Gus the teenage cow is it possible the 500k quoted for howard was written off as a loan fee for harper and in fact we didn't pay anything for howard
And perhaps a clever way of getting around paying any re-sale percentage to Arsenal?
by wolsey » 02 Sep 2009 14:07
Gus the teenage cow is it possible the 500k quoted for howard was written off as a loan fee for harper and in fact we didn't pay anything for howard
by Royalwaster » 02 Sep 2009 14:15
IdealThat Friday Feeling I would imagine the 40% sell on clause we'd owe Arsenal made just getting him off the wage roll a more attractive proposition.
Well I'mm no rocket scientist, but isn't 60% out of £2 million a whole lot more than £0?? which seems to be what we're getting for him by loaning him out.
by URZZZZZZZZ » 02 Sep 2009 14:19
RoyalwasterIdealThat Friday Feeling I would imagine the 40% sell on clause we'd owe Arsenal made just getting him off the wage roll a more attractive proposition.
Well I'mm no rocket scientist, but isn't 60% out of £2 million a whole lot more than £0?? which seems to be what we're getting for him by loaning him out.
Play FM or CM for oxf*rd's sake and learn about loan fees.
by Thaumagurist* » 02 Sep 2009 14:20
RoyalwasterIdealThat Friday Feeling I would imagine the 40% sell on clause we'd owe Arsenal made just getting him off the wage roll a more attractive proposition.
Well I'mm no rocket scientist, but isn't 60% out of £2 million a whole lot more than £0?? which seems to be what we're getting for him by loaning him out.
Play FM or CM for oxf*rd's sake and learn about loan fees.
by RoyalBlue » 02 Sep 2009 14:21
(.)Boobies(.)RoyalBlue Only it doesn't make sense at all. It seems to overlook the fact that if we were to sell Harper we would still save his wages!
You're stating the obvious. No one offered us money for Harper apart from Wolves, and that fell through. Plan B - loan him out and save the considerable wages he was on.
Sun TzuRoyalBlueRoyalwaster Harper has a 60% sell on clause? His wages are not much less than 20k a week. We save about £800k by loaning him out, or we could sell for what was said to be about £1.8m - 60%. Together the football club have saved £3m by letting these two go. That's what it comes down to.
I'd say worth pasting your message into every thread - as it is pretty much the only one that makes sense.
Only it doesn't make sense at all. It seems to overlook the fact that if we were to sell Harper we would still save his wages!
by Barney » 02 Sep 2009 14:24
AF1Barney So let me just check what has happened so far.
We got relegated from the Prem, and then choked the playoffs. So a lot of folks on
here called for Coppell to go. In amongst this time, a bucket load of players got
slaughtered (Murty, Hannaman, Duberry, Lita, Rosenior, Shunt, Harper to name a few).
So the club brought a young-ish manager in, and are trying something different. A lot of
the 'old guard' have gone, and hand on heart has Harper REALLY played that well recently ?
Are we REALLY going to miss Rosenior ?
Rightly or wrongly, Rodgers and the board are trying something different. Mills, Cummins, O'Dea
will be busting a gut to do well here. And for the first time in a while, we are seeing players come
through from the Academy. Will it work ? Who knows. I for one think it is a breath of fresh air, and whilst
I appreciate what Harper, USA, Doyle, Murty etc etc did for Reading FC it is time to move on.
This is part of what following your club is about. Good luck to you Rodgers. Let's start a new chapter,
not reading all that shit tbh
by Gus the teenage cow » 02 Sep 2009 14:25
wolseyGus the teenage cow is it possible the 500k quoted for howard was written off as a loan fee for harper and in fact we didn't pay anything for howard
And perhaps a clever way of getting around paying any re-sale percentage to Arsenal?
by AF1 » 02 Sep 2009 14:32
Gus the teenage cowwolseyGus the teenage cow is it possible the 500k quoted for howard was written off as a loan fee for harper and in fact we didn't pay anything for howard
And perhaps a clever way of getting around paying any re-sale percentage to Arsenal?
won't arsenal be on to us for fraud in that case?
by LoyalRoyalFan » 02 Sep 2009 14:52
Rodgers :
Liam is also in the final year of his contract and I obviously have to look beyond this season and construct a team for the future.
by Sun Tzu » 02 Sep 2009 14:56
LoyalRoyalFan Bit of a rubbish excuse from Rodgers on why he loaned out Rosenior.Rodgers :
Liam is also in the final year of his contract and I obviously have to look beyond this season and construct a team for the future.
Seems to say, that he is not young enough to be in the squad and the club can't be bothered to pay his wages. So when Sean Cummings turns 21, will Rodgers be looking for an even younger replacement?
by wolsey » 02 Sep 2009 14:56
LoyalRoyalFan Bit of a rubbish excuse from Rodgers on why he loaned out Rosenior.Rodgers :
Liam is also in the final year of his contract and I obviously have to look beyond this season and construct a team for the future.
Seems to say, that he is not young enough to be in the squad and the club can't be bothered to pay his wages. So when Sean Cummings turns 21, will Rodgers be looking for an even younger replacement?
by juanpablo » 02 Sep 2009 14:58
ellpryjonRoyalwaster Harper has a 60% sell on clause? His wages are not much less than 20k a week. We save about £800k by loaning him out, or we could sell for what was said to be about £1.8m - 60%. Together the football club have saved £3m by letting these two go. That's what it comes down to.
by LoyalRoyalFan » 02 Sep 2009 14:58
wolseyLoyalRoyalFan Bit of a rubbish excuse from Rodgers on why he loaned out Rosenior.Rodgers :
Liam is also in the final year of his contract and I obviously have to look beyond this season and construct a team for the future.
Seems to say, that he is not young enough to be in the squad and the club can't be bothered to pay his wages. So when Sean Cummings turns 21, will Rodgers be looking for an even younger replacement?
No, just cheaper, or perhaps one whose views/attitude who won't challenge him
by Terminal Boardom » 02 Sep 2009 15:24
by Dirk Gently » 02 Sep 2009 15:24
Terminal Boardom WIll someone please explain to me why the club gets rid of Rosenior and Harper yet keeps the useless plank that is Kebe?
by juanpablo » 02 Sep 2009 15:31
Terminal Boardom WIll someone please explain to me why the club gets rid of Rosenior and Harper yet keeps the useless plank that is Kebe?
by winchester_royal » 02 Sep 2009 15:31
Dirk GentlyTerminal Boardom WIll someone please explain to me why the club gets rid of Rosenior and Harper yet keeps the useless plank that is Kebe?
Wages and the fact that no-one else who's come in offers the same ......
by Archie's penalty » 02 Sep 2009 15:33
by Terminal Boardom » 02 Sep 2009 15:37
winchester_royalDirk GentlyTerminal Boardom WIll someone please explain to me why the club gets rid of Rosenior and Harper yet keeps the useless plank that is Kebe?
Wages and the fact that no-one else who's come in offers the same ......
Not to mention the fact that he provided all 3 goals on saturday.
by winchester_royal » 02 Sep 2009 15:39
Terminal Boardom
18 months with us and he becomes a matchwinner? Against the team bottom of the Championship? That's where I have been going wrong all this time. One swallow DOES make a summer!!!