Jump to content

new signing to be announced


Recommended Posts

no sadly c hill I'm living in Surrey but hope it goes well mate, with player share if this Latvian comes good an we've paid half his contract an we move him on for 200k could we not split that with the club an then that goes back into the pot? I'd rather see player share grow than constantly bleed dry. question or point? fair enough harry

Nice idea but the club would never, ever sign up to an arrangement like that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Perhaps it's this:-

Q: "Can someone involved in Playershare tell us ...?"

A: "No, they cannot tell you as they are not privy to this"

 

Then someone gets upset, someone bites back, the referee pulls a knife, mrs morley stabs someone, russia launch a nuclear device and it reminds me of sweden.

Bingo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was mentioned at a previous meeting regarding evina and the fee. It was stated that football league rules would be broken as players can not hold joint registrations as such (as in tevez case). But we can diacuss at next meeting to find a possible way round it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Third party ownership is not permitted in the PL (so I presume the same is true in the FL) and frowned upon by UEFA. So it couldn't be contractual. And if it isn't contractual, it's worthless as the club could ignore it or just hide the value of a sale from Playershare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps an agreement to ring fence the player share money so any profit gets invested back into the playing side of the club as opposed to helping to pay off the debt would be possible. I doubt SC would agree to it but it might be worth a cheeky ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lags is correct any money that is raised on the eventually selling on of a player share player goes back in to the club for future team building. Cedric evina is an example of that as we sold him onto charlton for roughly 50k.

 

However, I do take on board jw valid point that maybe we should consider taking back, the initial outlay player share has invested rather then starting from scratch. I will put this on the agenda to discuss for the next committee meeting.

 

Won't happen.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

whats this Eddie like then ?

"hes a fackin liability"

As someone said earlier i think the nickname latvian Eddie is quality, dont really care if hes any good or not now, we need to start signing more players just for their names/nicknames. I would love a Swiss Tony next,or an Iron Mike, either would suffice , im not too fussed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...if he was offered - you'd take the :censored:er.

Sorry rummy I have standards of oggling our players....and shrek is below that standard...

 

But if we're talking footy......let him bench warm at bp on a snowy eve first and fight for his chuffing place like the rest. Hehe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no sadly c hill I'm living in Surrey but hope it goes well mate, with player share if this Latvian comes good an we've paid half his contract an we move him on for 200k could we not split that with the club an then that goes back into the pot? I'd rather see player share grow than constantly bleed dry. question or point? fair enough harry

This is what should happen. Is there an option for a second year? As it would be a mare if he was a huge success and moved on a free this time next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...