|
| |  Posted 05/02/2008 18:33:22 | |
| 
Premiership Poster
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 22/07/2008 17:55:35
Posts: 3,785, Visits: 6,572 |
| *is happy**
**horny
_______________________________________________________________________
Fun-spoiling tart |
| |
| | | Posted 05/02/2008 18:43:36 | |
| 
Premiership Poster
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 14/08/2008 15:57:17
Posts: 10,675, Visits: 4,891 |
| Bert Trautmanns neck brace (05/02/2008)
He daren't be a WUM--his priviliges will be withdrawn by the moderator.
Lollage.
On the topic though, they accepted the deal right? They must be reasonably happy with it-they could have said no.
-------------------
up, charm, top, down, strange, bottom |
| |
| | | Posted 05/02/2008 18:49:59 | |
| 
Championship Poster
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 03/05/2008 06:21:15
Posts: 752, Visits: 1,454 |
| | I understand BU's discomfort. I'll do business with him anytime. The thing is though that we don't know, and probably never will know, what really went down. City can't have been skating on particularly thin ice because Portsmouth wasn't really going on the attack. Furthermore, the pragmatism of the FA and PL, who really wanted the clubs to work something out, suggests there was some substance to City's retisence. Otherwise, they would have been prattling on about rules and policy. It looks like a pretty good piece of business from our side. |
| |
| | | Posted 05/02/2008 19:06:25 | |
| 
Used to be SB, you know
Group: Moderators
Last Login: 14/08/2008 22:37:11
Posts: 5,942, Visits: 7,572 |
| I understand it too, but only if we had genuinely and deliberately screwed them over, which I don't feel we've done. Had the medical gone ahead earlier, the issue of his knee would have been brought to light in plenty of time and we'd have been well within our rights to renegotiate (analogous to making an offer on a house 'subject to survey'). We may have ultimately benefitted from the fact that the deal ran out of time by being in a strong bargaining position, but Portsmouth should have made sure he got to us in plenty of time - unless they deliberately left it late to try and cover up the potential problem to get the full price for him, of course. How many times have we posted that 'I'll drive him there myself' when one of our surplus players is linked with another club? Why would we do that? To facilitate the move and make sure it all goes through as smoothly and as quickly as possible. Portsmouth should have taken equivalent precautions if they wanted to sell him, and they certainly played their part in the botched deal, but the outcome would quite possibly have been the same even if they had.
Keeper of the heretic's fork of doom. |
| |
| | | Posted 05/02/2008 19:10:12 | |
|
Premiership Poster
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 14/08/2008 15:57:17
Posts: 10,675, Visits: 4,891 |
| Labmonkey (05/02/2008)
I understand it too, but only if we had genuinely and deliberately screwed them over, which I don't feel we've done. Had the medical gone ahead earlier, the issue of his knee would have been brought to light in plenty of time and we'd have been well within our rights to renegotiate (analogous to making an offer on a house 'subject to survey'). We may have ultimatelybenefitted from the fact that the deal ran out of time by being in a strong bargaining position, but Portsmouth should have made sure he got to us in plenty of time - unless they deliberately left it late to try and cover up the potential problem to get the full price for him, of course. How many times have we posted that 'I'll drive him there myself' when one of our surplus players is linked with another club? Why would we do that? To facilitate the move and make sure it all goes through as smoothly and as quickly as possible. Portsmouth should have taken equivalent precautions if they wanted to sell him, and they certainly played their part in the botched deal, but the outcome would quite possibly have been the same even if they had.
And that is what I suspect. And as I said, they could always have said no-wasn't 'arry saying he'd be delighted to have him back?
-------------------
up, charm, top, down, strange, bottom |
| |
| | | Posted 05/02/2008 19:33:52 | |
| 
Premiership Poster
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 02/07/2008 14:27:23
Posts: 5,331, Visits: 4,767 |
| Labmonkey (05/02/2008)
I understand it too, but only if we had genuinely and deliberately screwed them over, which I don't feel we've done. Had the medical gone ahead earlier, the issue of his knee would have been brought to light in plenty of time and we'd have been well within our rights to renegotiate (analogous to making an offer on a house 'subject to survey'). We may have ultimately benefitted from the fact that the deal ran out of time by being in a strong bargaining position, but Portsmouth should have made sure he got to us in plenty of time - unless they deliberately left it late to try and cover up the potential problem to get the full price for him, of course. How many times have we posted that 'I'll drive him there myself' when one of our surplus players is linked with another club? Why would we do that? To facilitate the move and make sure it all goes through as smoothly and as quickly as possible. Portsmouth should have taken equivalent precautions if they wanted to sell him, and they certainly played their part in the botched deal, but the outcome would quite possibly have been the same even if they had.yes.
Yes, all right.. Christ Almighty! It's like walking down a corridor and answering the door in Nazi Germany! |
| |
| | | Posted 05/02/2008 20:23:28 | |
| 
Premiership Poster
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 02/05/2008 09:58:40
Posts: 1,529, Visits: 1,429 |
| Benny (05/02/2008)
Labmonkey (05/02/2008)
I understand it too, but only if we had genuinely and deliberately screwed them over, which I don't feel we've done. Had the medical gone ahead earlier, the issue of his knee would have been brought to light in plenty of time and we'd have been well within our rights to renegotiate (analogous to making an offer on a house 'subject to survey'). We may have ultimatelybenefitted from the fact that the deal ran out of time by being in a strong bargaining position, but Portsmouth should have made sure he got to us in plenty of time - unless they deliberately left it late to try and cover up the potential problem to get the full price for him, of course. How many times have we posted that 'I'll drive him there myself' when one of our surplus players is linked with another club? Why would we do that? To facilitate the move and make sure it all goes through as smoothly and as quickly as possible. Portsmouth should have taken equivalent precautions if they wanted to sell him, and they certainly played their part in the botched deal, but the outcome would quite possibly have been the same even if they had.And that is what I suspect. And as I said, they could always have said no-wasn't 'arry saying he'd be delighted to have him back? Which brings me back to my second point. If we haven't screwed them over and, as you and I suspect, 'arry is happy enough with the deal, why are people cooing over some sort of victory over him? Makes us look like fools it does. We can't have it both ways.
Sometimes I wish that I could stop you from talking when I hear the silly things that you say |
| |
| | | Posted 05/02/2008 20:26:15 | |
|
Premiership Poster
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 14/08/2008 15:57:17
Posts: 10,675, Visits: 4,891 |
| Born Unlucky (05/02/2008)
Benny (05/02/2008)
Labmonkey (05/02/2008)
I understand it too, but only if we had genuinely and deliberately screwed them over, which I don't feel we've done. Had the medical gone ahead earlier, the issue of his knee would have been brought to light in plenty of time and we'd have been well within our rights to renegotiate (analogous to making an offer on a house 'subject to survey'). We may have ultimatelybenefitted from the fact that the deal ran out of time by being in a strong bargaining position, but Portsmouth should have made sure he got to us in plenty of time - unless they deliberately left it late to try and cover up the potential problem to get the full price for him, of course. How many times have we posted that 'I'll drive him there myself' when one of our surplus players is linked with another club? Why would we do that? To facilitate the move and make sure it all goes through as smoothly and as quickly as possible. Portsmouth should have taken equivalent precautions if they wanted to sell him, and they certainly played their part in the botched deal, but the outcome would quite possibly have been the same even if they had.
And that is what I suspect. And as I said, they could always have said no-wasn't 'arry saying he'd be delighted to have him back?
Which brings me back tomy secondpoint. If we haven't screwed them over and, as you and I suspect, 'arry is happy enough with the deal, why are people cooing over some sort of victory over him? Makes us look like fools it does.
We can't have it both ways.
You're right. I just think we got a decent deal, they accepted, so we haven't got a big victory over pompey, but seems like a good deal. I guess there's a fair amount of Anti-Pompeyness.
I want it both ways though.
-------------------
up, charm, top, down, strange, bottom |
| |
| | | Posted 05/02/2008 20:31:04 | |
|
Premiership Poster
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 02/05/2008 09:58:40
Posts: 1,529, Visits: 1,429 |
| Benny (05/02/2008)
Born Unlucky (05/02/2008)
Benny (05/02/2008)
Labmonkey (05/02/2008)
I understand it too, but only if we had genuinely and deliberately screwed them over, which I don't feel we've done. Had the medical gone ahead earlier, the issue of his knee would have been brought to light in plenty of time and we'd have been well within our rights to renegotiate (analogous to making an offer on a house 'subject to survey'). We may have ultimatelybenefitted from the fact that the deal ran out of time by being in a strong bargaining position, but Portsmouth should have made sure he got to us in plenty of time - unless they deliberately left it late to try and cover up the potential problem to get the full price for him, of course. How many times have we posted that 'I'll drive him there myself' when one of our surplus players is linked with another club? Why would we do that? To facilitate the move and make sure it all goes through as smoothly and as quickly as possible. Portsmouth should have taken equivalent precautions if they wanted to sell him, and they certainly played their part in the botched deal, but the outcome would quite possibly have been the same even if they had.And that is what I suspect. And as I said, they could always have said no-wasn't 'arry saying he'd be delighted to have him back? Which brings me back tomy secondpoint. If we haven't screwed them over and, as you and I suspect, 'arry is happy enough with the deal, why are people cooing over some sort of victory over him? Makes us look like fools it does. We can't have it both ways. You're right. I just think we got a decent deal, they accepted, so we haven't got a big victory over pompey, but seems like a good deal. I guess there's a fair amount of Anti-Pompeyness. I want it both ways though. Plenty of it is coming from my direction, believe me, but I want a proper victory, not straw clutching.
As the actress said to the bishop and his brother?
Sometimes I wish that I could stop you from talking when I hear the silly things that you say |
| |
| | | Posted 05/02/2008 20:31:33 | |
| | |
|