| Clucas deal specifics. 18:24 - Aug 21 with 17347 views | E20Jack |
I read the main Clucas thread and didnt see it clarified anywhere.
£16.5m is the total value of the package it is reported. I read one person say £15m + £1.5m in add-ons.. But where does that leave Kingsley? He is worth a couple of million surely?
£12m + £1.5m add ons + £3m Kingsley? =£16.5m.
Surely it isnt £16.5m AND Kingsley on top.... is it?
EDIT - just saw it in the Kingsley thread funnily enough. Ignore this! [Post edited 21 Aug 2017 18:25]
|  |
| |  |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 13:29 - Aug 23 with 1081 views | WarwickHunt |
 |  | | |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 13:45 - Aug 23 with 1013 views | E20Jack |
Ah the old fishing fall back. Of course.
At least you have realised your error.  | |
| |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 13:57 - Aug 23 with 980 views | Whiterockin |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 13:53 - Aug 23 by londonlisa2001 |
The bit I don't understand about you quoting these reports all the time, is if you take the one about the Siggy deal, there are three 'facts' mentioned:
- the deal where we bought Siggy valued him at £8m
- we have to pay Spurs £4.5m
- the % is based on the full fee
Now you know the first two are wrong don't you?
So why do you think the third is correct?
Because you've actually argued two points in this thread. One is that deals can be structured on the full fee from time to time (which I agree with). But the second is that the Siggy deal is structured that way. And you simply don't know that you be true. You are quoting worldwide reports while ignoring that they all come from the same source. So in fact, there is only one source, and it is only a 'we understand' type nonsense. It's possible. But it's equally possible that it's wrong. |
  |  | | |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 14:03 - Aug 23 with 962 views | E20Jack |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 13:53 - Aug 23 by londonlisa2001 |
The bit I don't understand about you quoting these reports all the time, is if you take the one about the Siggy deal, there are three 'facts' mentioned:
- the deal where we bought Siggy valued him at £8m
- we have to pay Spurs £4.5m
- the % is based on the full fee
Now you know the first two are wrong don't you?
So why do you think the third is correct?
Because you've actually argued two points in this thread. One is that deals can be structured on the full fee from time to time (which I agree with). But the second is that the Siggy deal is structured that way. And you simply don't know that you be true. You are quoting worldwide reports while ignoring that they all come from the same source. So in fact, there is only one source, and it is only a 'we understand' type nonsense. It's possible. But it's equally possible that it's wrong. |
I have explained my position perfectly. I did ask you to go back and read post 19 and 25 on page 1 as an explanation of the debate. I can only assume you haven't? You may understand why I believe your input to be slightly biased then.
Only one person has Claimed the deal as fact and that it WAS NOT structured like that. Mr Hunt. This was due to what you and I both agree is a misunderstanding on his part regarding the structures of sell on fees. He seems to think they are only done on profit, thus meaning in his head the Gylfi deal WAS NOT done in this way and therefore can correct others based on that "non" fact.
I have said from the very outset, my figures are based on the world wide reports (we do not know their origin, you are assuming). So until we know otherwise, it would be foolish to correct someone who is musing on those figures given and say "they were not done like that". Especially when the basis of the correction is an incorrect understanding.
I cannot fathom why you are directing these responses at me. When it is quite clearly my opinion that you agree with. The other side has used newsreports of OTHER transfers of OTHER players to back up their claim that the Siggy deal was not structured in this way. I do it in return and it is not valid?
You have said yourself deals are done in both profit and full fees. Yes?
Yet you are responding to the one that clearly says he will go on 100% of worldwide reports until reported otherwise... where as the other side has said they are going to assume the opposite based a notion we both know is wrong.
Makes no sense. [Post edited 23 Aug 2017 14:47]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Clucas deal specifics. on 14:12 - Aug 23 with 922 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 14:03 - Aug 23 by E20Jack |
I have explained my position perfectly. I did ask you to go back and read post 19 and 25 on page 1 as an explanation of the debate. I can only assume you haven't? You may understand why I believe your input to be slightly biased then.
Only one person has Claimed the deal as fact and that it WAS NOT structured like that. Mr Hunt. This was due to what you and I both agree is a misunderstanding on his part regarding the structures of sell on fees. He seems to think they are only done on profit, thus meaning in his head the Gylfi deal WAS NOT done in this way and therefore can correct others based on that "non" fact.
I have said from the very outset, my figures are based on the world wide reports (we do not know their origin, you are assuming). So until we know otherwise, it would be foolish to correct someone who is musing on those figures given and say "they were not done like that". Especially when the basis of the correction is an incorrect understanding.
I cannot fathom why you are directing these responses at me. When it is quite clearly my opinion that you agree with. The other side has used newsreports of OTHER transfers of OTHER players to back up their claim that the Siggy deal was not structured in this way. I do it in return and it is not valid?
You have said yourself deals are done in both profit and full fees. Yes?
Yet you are responding to the one that clearly says he will go on 100% of worldwide reports until reported otherwise... where as the other side has said they are going to assume the opposite based a notion we both know is wrong.
Makes no sense. [Post edited 23 Aug 2017 14:47]
|
I don't need to reread posts to understand them.
It started with you using £4m to attempt to work out what we will sell Llorente for (ignoring any part of whether we will or won't for now as I can't be bothered). The figures ignore Gomis by the way and the assumption you've made about the fee when you've mentioned Cork plus Gomis plus loans equalling Mesa plus Tammy is not correct. But anyway.
A couple of people said to use £3m intstead of £4m.
No one knows which is correct. Full stop. As it happens though, I wouldn't assume if I were you that the people who are saying different are doing so because they don't understand that deals can be structured that way... [Post edited 23 Aug 2017 14:13]
|  | | |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 14:30 - Aug 23 with 901 views | E20Jack |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 14:12 - Aug 23 by londonlisa2001 |
I don't need to reread posts to understand them.
It started with you using £4m to attempt to work out what we will sell Llorente for (ignoring any part of whether we will or won't for now as I can't be bothered). The figures ignore Gomis by the way and the assumption you've made about the fee when you've mentioned Cork plus Gomis plus loans equalling Mesa plus Tammy is not correct. But anyway.
A couple of people said to use £3m intstead of £4m.
No one knows which is correct. Full stop. As it happens though, I wouldn't assume if I were you that the people who are saying different are doing so because they don't understand that deals can be structured that way... [Post edited 23 Aug 2017 14:13]
|
You say ignore them and then go on to argue against them. It is an age old misdirection tactic. You know full well our incomings and outgoings off-set and thus was simply showing that. (They do not ignore Gomis either just to clarify, you have again misread).
Clearly it isnt to the pound, but again I don't for one second believe you thought it was claimed to be. We are not involved in transfer dealings so go on reported figures. They are as follows:-
£8m Cork
£2.5m Gomis
+ loan fees of Borja etc (1-2m?)
..................
£12m ball park
Mesa was reportedly signed for £11m
Loan fee for Abraham someone mentioned was £1m and is a believable enough figure.
...............
£12m ball park.
Feel free to tell us which part is incorrect and thus meaning they do not roughly off-set.
But back to the point..
You are correct that the debate started when I went on the £4m figure we reportedly had to pay Spurs for the initial £40m fee. It had foundation and basis, whether you doubt the validity of that basis is neither here nor there, it was set out that those figures would be the basis.
So you think it is correct to say "use £3m instead" - based on absolutely nothing - while brining my job into question as to say I have got it wrong? You and I both know there is no basis for that claim and they were incorrect to do so. It would be foolish to suggest otherwise and don't for a second think you would.
Again I can only assume you have not read the thread if you believe I am "assuming" there is a lack of understanding on the other side as to how these deals are structured. Mr Hunt claimed the "clue is in the title" and a sell on only is a sell on if there is profit involved. By your very own definition of your understanding that they are structured on both full and profit based transactions - you also must assume a misunderstanding to be the basis of that disagreement. Yes?
Lisa, you are a very good poster. I enjoy your posts. But you do have a tendancy to pick sides with posters you know and familiar with.
We both know if I had displayed the other opinion and claiming as fact the deal was done on just profit, based in an assuption that YOU disagree with fundamentally - you would not be stepping in to take my side. You can't even pretend that you would. You won't admit it and will probably outwardly disagree, but it will suffice enough for this purpose that we do both actually know that.
However the bottom line is, however you dress it up in order to protect Mr Hunt, and will put this in bold for emphasis... Ultimately you STILL agree with me that deals ARE done in this way and agree that assuming that it certainly isn't the case based on an incorrect understanding that they are not done in this way - is no basis to correct someone. Which is my point in a nutshell.
[Post edited 23 Aug 2017 14:54]
| |
| |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 14:57 - Aug 23 with 807 views | WarwickHunt |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 14:30 - Aug 23 by E20Jack |
You say ignore them and then go on to argue against them. It is an age old misdirection tactic. You know full well our incomings and outgoings off-set and thus was simply showing that. (They do not ignore Gomis either just to clarify, you have again misread).
Clearly it isnt to the pound, but again I don't for one second believe you thought it was claimed to be. We are not involved in transfer dealings so go on reported figures. They are as follows:-
£8m Cork
£2.5m Gomis
+ loan fees of Borja etc (1-2m?)
..................
£12m ball park
Mesa was reportedly signed for £11m
Loan fee for Abraham someone mentioned was £1m and is a believable enough figure.
...............
£12m ball park.
Feel free to tell us which part is incorrect and thus meaning they do not roughly off-set.
But back to the point..
You are correct that the debate started when I went on the £4m figure we reportedly had to pay Spurs for the initial £40m fee. It had foundation and basis, whether you doubt the validity of that basis is neither here nor there, it was set out that those figures would be the basis.
So you think it is correct to say "use £3m instead" - based on absolutely nothing - while brining my job into question as to say I have got it wrong? You and I both know there is no basis for that claim and they were incorrect to do so. It would be foolish to suggest otherwise and don't for a second think you would.
Again I can only assume you have not read the thread if you believe I am "assuming" there is a lack of understanding on the other side as to how these deals are structured. Mr Hunt claimed the "clue is in the title" and a sell on only is a sell on if there is profit involved. By your very own definition of your understanding that they are structured on both full and profit based transactions - you also must assume a misunderstanding to be the basis of that disagreement. Yes?
Lisa, you are a very good poster. I enjoy your posts. But you do have a tendancy to pick sides with posters you know and familiar with.
We both know if I had displayed the other opinion and claiming as fact the deal was done on just profit, based in an assuption that YOU disagree with fundamentally - you would not be stepping in to take my side. You can't even pretend that you would. You won't admit it and will probably outwardly disagree, but it will suffice enough for this purpose that we do both actually know that.
However the bottom line is, however you dress it up in order to protect Mr Hunt, and will put this in bold for emphasis... Ultimately you STILL agree with me that deals ARE done in this way and agree that assuming that it certainly isn't the case based on an incorrect understanding that they are not done in this way - is no basis to correct someone. Which is my point in a nutshell.
[Post edited 23 Aug 2017 14:54]
|
😂😂😂
Get help, pal.
Seriously. | | | |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 15:00 - Aug 23 with 801 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 14:30 - Aug 23 by E20Jack |
You say ignore them and then go on to argue against them. It is an age old misdirection tactic. You know full well our incomings and outgoings off-set and thus was simply showing that. (They do not ignore Gomis either just to clarify, you have again misread).
Clearly it isnt to the pound, but again I don't for one second believe you thought it was claimed to be. We are not involved in transfer dealings so go on reported figures. They are as follows:-
£8m Cork
£2.5m Gomis
+ loan fees of Borja etc (1-2m?)
..................
£12m ball park
Mesa was reportedly signed for £11m
Loan fee for Abraham someone mentioned was £1m and is a believable enough figure.
...............
£12m ball park.
Feel free to tell us which part is incorrect and thus meaning they do not roughly off-set.
But back to the point..
You are correct that the debate started when I went on the £4m figure we reportedly had to pay Spurs for the initial £40m fee. It had foundation and basis, whether you doubt the validity of that basis is neither here nor there, it was set out that those figures would be the basis.
So you think it is correct to say "use £3m instead" - based on absolutely nothing - while brining my job into question as to say I have got it wrong? You and I both know there is no basis for that claim and they were incorrect to do so. It would be foolish to suggest otherwise and don't for a second think you would.
Again I can only assume you have not read the thread if you believe I am "assuming" there is a lack of understanding on the other side as to how these deals are structured. Mr Hunt claimed the "clue is in the title" and a sell on only is a sell on if there is profit involved. By your very own definition of your understanding that they are structured on both full and profit based transactions - you also must assume a misunderstanding to be the basis of that disagreement. Yes?
Lisa, you are a very good poster. I enjoy your posts. But you do have a tendancy to pick sides with posters you know and familiar with.
We both know if I had displayed the other opinion and claiming as fact the deal was done on just profit, based in an assuption that YOU disagree with fundamentally - you would not be stepping in to take my side. You can't even pretend that you would. You won't admit it and will probably outwardly disagree, but it will suffice enough for this purpose that we do both actually know that.
However the bottom line is, however you dress it up in order to protect Mr Hunt, and will put this in bold for emphasis... Ultimately you STILL agree with me that deals ARE done in this way and agree that assuming that it certainly isn't the case based on an incorrect understanding that they are not done in this way - is no basis to correct someone. Which is my point in a nutshell.
[Post edited 23 Aug 2017 14:54]
|
I said ignoring the point about selling Llorente.
Your original calculation did ignore Gomis. When pointed out, you said that it was deliberate as you assumed the Gomis, Cork, loan fees covered Mesa and Tammy.
I didn't say it was correct to use £3m instead - I said no one knew which was correct.
And, again, please believe me when I say that you are wrong about whether I would or would not take your side as opposed to anyone else's side on here. You are giving yourself a level of importance that is quite genuinely unfounded by assuming I care one way or another with agreeing with you or disagreeing with you.
The reason I'm arguing with you on this thread is because you are basing your assumption on something that is fundamentally flawed, I.e, the view of a journalist. I have repeatedly said that I agree that deals can be structured on the full fee - I said so a week or so ago that it could be the case in this instance as it was a swap deal. But the fact that a journalist says it is the case here is as flawed as assuming it could not happen.
I also said a week or so ago in a response to Warwick that it could be the case here because it was a swap deal. So was I picking sides there as well? Or is Warwick able to accept that without drawing an inference about whether I was 'unfortunate' to disagree with him and agree with you, or make stupid statements about whether I would or would support him if I'd known?
I would only add that people are bringing up this issue of your job because you made such a big deal about it on that other endless thread. You used it (on several occasions), to signify expertise. So you can't then complain if people turn that the other way. | | | |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 15:23 - Aug 23 with 739 views | E20Jack |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 15:00 - Aug 23 by londonlisa2001 |
I said ignoring the point about selling Llorente.
Your original calculation did ignore Gomis. When pointed out, you said that it was deliberate as you assumed the Gomis, Cork, loan fees covered Mesa and Tammy.
I didn't say it was correct to use £3m instead - I said no one knew which was correct.
And, again, please believe me when I say that you are wrong about whether I would or would not take your side as opposed to anyone else's side on here. You are giving yourself a level of importance that is quite genuinely unfounded by assuming I care one way or another with agreeing with you or disagreeing with you.
The reason I'm arguing with you on this thread is because you are basing your assumption on something that is fundamentally flawed, I.e, the view of a journalist. I have repeatedly said that I agree that deals can be structured on the full fee - I said so a week or so ago that it could be the case in this instance as it was a swap deal. But the fact that a journalist says it is the case here is as flawed as assuming it could not happen.
I also said a week or so ago in a response to Warwick that it could be the case here because it was a swap deal. So was I picking sides there as well? Or is Warwick able to accept that without drawing an inference about whether I was 'unfortunate' to disagree with him and agree with you, or make stupid statements about whether I would or would support him if I'd known?
I would only add that people are bringing up this issue of your job because you made such a big deal about it on that other endless thread. You used it (on several occasions), to signify expertise. So you can't then complain if people turn that the other way. |
Well the point regarding Llorente again is neither here nor there, it was a musing as to where the money would come from in order to acquire the players we reportedly wish to bring in. Thus assuming that Llorente would be part of that equation as you have also stated elsewhere that it makes sense to sell a player in the last year of their contract (I believe it was you anyway, correct me if i am wrong).
You say you did not claim it to be correct for someone to interject and say "it was £3m". You also say nobody knows which figures are correct. But you do know what each figure is based on and who indeed is claiming it as fact. I have openly said mine is based on 100% of worldwide figures. The other has made it clear the basis was a misunderstanding of how these deals are structured and therefore claiming it as fact, there is a very and clear important difference there which you do not seem to want to see.
I most certainly am not giving myself a level of importance. I could be anyone arguing the same case against any of the people you are familiar or friendly with on this site and I believe your response would be the same. I am not the common denominator. It is not about me. It is about your trait which is to take sides of some over others, depending on where they stand in your social hierarchy. It is commendable in many ways, but it just doesn't help threads.
This is perfectly summed up by your next paragraph "I am arguing with you on this thread because you are basing your assumption on something which is fundamentally flawed - a journalists view".
Now then, Warwick is stating THIS CANNOT BE TRUE, BECAUSE DEALS ARE NOT DONE IN THIS WAY. Yet you have not directed anything at him, you made a passing comment in a massive post in response to myself. You have no idea where these journalists get their information so cannot pass judgement on the validity - yet YOU CAN pass jusgement on the other side as you have claimed that delas are in fact done like this. Yet you only focus on one that is sketchy at best? The one far more basis than the other and the one that has never claimed anything as fact. Surely that does not sound right?
Finally, and possibly more importantly in your passage, as I did not have you down for someone who would spread mistruths, I would like to pick you up on the fact that I have used my job (on several occasions) to signify expertise and thus cannot complain if people turn it the other way.
Can you point to any occasions on that other thread where I made any sort of big deal about my job. Even once let alone several occasions. From memory I was asked what my job is (on a thread regarding the odds of Gylfi leaving) and answered in wuite a friendly environment on ONE occasion. The rest of the time it was used for people losing a debate and trying to get a rise out of me, I would hope you are not including their comments and attributing them to me? As I dont even feel I mentioned it on that thread once let alone made any sort of deal about it. And even more concerning is then your view that seeing it as justification to be thrown back in my face when losing a debate is perfectly fine?
You are certainly not helping yourself to dispell the notion that you are biased on this and other subjects dependant on whom is partaking in the debate.
So to cut everything short (although would like clarification of the last point as think you made that a little personal and are clearly incorrect) can you confirm the following please:-
When Warwick interjected and said "It is on the profit not the full fee. Deals are not structured like that. The clue is in the title. What do you do for a day job again".... Do you believe he was correct to state that "non fact" or incorrect as I pointed out? Just correct or incorrect is all that is required.
The above is the absolute meat of this discussion, everything else is just a side show. The debate was me giving some fag packet numbers (due to the fact we offset player sales and purchases) as to figure out roughly how much we have to sell Llorente for to afford the targets reported. So only one was stating any facts in this debate, the one that said deals are NOT structured in this way which means Gylfi wasn't, the other was simply musing using reported figures.
An answer to that simple question will answer pretty much everything else (including the accusations of bias). It is a pretty easy question to answer. [Post edited 23 Aug 2017 15:34]
| |
| |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 15:39 - Aug 23 with 669 views | Treforys_Jack |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 15:23 - Aug 23 by E20Jack |
Well the point regarding Llorente again is neither here nor there, it was a musing as to where the money would come from in order to acquire the players we reportedly wish to bring in. Thus assuming that Llorente would be part of that equation as you have also stated elsewhere that it makes sense to sell a player in the last year of their contract (I believe it was you anyway, correct me if i am wrong).
You say you did not claim it to be correct for someone to interject and say "it was £3m". You also say nobody knows which figures are correct. But you do know what each figure is based on and who indeed is claiming it as fact. I have openly said mine is based on 100% of worldwide figures. The other has made it clear the basis was a misunderstanding of how these deals are structured and therefore claiming it as fact, there is a very and clear important difference there which you do not seem to want to see.
I most certainly am not giving myself a level of importance. I could be anyone arguing the same case against any of the people you are familiar or friendly with on this site and I believe your response would be the same. I am not the common denominator. It is not about me. It is about your trait which is to take sides of some over others, depending on where they stand in your social hierarchy. It is commendable in many ways, but it just doesn't help threads.
This is perfectly summed up by your next paragraph "I am arguing with you on this thread because you are basing your assumption on something which is fundamentally flawed - a journalists view".
Now then, Warwick is stating THIS CANNOT BE TRUE, BECAUSE DEALS ARE NOT DONE IN THIS WAY. Yet you have not directed anything at him, you made a passing comment in a massive post in response to myself. You have no idea where these journalists get their information so cannot pass judgement on the validity - yet YOU CAN pass jusgement on the other side as you have claimed that delas are in fact done like this. Yet you only focus on one that is sketchy at best? The one far more basis than the other and the one that has never claimed anything as fact. Surely that does not sound right?
Finally, and possibly more importantly in your passage, as I did not have you down for someone who would spread mistruths, I would like to pick you up on the fact that I have used my job (on several occasions) to signify expertise and thus cannot complain if people turn it the other way.
Can you point to any occasions on that other thread where I made any sort of big deal about my job. Even once let alone several occasions. From memory I was asked what my job is (on a thread regarding the odds of Gylfi leaving) and answered in wuite a friendly environment on ONE occasion. The rest of the time it was used for people losing a debate and trying to get a rise out of me, I would hope you are not including their comments and attributing them to me? As I dont even feel I mentioned it on that thread once let alone made any sort of deal about it. And even more concerning is then your view that seeing it as justification to be thrown back in my face when losing a debate is perfectly fine?
You are certainly not helping yourself to dispell the notion that you are biased on this and other subjects dependant on whom is partaking in the debate.
So to cut everything short (although would like clarification of the last point as think you made that a little personal and are clearly incorrect) can you confirm the following please:-
When Warwick interjected and said "It is on the profit not the full fee. Deals are not structured like that. The clue is in the title. What do you do for a day job again".... Do you believe he was correct to state that "non fact" or incorrect as I pointed out? Just correct or incorrect is all that is required.
The above is the absolute meat of this discussion, everything else is just a side show. The debate was me giving some fag packet numbers (due to the fact we offset player sales and purchases) as to figure out roughly how much we have to sell Llorente for to afford the targets reported. So only one was stating any facts in this debate, the one that said deals are NOT structured in this way which means Gylfi wasn't, the other was simply musing using reported figures.
An answer to that simple question will answer pretty much everything else (including the accusations of bias). It is a pretty easy question to answer. [Post edited 23 Aug 2017 15:34]
|
Mate , it's ok for other people to have different opinions. Every thread your involved in lately just ends up in an argument that just goes on and on. |  | | |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 15:43 - Aug 23 with 646 views | vetchonian |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 15:39 - Aug 23 by Treforys_Jack |
Mate , it's ok for other people to have different opinions. Every thread your involved in lately just ends up in an argument that just goes on and on. |
you bgin to wonder if E20 and the Res are one and the same? | |
| |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 15:46 - Aug 23 with 634 views | E20Jack |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 15:39 - Aug 23 by Treforys_Jack |
Mate , it's ok for other people to have different opinions. Every thread your involved in lately just ends up in an argument that just goes on and on. |
A differing opinion is perfectly fine. Where am I saying nobody can have the opposite opinion?
My response was not to someone saying "I think the figure is £3m, not based on anything, just a hunch". The thread would not have gone past page 2.
But it was not an opinion that was expressed, it was a incorrect statement that was dressed up as fact that then displayed a personal jibe as the result of the incorrect fact.
People see my username and see me as a challenge as they know that if they do the above - I wont back down, and I most certainly won't. I do not suffer fools. | |
| |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 15:47 - Aug 23 with 631 views | WarwickHunt |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 15:43 - Aug 23 by vetchonian |
you bgin to wonder if E20 and the Res are one and the same? |
Nah, Chrissy's sound - E20's a fruitcake...
Now, E20 and DImi... | | | |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 15:49 - Aug 23 with 627 views | E20Jack |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 15:43 - Aug 23 by vetchonian |
you bgin to wonder if E20 and the Res are one and the same? |
Yep.
People who others love to challenge and then cry foul when the thread doesn't go their way or their foundation for the so called fact are picked apart. I see many similarities indeed.
The thing with this site is people think they can say rubbish like the bottom of page 1 and then if they kick and scream enough their mates will jumo in and help and they can win with numbers.
With posters such as the res and I. No amount of number or no amount of back up makes any sort of difference. If you are wrong - you are wrong. And we will happily give it to you both barrels, especially if your demeanour is extra deserving of such, I do not take it as an insult in any way, | |
| |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 15:49 - Aug 23 with 624 views | WarwickHunt |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 15:23 - Aug 23 by E20Jack |
Well the point regarding Llorente again is neither here nor there, it was a musing as to where the money would come from in order to acquire the players we reportedly wish to bring in. Thus assuming that Llorente would be part of that equation as you have also stated elsewhere that it makes sense to sell a player in the last year of their contract (I believe it was you anyway, correct me if i am wrong).
You say you did not claim it to be correct for someone to interject and say "it was £3m". You also say nobody knows which figures are correct. But you do know what each figure is based on and who indeed is claiming it as fact. I have openly said mine is based on 100% of worldwide figures. The other has made it clear the basis was a misunderstanding of how these deals are structured and therefore claiming it as fact, there is a very and clear important difference there which you do not seem to want to see.
I most certainly am not giving myself a level of importance. I could be anyone arguing the same case against any of the people you are familiar or friendly with on this site and I believe your response would be the same. I am not the common denominator. It is not about me. It is about your trait which is to take sides of some over others, depending on where they stand in your social hierarchy. It is commendable in many ways, but it just doesn't help threads.
This is perfectly summed up by your next paragraph "I am arguing with you on this thread because you are basing your assumption on something which is fundamentally flawed - a journalists view".
Now then, Warwick is stating THIS CANNOT BE TRUE, BECAUSE DEALS ARE NOT DONE IN THIS WAY. Yet you have not directed anything at him, you made a passing comment in a massive post in response to myself. You have no idea where these journalists get their information so cannot pass judgement on the validity - yet YOU CAN pass jusgement on the other side as you have claimed that delas are in fact done like this. Yet you only focus on one that is sketchy at best? The one far more basis than the other and the one that has never claimed anything as fact. Surely that does not sound right?
Finally, and possibly more importantly in your passage, as I did not have you down for someone who would spread mistruths, I would like to pick you up on the fact that I have used my job (on several occasions) to signify expertise and thus cannot complain if people turn it the other way.
Can you point to any occasions on that other thread where I made any sort of big deal about my job. Even once let alone several occasions. From memory I was asked what my job is (on a thread regarding the odds of Gylfi leaving) and answered in wuite a friendly environment on ONE occasion. The rest of the time it was used for people losing a debate and trying to get a rise out of me, I would hope you are not including their comments and attributing them to me? As I dont even feel I mentioned it on that thread once let alone made any sort of deal about it. And even more concerning is then your view that seeing it as justification to be thrown back in my face when losing a debate is perfectly fine?
You are certainly not helping yourself to dispell the notion that you are biased on this and other subjects dependant on whom is partaking in the debate.
So to cut everything short (although would like clarification of the last point as think you made that a little personal and are clearly incorrect) can you confirm the following please:-
When Warwick interjected and said "It is on the profit not the full fee. Deals are not structured like that. The clue is in the title. What do you do for a day job again".... Do you believe he was correct to state that "non fact" or incorrect as I pointed out? Just correct or incorrect is all that is required.
The above is the absolute meat of this discussion, everything else is just a side show. The debate was me giving some fag packet numbers (due to the fact we offset player sales and purchases) as to figure out roughly how much we have to sell Llorente for to afford the targets reported. So only one was stating any facts in this debate, the one that said deals are NOT structured in this way which means Gylfi wasn't, the other was simply musing using reported figures.
An answer to that simple question will answer pretty much everything else (including the accusations of bias). It is a pretty easy question to answer. [Post edited 23 Aug 2017 15:34]
|
If you're going to quote me, please use the quote facility and don't make a quote up...
Wackjob. | | | |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 15:51 - Aug 23 with 620 views | E20Jack |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 15:47 - Aug 23 by WarwickHunt |
Nah, Chrissy's sound - E20's a fruitcake...
Now, E20 and DImi... |
And you are a moron that cries off to his cyber mates when he has been taken apart. The Res would similarly take you apart regardless of brown nosing.
Deals arent done like that are they?
Fruitcake  | |
| |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 15:54 - Aug 23 with 607 views | E20Jack |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 15:49 - Aug 23 by WarwickHunt |
If you're going to quote me, please use the quote facility and don't make a quote up...
Wackjob. |
Wack job is two words, moron.
It looks like we have a retraction ladies and gentlemen.
So do you now accept deals are in fact often done in this way and your statement of fact is indeed misguided?
Popcorn at the ready.. | |
| |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 16:01 - Aug 23 with 587 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 15:23 - Aug 23 by E20Jack |
Well the point regarding Llorente again is neither here nor there, it was a musing as to where the money would come from in order to acquire the players we reportedly wish to bring in. Thus assuming that Llorente would be part of that equation as you have also stated elsewhere that it makes sense to sell a player in the last year of their contract (I believe it was you anyway, correct me if i am wrong).
You say you did not claim it to be correct for someone to interject and say "it was £3m". You also say nobody knows which figures are correct. But you do know what each figure is based on and who indeed is claiming it as fact. I have openly said mine is based on 100% of worldwide figures. The other has made it clear the basis was a misunderstanding of how these deals are structured and therefore claiming it as fact, there is a very and clear important difference there which you do not seem to want to see.
I most certainly am not giving myself a level of importance. I could be anyone arguing the same case against any of the people you are familiar or friendly with on this site and I believe your response would be the same. I am not the common denominator. It is not about me. It is about your trait which is to take sides of some over others, depending on where they stand in your social hierarchy. It is commendable in many ways, but it just doesn't help threads.
This is perfectly summed up by your next paragraph "I am arguing with you on this thread because you are basing your assumption on something which is fundamentally flawed - a journalists view".
Now then, Warwick is stating THIS CANNOT BE TRUE, BECAUSE DEALS ARE NOT DONE IN THIS WAY. Yet you have not directed anything at him, you made a passing comment in a massive post in response to myself. You have no idea where these journalists get their information so cannot pass judgement on the validity - yet YOU CAN pass jusgement on the other side as you have claimed that delas are in fact done like this. Yet you only focus on one that is sketchy at best? The one far more basis than the other and the one that has never claimed anything as fact. Surely that does not sound right?
Finally, and possibly more importantly in your passage, as I did not have you down for someone who would spread mistruths, I would like to pick you up on the fact that I have used my job (on several occasions) to signify expertise and thus cannot complain if people turn it the other way.
Can you point to any occasions on that other thread where I made any sort of big deal about my job. Even once let alone several occasions. From memory I was asked what my job is (on a thread regarding the odds of Gylfi leaving) and answered in wuite a friendly environment on ONE occasion. The rest of the time it was used for people losing a debate and trying to get a rise out of me, I would hope you are not including their comments and attributing them to me? As I dont even feel I mentioned it on that thread once let alone made any sort of deal about it. And even more concerning is then your view that seeing it as justification to be thrown back in my face when losing a debate is perfectly fine?
You are certainly not helping yourself to dispell the notion that you are biased on this and other subjects dependant on whom is partaking in the debate.
So to cut everything short (although would like clarification of the last point as think you made that a little personal and are clearly incorrect) can you confirm the following please:-
When Warwick interjected and said "It is on the profit not the full fee. Deals are not structured like that. The clue is in the title. What do you do for a day job again".... Do you believe he was correct to state that "non fact" or incorrect as I pointed out? Just correct or incorrect is all that is required.
The above is the absolute meat of this discussion, everything else is just a side show. The debate was me giving some fag packet numbers (due to the fact we offset player sales and purchases) as to figure out roughly how much we have to sell Llorente for to afford the targets reported. So only one was stating any facts in this debate, the one that said deals are NOT structured in this way which means Gylfi wasn't, the other was simply musing using reported figures.
An answer to that simple question will answer pretty much everything else (including the accusations of bias). It is a pretty easy question to answer. [Post edited 23 Aug 2017 15:34]
|
I've already said about 5 times that I believe that deals can be structured on both the profit and the full fee. I said it a week or so ago, yesterday and today.
I even said it in the post you are replying to.
Please, just stop. It's genuinely ruining the board. | | | |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 16:03 - Aug 23 with 583 views | Shonky |
10 paragraphs.lulz. |  |
| |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 16:08 - Aug 23 with 563 views | WarwickHunt |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 15:54 - Aug 23 by E20Jack |
Wack job is two words, moron.
It looks like we have a retraction ladies and gentlemen.
So do you now accept deals are in fact often done in this way and your statement of fact is indeed misguided?
Popcorn at the ready.. |
Can be either, dull cünt.
Carry on keeping us amused with your endless, borderline-psychotic, regurgitation of dodgy journalistic FACTS!
The only way someone would agree to a £10m player being sold on for a % of fee rather than profit would be if they were advised by a fantasy "risk analyst" like yourself.
Now, get that uniform back on - those burgers won't flip themselves. | | | |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 16:09 - Aug 23 with 561 views | E20Jack |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 16:01 - Aug 23 by londonlisa2001 |
I've already said about 5 times that I believe that deals can be structured on both the profit and the full fee. I said it a week or so ago, yesterday and today.
I even said it in the post you are replying to.
Please, just stop. It's genuinely ruining the board. |
Great so you agree. Odd way to state it.
Glad you did not take your accusation any further in your last post as I would argue it is stuff like that which ruins the board as opposed to defending a personal attack against a notion we both understand is incorrect.
But hey, I am impartial. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
