| Right then ye f..... 19:26 - Aug 4 with 26043 views | TheResurrection |
Have a bit of that.
Young side, trying to play football, dug in and get the rewards.
To the usual fackwits on Planet tvvat, fack you...
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |  |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 12:26 - Aug 5 with 1259 views | Fireboy2 |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 11:44 - Aug 5 by Neath_Jack |
Because he is one of the best posters this site has ever seen.
Therefore, a lot of posters try and prove how clever they are, by trying to get one over on him. They cannot resist it, like moths to a flame.
Then they get angry and abusive.
Repeat. |
Theres no point arguing with the res/E20 because even when he is wrong he will NEVER admit it
We in the fire service have a name for people like him NQP
Not quite plumb |  | | |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 12:26 - Aug 5 with 1259 views | E20Jack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 11:51 - Aug 5 by londonlisa2001 |
There are many instances where a selling club will pay a lump sum to a player to cover a shortfall in wages at the next club if they want him out.
It doesn’t really matter what you call it, if a player has 3 years left on a contract and the new club is paying him say £20k a week less than he would have earned, that shortfall is made up by the selling club if they want the player gone.
Not saying that’s the case with Clucas by the way. |
You are suggesting something wildly different to what is being discussed.
We are talking about a signing on fee for the transfer in question.
Not a shortfall in personal terms. One was being suggested as a part of the transfer process, the other is a speculative instance absolutely not related to the discussion. |  |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 12:31 - Aug 5 with 1235 views | E20Jack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 11:47 - Aug 5 by icecoldjack |
£17m was reported by many, £15m by others, the coont has already done us for a couple of million in wages and signing on bonuses so yeah, it's closer to £17m invested in the boy.
"A British big money signing tends to retain more of their value..unless his name is Sam Clucas" is a better way to put it !
What you mean is in buying an over priced British player you won't quite lose as much if relegated as if you'd bought an overseas player right ?, of course that's just not true but never mind.
There is no retaining of value in selling players at a loss, if there was Huw and Co. would be the worlds financial wizards and the Swans the envy of the world ! notice they arn't and the club is on the brink ?
I know what your getting at but in the real world if buy a player for £17m and sell him for £8m you've made a loss and have retained fook all . |
If you sell him for £8m then have retained £8m of value.
That’s just a fact£17m was with add ons that he most certainly would not have triggered. Most likely down to survival. | |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 12:33 - Aug 5 with 1220 views | E20Jack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 11:44 - Aug 5 by Neath_Jack |
Because he is one of the best posters this site has ever seen.
Therefore, a lot of posters try and prove how clever they are, by trying to get one over on him. They cannot resist it, like moths to a flame.
Then they get angry and abusive.
Repeat. |
Would it be big headed of me to note how absolutely spot on you are yet again?
This is simple common sense and people falling over themselves and twisting anything they can to get an angle.
Why is it so hard to say “yeah fair point”.  | |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 12:35 - Aug 5 with 1214 views | Neath_Jack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 12:33 - Aug 5 by E20Jack |
Would it be big headed of me to note how absolutely spot on you are yet again?
This is simple common sense and people falling over themselves and twisting anything they can to get an angle.
Why is it so hard to say “yeah fair point”. |
I don't f*ck about when i make assessments of posters.
I knows my onions, shall we say. |  |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 12:36 - Aug 5 with 1207 views | Neath_Jack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 12:26 - Aug 5 by Fireboy2 |
Theres no point arguing with the res/E20 because even when he is wrong he will NEVER admit it
We in the fire service have a name for people like him NQP
Not quite plumb |
Yet they still do.
And then get all arsey when they haven't got the moral fibre to walk away.
Same as people who think Res and E20 are one and the same.
There's just no reasoning with people like that. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Right then ye facking kunts on 12:39 - Aug 5 with 1197 views | E20Jack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 12:26 - Aug 5 by Fireboy2 |
Theres no point arguing with the res/E20 because even when he is wrong he will NEVER admit it
We in the fire service have a name for people like him NQP
Not quite plumb |
Admitting I am wrong when I am, and being asked to admit I am wrong when the statement in question has been fabricated - are two very differing things.
Changing a debate altogether to suit an angle is also something completely different again. It’s what we call “strawman” which is what this thread has now had to resort to it seems | |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 12:45 - Aug 5 with 1165 views | E20Jack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 12:37 - Aug 5 by londonlisa2001 |
The situation I described was exactly what was being described by the previous poster who mentioned a financial hit due to a shortfall in wages. Whether you call it a signing fee is irrelevant. It’s the principle which has an effect on our finances, not the label.
As for ‘likes arguing’ with you. Not really to be honest.
I don’t give you a second thought. I respond at times - it’s quite difficult to post on this board without responding to you from time to time as you post with quite monotonous regularity. But I neither like nor dislike any exchange with you. |
We were discussing signing on fee, the expression was literal and continued in every post since. To the point I said “the signing on fee is paid by the buying club” and he said “do you know that for a fact, I know different” (then run off to do “gardening”). It was a statement made as a certain cost incurred by the transfer.
You then entered a scenario where we would pay a shortfall in wages on the hypothetical scenario they wouldn’t agree personalterms. Highly speculative. They are not the same thing. As I described so patiently in my initial reply, a signing on fee is paid by the buying club and is paid in instalments across the length of his contract. This is a fact.
I think it is fairly obvious you like challenging yourself against me in some sort of lioness spraying an area to mark as their territory. You are probably one of the worst for it. Not a criticism but an observation. Obviously you won’t admit to that so we shall just nod and wink and agree to disagree. [Post edited 5 Aug 2018 12:51]
| |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 12:56 - Aug 5 with 1130 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 12:45 - Aug 5 by E20Jack |
We were discussing signing on fee, the expression was literal and continued in every post since. To the point I said “the signing on fee is paid by the buying club” and he said “do you know that for a fact, I know different” (then run off to do “gardening”). It was a statement made as a certain cost incurred by the transfer.
You then entered a scenario where we would pay a shortfall in wages on the hypothetical scenario they wouldn’t agree personalterms. Highly speculative. They are not the same thing. As I described so patiently in my initial reply, a signing on fee is paid by the buying club and is paid in instalments across the length of his contract. This is a fact.
I think it is fairly obvious you like challenging yourself against me in some sort of lioness spraying an area to mark as their territory. You are probably one of the worst for it. Not a criticism but an observation. Obviously you won’t admit to that so we shall just nod and wink and agree to disagree. [Post edited 5 Aug 2018 12:51]
|
Builth said:
“Also, as he is on £57k a week here, and his wages will drop to nearer £30-£35k, he will demand a signing on fee of around £2m. ”
I pointed out that scenario was common. The label doesn’t matter.
Now factually, since you like facts, the mechanism for doing that varies. Sometimes, and only sometimes, rather than pay the player direct, the buying club pays a signing on fee and the selling club compensates the buying club for that amount. So in effect, the selling club is paying the signing fee.
I don’t need to challenge myself against you. Your knowledge has significant gaps which are apparent to even the most casual observer. I don’t care whether you criticise or not. It doesn’t matter to me one way or the other. |  | | |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:05 - Aug 5 with 1105 views | E20Jack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 12:56 - Aug 5 by londonlisa2001 |
Builth said:
“Also, as he is on £57k a week here, and his wages will drop to nearer £30-£35k, he will demand a signing on fee of around £2m. ”
I pointed out that scenario was common. The label doesn’t matter.
Now factually, since you like facts, the mechanism for doing that varies. Sometimes, and only sometimes, rather than pay the player direct, the buying club pays a signing on fee and the selling club compensates the buying club for that amount. So in effect, the selling club is paying the signing fee.
I don’t need to challenge myself against you. Your knowledge has significant gaps which are apparent to even the most casual observer. I don’t care whether you criticise or not. It doesn’t matter to me one way or the other. |
You are being awfully selective with your quote there. Note the word WILL and the relation to the signing on fee.
It is absolutely not common that the signing on fee is paid by the selling club, it is utterly ludicrous and wholly disingenuous to say so, which unfortunately is something being levelled at you a lot recently.
I like facts, yes. Sometimes a player is bought houses for all his family and a car and a holiday. Again this isn’t what the discussion is about.
You absolutely enjoy challenging me Lisa, should a different username have said what I did on this thread then you would not be here now. We both know this. Again we can nod and wink. | |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:08 - Aug 5 with 1091 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:05 - Aug 5 by E20Jack |
You are being awfully selective with your quote there. Note the word WILL and the relation to the signing on fee.
It is absolutely not common that the signing on fee is paid by the selling club, it is utterly ludicrous and wholly disingenuous to say so, which unfortunately is something being levelled at you a lot recently.
I like facts, yes. Sometimes a player is bought houses for all his family and a car and a holiday. Again this isn’t what the discussion is about.
You absolutely enjoy challenging me Lisa, should a different username have said what I did on this thread then you would not be here now. We both know this. Again we can nod and wink. |
I said ‘that scenario’ is common. Not the label.
I genuinely don’t care about you one way or the other. Believe it, don’t believe it. I don’t care about that either. | | | |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:10 - Aug 5 with 1082 views | builthjack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 12:26 - Aug 5 by E20Jack |
You are suggesting something wildly different to what is being discussed.
We are talking about a signing on fee for the transfer in question.
Not a shortfall in personal terms. One was being suggested as a part of the transfer process, the other is a speculative instance absolutely not related to the discussion. |
Out of the £8m, the club would actually receive £6m, and Clucas and his agent would pocket £2m.
Just keep it simple and there's no need for hundreds of posts. |  |
| Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
|
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:11 - Aug 5 with 1072 views | E20Jack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:08 - Aug 5 by londonlisa2001 |
I said ‘that scenario’ is common. Not the label.
I genuinely don’t care about you one way or the other. Believe it, don’t believe it. I don’t care about that either. |
Ah so you agree that the selling club don’t pay the signing on fee then.
Assuming they won’t agree personal terms and assuming we would offer to cover the shortfall to a Premier League club is speculative at best.
Good we agree then. You don’t half often come into threads agreeing with me and making it sound like you are not.
You can say you don’t care until you are blue in the face Lisa, the opposite is obvious even to the most casual of observers  | |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:11 - Aug 5 with 1071 views | Wingstandwood |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 12:56 - Aug 5 by londonlisa2001 |
Builth said:
“Also, as he is on £57k a week here, and his wages will drop to nearer £30-£35k, he will demand a signing on fee of around £2m. ”
I pointed out that scenario was common. The label doesn’t matter.
Now factually, since you like facts, the mechanism for doing that varies. Sometimes, and only sometimes, rather than pay the player direct, the buying club pays a signing on fee and the selling club compensates the buying club for that amount. So in effect, the selling club is paying the signing fee.
I don’t need to challenge myself against you. Your knowledge has significant gaps which are apparent to even the most casual observer. I don’t care whether you criticise or not. It doesn’t matter to me one way or the other. |
Fair play! You know your stuff and having a position within the Trust gives you far greater knowledge and far greater access to information/facts regarding the reality of how a football club is actually run.
I wonder if E20 has similar privilege? If he does many a person on this forum would like to know! My guess? NO in his case? |  |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:13 - Aug 5 with 1063 views | E20Jack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:11 - Aug 5 by Wingstandwood |
Fair play! You know your stuff and having a position within the Trust gives you far greater knowledge and far greater access to information/facts regarding the reality of how a football club is actually run.
I wonder if E20 has similar privilege? If he does many a person on this forum would like to know! My guess? NO in his case? |
So you also think that the selling club pay the signing on fee? 
My new favourite thread | |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:17 - Aug 5 with 1038 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:11 - Aug 5 by Wingstandwood |
Fair play! You know your stuff and having a position within the Trust gives you far greater knowledge and far greater access to information/facts regarding the reality of how a football club is actually run.
I wonder if E20 has similar privilege? If he does many a person on this forum would like to know! My guess? NO in his case? |
Just as a point of clarification. I NEVER post information on here that I know due to the Trust.
Never.
I treat that as completely confidential.
And as I said before, I have no idea whether any such arrangement would be used for Clucas. I was talking about how things work from time to time rather than specifically. | | | |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:18 - Aug 5 with 1038 views | E20Jack |
Thank you for confirming what I was stating.
You believe that Swansea are liable to pay the signing on fee of £2m.
Ludicrous. | |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:20 - Aug 5 with 1026 views | E20Jack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:19 - Aug 5 by Wingstandwood |
So you are saying that a person with 'unique' access./power? Knowing information some of which is even deemed (she does not divulge) privy is factually wrong? What's the proof you're right then? [Post edited 5 Aug 2018 13:24]
|
Well for a start she is not part of the Trust, she has an advisory role.
Second of all, she has agreed with me. | |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:21 - Aug 5 with 1023 views | Wingstandwood |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:17 - Aug 5 by londonlisa2001 |
Just as a point of clarification. I NEVER post information on here that I know due to the Trust.
Never.
I treat that as completely confidential.
And as I said before, I have no idea whether any such arrangement would be used for Clucas. I was talking about how things work from time to time rather than specifically. |
Fair one! Just thought you knew more about the way a football club was run by being right in amongst it all! | |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:24 - Aug 5 with 1006 views | E20Jack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:21 - Aug 5 by Wingstandwood |
Fair one! Just thought you knew more about the way a football club was run by being right in amongst it all! |
It is nothing to do with how a football club is run.
It’s how transfers work and have always worked and always probably will work.
So for example, when we sold Joe Allen for £15m, are you suggesting we paid him his signing on fee to Liverpool and had to pay him every year he was there?
You don’t have to be Roman Abramovic to know how transfers work. | |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:24 - Aug 5 with 1002 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:20 - Aug 5 by E20Jack |
Well for a start she is not part of the Trust, she has an advisory role.
Second of all, she has agreed with me. |
I haven’t agreed with you in anyone’s mind apart from your own.
My posts have been absolutely clear. General principle applies. Label not important. Sometimes shortfall done one way. Sometimes another.
Happy to clarify. | | | |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:28 - Aug 5 with 986 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:24 - Aug 5 by E20Jack |
It is nothing to do with how a football club is run.
It’s how transfers work and have always worked and always probably will work.
So for example, when we sold Joe Allen for £15m, are you suggesting we paid him his signing on fee to Liverpool and had to pay him every year he was there?
You don’t have to be Roman Abramovic to know how transfers work. |
Joe Allen was paid more at Liverpool than he was here so there was no shortfall of wages.
There are all sorts of permutations in the way these things work depending on all sorts of factors. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
