ooh-andy-ansah
Director
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
- Messages
- 2,242
There must be if Paul Dickov said there is :smile:8 pages and we still haven't had an answer to whether there is such a contract.
There must be if Paul Dickov said there is :smile:8 pages and we still haven't had an answer to whether there is such a contract.
8 pages and we still haven't had an answer to whether there is such a contract.
Chris Phillips just tweeted this:
Brown: "I would never be held to ransom on any loan deal. There are never clauses to say they must play."
In other news Phil has never denied he loves a nice lobster for his dinner :smile:Phil likes to publicly deny this:winking:
When Barnard rejoined us the team then went on their winless run and at the latter stages when the team were actually winning Barnard was an unused sub.
Food for thought.
I don't doubt for a second that there could be financial incentives for us to be playing Shaq (i.e. we cover his wages when he is fit but not in the team). I don't know either way if a clause like that is in his contract but it would make sense to all parties. It is a financial incentive similar to many in football and life.
But he will likely be on a pretty modest wage and you'd assume it would be built into the wage budget which seems to be being paid ok at the moment.
There's no more logic or fact behind a claim that Shaq has to play for financial reasons than there would be behind claiming that we're deliberately not winning in order to avoid having to pay win bonuses.
Somebody mentioned under Brown those you mentioned have scored 26 goals in 160 odd games,Are you happy then with that return?
You never acknowledged my points in why Coulthirst may be selected ahead of our other first team strikers. But then you always did ignore the reasonable points that don't fit in with your agenda.
I'm not happy with our goal return no. But as stated, none of the strikers we have, are scoring. What do you propose? Other than an untried untested striker that isn't even pulling up trees against developmental defenders?
Just because someone isn't happy with our forwards performance at the moment it doesn't mean they have to agree with your proposed alternative so why the "you couldn't make it up" comment ?So you moaned about me moaning about our forwards yet you are not happy with their goal return either.
You couldn't make it up.
Just to clear it all up, it is the forwards fault that we are not scoring then?
No it's Ben Coker's. Keep up.
Jamie O'Hara was on 800 quid a week as a trainee then he made the bench in a league cup game and received 1500 in appearance money,Within weeks he was offered a new deal worth 90 k then it was increased to 150k before finally ending on 700k a year,I reckon Shaq is on 2k a week possibly 3 maybe 4.
Guess what I don't know either!
I have never seen their contracts so I cannot know either way,I can only assume and grow even more suspicious when somebody else told me.
Just because someone isn't happy with our forwards performance at the moment it doesn't mean they have to agree with your proposed alternative so why the "you couldn't make it up" comment ?
Can't wait for this explanation.
Just to clear it all up, it is the forwards fault that we are not scoring then?
No it's Ben Coker's. Keep up.
Thought it was Simon Francis or have I missed several seasons :unsure:
Love it.....just goes to show you never know who you are debating with on a bulletin board.......that's made my day :thumbsup:I have text a friend who is a development coach at spurs, i will return with my findings in due course.