. If you read my post properly im not saying Hardy is lying. Its simply stating the reality of the situation we are in. We are skint and i cant see us spending 250k on Mcdonald like people are suggesting. Yeah some will go to offering players more wages. But after all the moaning and preaching about the lack of money it would be stupid to spend the 300k on fees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnthonyOAFC Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 I still think we could of got a tad more for Stephens if I'm honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancy lad Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 If you read my post properly im not saying Hardy is lying. Its simply stating the reality of the situation we are in. We are skint and i cant see us spending 250k on Mcdonald like people are suggesting. Yeah some will go to offering players more wages. But after all the moaning and preaching about the lack of money it would be stupid to spend the 300k on fees. Who said anything about fees? I read it that the money would be used for team purposes. That doesnt automatically mean transfer fees it could be used for playes wages! £300k over a 1 year period equates to 2 £3k a week players or 3 £2k a week players!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.