ayrshire_don74 Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Is this an option ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Street Loon Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Probably,but I doubt that it'd result in the return of Foster/Cafu. Velicka is quite possibly one of the worst piece's of business we've ever done. I've retracted the Nigel Pepper part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyBiscuit Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Velicka is quite possibly the worst piece of business we've ever done. Right up there with Nigel Pepper. Nonsense. He's not costing us anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc_don Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 I don't think he was alluding to monetary cost. But I'd hardly put it in the same bracket as Nigel Pepper! It was a shocking transfer, thats all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boboisared Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 I don't think it's ever been confirmed if we're paying anything for Velicka or not. Would certainly make no sense for the Huns to loan a player who is out of contract at the end of the season for free, they'd just release him. If we are paying wages due to the financial constraints on our club it certainly has to be up there with Pepper, in my opinion. That's with the help of hindsight obviously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Nonsense. He's not costing us anything. Allegedly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyBiscuit Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 I don't think he was alluding to monetary cost. But I'd hardly put it in the same bracket as Nigel Pepper! It was a shocking transfer, thats all. Whether it's monetary cost or not, it's still nowhere near the worst piece of business we've ever done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1dnk Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 If, from what has been said, he seems uninterested then ship him out. Last thing we need is someone dragging their heels even if it is just in training. Due to the amount of youngsters in the first team squad we need more role models, we already have enough piss artists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_min Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 We may not be paying him wages, but he costs us in time and effort in the physio room and on the training pitch. Time and effort that should be used on one of our players. Just send him home, it's not doing either of us any good having him here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TENEMENTFUNSTER Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 If, from what has been said, he seems uninterested then ship him out. Last thing we need is someone dragging their heels even if it is just in training. Due to the amount of youngsters in the first team squad we need more role models, we already have enough piss artists. Correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyBiscuit Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 We may not be paying him wages, but he costs us in time and effort in the physio room and on the training pitch. Time and effort that should be used on one of our players. Just send him home, it's not doing either of us any good having him here. Aye, i'm not saying we shouldn't ship him out, just that to label that as the worst piece of business we've ever done is hyperbole. We've had far more catastrophic deals than this one. Have to keep in mind that we may actually end up getting some decent cash for Foster out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggy89 Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Would certainly make no sense for the Huns to loan a player who is out of contract at the end of the season for free, they'd just release him. Apart from they'd have had to pay him off and would have had no bargaining power in the loan deal for Foster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boboisared Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Apart from they'd have had to pay him off and would have had no bargaining power in the loan deal for Foster. Well it depends who you listen too. McGhee at the time said he initiated the move. Whether that's true or not who knows but I'd wager we'd have let Foster go on loan whethr we were getting Velicka or not. I think they'd rather pay him off than have him sitting doing nothing due to there being no reserve league if we didn't want him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_min Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Aye, i'm not saying we shouldn't ship him out, just that to label that as the worst piece of business we've ever done is hyperbole. We've had far more catastrophic deals than this one. Have to keep in mind that we may actually end up getting some decent cash for Foster out of it. Agree. I wouldn't even put it in the top 10 shite transfers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Millertime Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 i think you'll find he is getting paid a wage by us and its more than £2k from what I have heard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TENEMENTFUNSTER Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 i think you'll find he is getting paid a wage by us and its more than £2k from what I have heard What you heard being more of a fact than what every other cunt heard? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Millertime Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 What you heard being more of a fact than what every other cunt heard? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm yup. he's getting a wage from us (fact) and it's more than £2k too (positive) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TENEMENTFUNSTER Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 yup. he's getting a wage from us (fact) and it's more than £2k too (positive) I say you're wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyBiscuit Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 I say you're wrong. He can't be. He used the word "Fact". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Millertime Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 I say you're wrong. wanna bet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harcus Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TENEMENTFUNSTER Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 wanna bet? What the fuck are you going to do? Post up wage packets and bank statements from both clubs? I actually lolled there! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coopy100 Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Would certainly make no sense for the Huns to loan a player who is out of contract at the end of the season for free, they'd just release him. I disagree with you here bobo. Maybe the huns felt that they could send us Velicka on loan he would get his fitness and sharpness back and they could offer him a new contract, probably on reduced terms due to his injury woes. This would have been a striker that along with Kendo "super goal machine" Miller would help to replace boyd and give them some experienced attacking backup on the bench. I reckon he huns would have reasoned he had a far greater chance of first team action at us rather than them what with their 4 million signing. They may also have been worried about losing Kenny Miller this season as well as his contract is up. A win win situation for them. They would have had to pay his wages if they paid him off anyway. This way they get defensive back up and give Velicka a chance to prove his fitness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d0nald0n1 Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 I disagree with you here bobo. Maybe the huns felt that they could send us Velicka on loan he would get his fitness and sharpness back and they could offer him a new contract, probably on reduced terms due to his injury woes. This would have been a striker that along with Kendo "super goal machine" Miller would help to replace boyd and give them some experienced attacking backup on the bench. I reckon he huns would have reasoned he had a far greater chance of first team action at us rather than them what with their 4 million signing. They may also have been worried about losing Kenny Miller this season as well as his contract is up. A win win situation for them. They would have had to pay his wages if they paid him off anyway. This way they get defensive back up and give Velicka a chance to prove his fitness. This. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TENEMENTFUNSTER Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 This. Indeed, makes sense. Not necessarily the truth but the most sensible version of events. 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.