Next Derby owners face extra £1m legal bill as Middlesbrough and Wycombe compensation claims head for ugly court battle

fmttmadmin said:
Pulis went on record as saying that managers are sometimes forced to sell the players they have offers for rather than the players they would chose to sell. ie Leeds wanted Bamford. They made a bid for him. Nobody wanted our other players.
Click to expand...
Rob your approach is sometimes mystifying.
pulis is a lying conman who has been described as such by a Judge in court, then forced to pay significant seven figure damages.
He got rid of Bamford, and signed Hugill on loan and Saville.
Those are the facts.
pulis is the worst thing to have happened to Middlesbrough FC since Gordon Strachan.
 
Adi_Dem said:
Yup exactly right. We also dropped £2m on loaning Hugill.
Click to expand...

indeedido said:
Rob your approach is sometimes mystifying.
pulis is a lying conman who has been described as such by a Judge in court, then forced to pay significant seven figure damages.
He got rid of Bamford, and signed Hugill on loan and Saville.
Those are the facts.
pulis is the worst thing to have happened to Middlesbrough FC since Gordon Strachan.
Click to expand...
I disagree.
 
The problem with comparing players transfer fees is that they will include a lot of clauses. I think it is fair to assume that all of Bamford's clauses will have been met as Leeds are now in premier league and Bamford played for England. Saville's won't all have been met though as we are still championship and Saville was already an international before he came here. I am only guessing on what the clauses were but one reason for letting Saville return to Millwall could have been like the O'Neill deal where if he played a few more times for us we had to shell out another large chunk of money

I do however wish we had kept Bamford, but there is an element of hindsight.
 
It's also different circumstances. It involves world class players being fielded effectively illegally (from memory). Did it ever go to court? I don't remember. It's a very different scenario.
 
Adi_Dem said:
It's also different circumstances. It involves world class players being fielded effectively illegally (from memory). Did it ever go to court? I don't remember. It's a very different scenario.
Click to expand...

They should have a points deduction and been relegated however there were several mitigating factors, unbelievably including it wasn’t fair on the West Ham fans.

They won the World Cup you know.
 
indeedido said:
Rob your approach is sometimes mystifying.
pulis is a lying conman who has been described as such by a Judge in court, then forced to pay significant seven figure damages.
He got rid of Bamford, and signed Hugill on loan and Saville.
Those are the facts.
pulis is the worst thing to have happened to Middlesbrough FC since Gordon Strachan.
Click to expand...
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2016/2999.html

In case anyone fancies a read.
 
Colin Warnek said:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2016/2999.html

In case anyone fancies a read.
Click to expand...
£3.78m paid to Crystal Palace by Tony Pulis, plus costs, plus his own costs.
His deceit, arrogance and hubris cost him over £6m in total.

Parrish played an absolute blinder and did football a service with his actions.
Sadly our club will have paid "the liar" a lot of this back for his eighteen months of wreckage at our club.
 
indeedido said:
£3.78m paid to Crystal Palace by Tony Pulis, plus costs, plus his own costs.
His deceit, arrogance and hubris cost him over £6m in total.

Parrish played an absolute blinder and did football a service with his actions.
Sadly our club will have paid "the liar" a lot of this back for his eighteen months of wreckage at our club.
Click to expand...
I don't agree that there was a whole 18 months of wreckage, but that is mainly as the previous incumbents Monk and Agnew presided over a disastrous 12 months. The 2016-17 season was a big missed opportunity.

All of this case was public knowledge at the time of his appointment though - to suggest he was some sort of alternative character to Monk is daft.
 
Colin Warnek said:
I don't agree that there was a whole 18 months of wreckage, but that is mainly as the previous incumbents Monk and Agnew presided over a disastrous 12 months. The 2016-17 season was a big missed opportunity.

All of this case was public knowledge at the time of his appointment though - to suggest he was some sort of alternative character to Monk is daft.
Click to expand...
Who suggested he was alternative to anybody, or anything but the truth.
His 18 months here was a massive waste and his appointment a massive mistake.
What is beyond reasonable doubt is that he is an absolute liar.
 
fmttmadmin said:
Pulis went on record as saying that managers are sometimes forced to sell the players they have offers for rather than the players they would chose to sell. ie Leeds wanted Bamford. They made a bid for him. Nobody wanted our other players.
Click to expand...
I agree managers are forced to sell players 100%. I also agree that Bamford was forced out by Pulis. The 2 comments are not mutually exclusive and both can be right.

My understanding is that Mr Gibson is the owner and ultimately decides whether a bid is accepted and a player subsequently sold, not Pulis or any other manager. He may well listen to the thoughts of the manager and others who he trusts, including his bank and his accountants at times. Ultimately he has to sanction any incoming and outgoing and is therefore ultimately responsible. The managers sometimes do carry the can for the decisions of owners. I accept owners can and do support the decisions of managers too mind.

My understanding is that the club agreed a bid from Leeds that they felt acceptable, the player was in no rush to want to leave but the manager perhaps made the owners decision happen to ensure the decision to accept the offer materialised, hence my 1st paragraph comments.

The FFP issue does appear a total red herring, but it could have had a small part to play in respect of how the relative deals were structured over the periods applicable. Whoever you believe though, the reality of selling your best striker, relying on players that a small but select few of us at the time referred to Britt, Fletcher and the lamppost as spuds, was frankly ludicrous and blame doth lay on more than one doorstep.
 
newyddion said:
Pulis rated Assombalonga much higher
Click to expand...
Or alternatively the owner accepted a bid and being the henchman Pulis appeared to be, ensured the money flowed in after the owner accepted it by using strongarm tactics with player and his dad to make it happen. In which case what he thought of Assombalonga was irrelevant, especially given nobody would pay a fee or wages to persuade us to sell the donkey.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top