According to an ITK

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

dannysufc_ said:
Genuine ITK I think @swaccountants on twitter...

800k left in the budget from the Adams deal and Brayford loan out
Wigan expected to be let know about Brayford, we loaned him to Burton without saying anything to them
We then told them we were interested in Morgan, agreed a fee in principle - they expected a bid, then we bid for Ryan Colclough (a winger...) instead. They're rightly quite puzzled.
Lavery fee has stalled
Morgan deal can still be resurrected but there won't be much left in the pot as it's 800k for transfers AND wages we have left
Cost us 500k to settle with Woolford, his original deal was worth 850k. So we've basically paid Fleetwood to take him ffs
Nothing before next week according to him

Now this could all be bull but I refuse to believe someone pretty professional and proved to be right once or twice before I do tend to believe him
Take it with a pinch of salt or take it at face value, the choice really is yours but he tends to be pretty reliable

So basically all the worries are correct. We are skint. And a parody of a football club.
Click to expand...

#OMNISHAMBLES.
 

Lord Bos of Eckington. said:
Do fully agree with you but with both Clough and Adkins some signings and contract packages were so bizarre and off the wall , in the cold day of light when all goes wrong it's easy to have 2 +2 = 5 .

Could be said same with Harry , Colin , Blackwell.

Adkins turned Madkins but no more IMO

It's football .
Click to expand...

I think Adkins thought he was getting both the Woolford and Hammond he had previously – good reliable starters. That Woolford was used in a bit-part role and Hammond became increasingly subbed suggests he recognised that they were not what he was expecting. Poor recruitment in both cases – though I think had Adkins stayed neither player would have been first choice this season. We also knew in getting rid of Adkins that we were pushing reset on any lined-up recruitment. One of the main reasons why I'd have given Adkins till Christmas (and why I wanted the same approach for Clough).
 
Fraggle Blade said:
But if it's 2 years remaining on his contract that we've paid up, then that would bring it down to £6000 which would appear far more likely.
Click to expand...

He didn't have 2 years left though.

For a number of reasons, it's clearly utter bullshit.

UTB
 
alcoblade said:
He didn't have 2 years left though.

For a number of reasons, it's clearly utter bullshit.

UTB
Click to expand...

The only way this works is if he had a clause in his contract which gave him a 3rd year with a special wank biscuit bonus. Now we all know about hammonds clause and somehow Wallace got one too. Maybe the rumours about brannigan are true, whatever they were...
 
Have a sojourn thru' @swaccountants on the twitter.
Website is 30 months out of date.

What a CUNT.

and if you believe any of that fuckin' nonsense, you're an even BIGGER one.
 
I've said this a few times in the last week when people keep posting 'info' from this guy but he talks absolute bullshit and makes it up as he goes along. Literally changes his story every day and then when an actual journo confirms any 'rumours' he starts elaborating on them like he was itk about them all along. An attention seeking bullshitter would be a good summary :)
 
Grizzly blade said:
Confused...Woolford had a deal for how long?

If it was worth originally 850k was that over two years? Or did he somehow get a three year deal? Or was that the remainder of his deal?

If it were 3 years at 850k total....that makes it £5.5k a week.
3 years with 850k left....16k a week.

500k to fuck him off....add the same for Hammond....Jesus wept.

Staggered at the ineptitude. Adkins deserves to never work again the fucking twat.
Click to expand...

A : It's another ITK so not actual fact
B : I assume McCabe and his team aren't the ones who would have sanctioned this? I can go to my boss and say we need to take someone on, first question will be how much will it cost. If it's too much he says no.
 
LoughboroBlade said:
I think Adkins thought he was getting both the Woolford and Hammond he had previously – good reliable starters. That Woolford was used in a bit-part role and Hammond became increasingly subbed suggests he recognised that they were not what he was expecting. Poor recruitment in both cases – though I think had Adkins stayed neither player would have been first choice this season. We also knew in getting rid of Adkins that we were pushing reset on any lined-up recruitment. One of the main reasons why I'd have given Adkins till Christmas (and why I wanted the same approach for Clough).
Click to expand...
My thought entirely.

UTB
 
blade too long said:
if we have parted with 500k to get rid of a player who is still in full time employment we should close down for being daft cunts

getting shot of him to Fleetwood should mean we owe him his wages for august , and nothing else
Click to expand...
To be fair this isn't uncommon. If Fleetwood are only willing to pay such a wage, and he's still under contract we pay the rest to make it up. But I agree we are daft cunts.
 
Woolford wasn't paid off nor was he on anything near 10k a week.
 
dannysufc_ said:
To be fair this isn't uncommon. If Fleetwood are only willing to pay such a wage, and he's still under contract we pay the rest to make it up. But I agree we are daft cunts.
Click to expand...

Surely we only pay half the wage (through paying him off) if we want him to leave at a cost? We could have just sat on it and left him to rot and then he might have gone for a free in January instead without a pay off? That said we'd be stuck paying his wages till January, so either way we're screwed.
 

LoughboroBlade said:
I think Adkins thought he was getting both the Woolford and Hammond he had previously – good reliable starters. That Woolford was used in a bit-part role and Hammond became increasingly subbed suggests he recognised that they were not what he was expecting. Poor recruitment in both cases – though I think had Adkins stayed neither player would have been first choice this season. We also knew in getting rid of Adkins that we were pushing reset on any lined-up recruitment. One of the main reasons why I'd have given Adkins till Christmas (and why I wanted the same approach for Clough).
Click to expand...
Who is that on your avatar Loughborough?
 
Chele said:
Woolford wasn't paid off nor was he on anything near 10k a week.
Click to expand...
If 750k is over 2 years including signing on fees and bonuses I'd say it's roughly 5/6k. So a lot less than 10.
 
dannysufc_ said:
If 750k is over 2 years including signing on fees and bonuses I'd say it's roughly 5/6k. So a lot less than 10.
Click to expand...
Do you think we would have been paying his wages since July if we was going to pay him off? Can't see it mate. At a maximum we will be making his wages up for the first 12 months but that's going to be about 100k max.
 
Chele said:
Do you think we would have been paying his wages since July if we was going to pay him off? Can't see it mate. At a maximum we will be making his wages up for the first 12 months but that's going to be about 100k max.
Click to expand...
I reckon Woolford was on a lot more than 2k. Personally anyway.
 
dannysufc_ said:
I reckon Woolford was on a lot more than 2k. Personally anyway.
Click to expand...

Fleetwood would be paying him the other 3/4k. I don't know what he earned here but i know he was on less than 8k at Millwall and was released by them. Also there is no way in hell Wilder would pay that amount to just ship someone out.
 
Not saying this guy is right but doesn't he mean the initial contract was £750k over 2 years (£7k p/w) and we paid him off at 500k which is roughly £7k p/w over 18 months?
 
LYDON said:
How do mere mortals get to know what footballer's earn?

Or is it that they just want to seem important amongst their peers?

Maybe it's just guesswork with no real facts and figures?
Click to expand...

Peers . Royally , Lordships

Duchess of Cornwall . Money Supermarket .

UTB
 
Surely as we have agreed to cancel his contract, there is no fee, hence he and his agent are in a stronger position to negotiate a better deal at Fleetwood. That will extend far beyond the remaining nine months or so he had left on his United contract. So I see no reason for us to pay more than a token fee to compensate him, although admittedly I'm not an accountant, I have seen him play.

Had he insisted on seeing out his time with us sat in the stands, it may have cost the club, but he would then have struggled to ever get another deal elsewhere, given his age and questionable ability even when playing regularly :eek:
 
dannysufc_ said:
Genuine ITK I think @swaccountants on twitter...

800k left in the budget from the Adams deal and Brayford loan out
Wigan expected to be let know about Brayford, we loaned him to Burton without saying anything to them
We then told them we were interested in Morgan, agreed a fee in principle - they expected a bid, then we bid for Ryan Colclough (a winger...) instead. They're rightly quite puzzled.
Lavery fee has stalled
Morgan deal can still be resurrected but there won't be much left in the pot as it's 800k for transfers AND wages we have left
Cost us 500k to settle with Woolford, his original deal was worth 850k. So we've basically paid Fleetwood to take him ffs
Nothing before next week according to him

Now this could all be bull but I refuse to believe someone pretty professional and proved to be right once or twice before I do tend to believe him
Take it with a pinch of salt or take it at face value, the choice really is yours but he tends to be pretty reliable

So basically all the worries are correct. We are skint. And a parody of a football club.
Click to expand...
Woolford got 500 k don't make me laugh !! No way !! .. l would have him arrested for fraud. I suppose James Wallace will be next how much will he cost
us , he's supposed to be on a good contract.No wonder Fleetwood are interested in Wallace !! they too should be up for day light robbery if any of this was true
Which of course is a load of bollox.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom