Re: Scott Wootton signs from Man Utd
Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 12:34
We have Aidy White.USA for Leeds wrote:isrodger wrote:Looking at our best 11 (& we are still sadly lacking on the left flank .
We have Aidy White.USA for Leeds wrote:isrodger wrote:Looking at our best 11 (& we are still sadly lacking on the left flank .
The information I have about this and the Murphy deal is the reported 3 yr contract as reported on the official site. That is the basis I have made my observation. My observation based on the reported facts, and are probably as valid as a comment of "young& hungry" (apologies anyone who used), when all we know actually is he is young, and he may now have the money and profile to do some proper damage in the nightclubs of Leeds! I thought the purpose of this site was intelligent debate, but yet again, any opinion that differs to your own is dismissed as invalid. I have illustrated the point I was making with numerous examples, where the benefit of a player coming to the end of his contract after his 24th birthday, has resulted in us being unable to secure the players services for an extended period. Whilst I applaud the new regime tact in transfer strategy; on the face of it, it would appear the players representatives are still optimising the length of their clients deals in order to potentially apply the maximum degree of leverage when renegotiating next time round. This may appear to be nitpicking, and yes it is, but it's something our CEO is paid to do.Bogdan wrote:It isn't valid, because you have no information whatsoever to judge to what degree his agent has served him in comparison to how well our CEOs have served the club, because you know absolutely nothing about the terms of the contract. I don't want you to be over the moon about it, just not be nitpicking into every single detail to find a negative. You're now taking exception with a deal done this summer by generalising based on a number of sales we made under a completely different regime, to make it sound like all of those apply to the quality of the contract we've agreed with this player, contract which, again, you know nothing about.isrodger wrote:Is my observation not valid? Just because I comment on an aspect of our transfer dealings as a negative you appear to just shoot down the comment.
.
We do love generalisationBogdan wrote:That, based on the single aspect of the length of the contract, the player that hasn't played a game yet has got a better deal out of this than the club? No, I don't see how that's a valid point.Nesslin wrote:Surely isrodger has a valid point based on observation?
Another lovely generalisation that the majority like to jump on board with, based on the Bates years, but little else in the current reality. What is a fact is that football fans, and Leeds ones in particular, expect to be told intricate financial details from everything regarding the club, when many of them are just not suitable for the public domain. See, for example, the age-old outrage about transfers being made for "undisclosed fees", allegedly as a mark of unjustified secrecy by whoever's in charge at Leeds.Nesslin wrote:but how many facts do we get told at Leeds, to base our opinions purely on all the facts? We don't get told the full truth, that's a fact:
I've read through the trail of this thread and find it strange.....ISR has griped (only a little) about the length of contract given and pointed out, quite validly IMO, how this might be a slightly flawed contract strategy. Why the need to jump on this point and labour the hell out of it?Bogdan wrote:That, based on the single aspect of the length of the contract, the player that hasn't played a game yet has got a better deal out of this than the club? No, I don't see how that's a valid point.Nesslin wrote:Surely isrodger has a valid point based on observation?
Another lovely generalisation that the majority like to jump on board with, based on the Bates years, but little else in the current reality. What is a fact is that football fans, and Leeds ones in particular, expect to be told intricate financial details from everything regarding the club, when many of them are just not suitable for the public domain. See, for example, the age-old outrage about transfers being made for "undisclosed fees", allegedly as a mark of unjustified secrecy by whoever's in charge at Leeds.Nesslin wrote:but how many facts do we get told at Leeds, to base our opinions purely on all the facts? We don't get told the full truth, that's a fact:
We know according to the official site both Murphy & Wottoon signed 3 yr deals - fact. Both are 24 when there current deals lapse - Fact. Tom lees signed a 5 yr deal - he is 24 when his deal lapses - Fact. Snodgrass, gradel, howson, clayton, Johnson's deals all lapsed when they were 24 - Fact.onenorthernsoul wrote:People are making 'points' about things they actually have v little information on, therefore that 'point' is indeed not valid, it's just a theory and not a fact. If someone wants to criticise this transfer then dive in, but griping about something of which the full facts aren't known seems pointless and near miserable for the sake of it.
If anyone is making any personal comments or misconstruing any comments as being personal, then that is their choice. We've just signed a young, potentially good player from the Premier champions, and we're a Championship club, and some people are complaining that it's 'only' a 3 year contract. Blimey.