Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Hardhouse44

More lies

Recommended Posts

We were lead to believe that Earnshaw was not for sale unless we got an offer that was too good to refuse. That offer turns out to be only £500,000 more than we paid for him and as it was a clause it was always going to be that. Yet again we have been lead up the garden path buy the Carrow Rd spin Doctors.

Without a doubt WBA had a percentage sell on clause so we probably won''t even make that.

The crap spouted by all in the Norwich City hierarchy is getting to much to stomach and I for one would appreciate a little honesty as to our real ambitions and our real hopes for the future.

I can''t say that I''m not disappointed at Earnshaw’s departure but it was inevitable. I''m more disappointed at the price he went for and that we were lead to believe it would be for much more

I fear we will replace him with a player far below his standard and that is not progress. If the board really are interested in promotion then why did this clause exist if we failed got gain it last term. Smacks of the player using our club as a shop window and the club allowing it. It was clear from the first few weeks of last season that promotion was not on the cards. Therefore Earnshaw should have been sold before the end for bigger buck when we could, rather than allow this clause to come in to effect. That might not sound good but would have been better business than what we have just done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would guess that a release clause was not juist too good to refure, but impossible too refuse. So no lies, i''m afriad, sorry to dissapoint the the moaning brigade. yes, we didnt know everything, but yes, we got a fair price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With Bent going for £16.5m And Shapre being worth £3m+ (a player who had no pedigree at this level let alone the prem) I fail to see how £3.5m is a fair price for Earnshaw. As for your bit about no lies and "yes, we didn''t know everything" we didn''t know anything. We didn''t expect him to stay for ever but I sure as hell expected him to go for more. What we did know is he hard a ridiculously under price release clause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lies came from Mumby when he said (when the Turners joined the board) that Norwich City didn''t have to sell players if they didn''t want to. If Earnshaw had that clause in his contract Mumby should not have made that statement.

I''m certain that the chairman and the chief exec think most supporters are thick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Judging from the majority of ill thought out knee jerk tosh on the board today the chairman and chief exec are right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ridgeman"]

The lies came from Mumby when he said (when the Turners joined the board) that Norwich City didn''t have to sell players if they didn''t want to. If Earnshaw had that clause in his contract Mumby should not have made that statement.

I''m certain that the chairman and the chief exec think most supporters are thick.

[/quote]

Nail.. head.. Hit! ridgman that post says it all mate!

jas :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="jas the barclay king"][quote user="ridgeman"]

The lies came from Mumby when he said (when the Turners joined the board) that Norwich City didn''t have to sell players if they didn''t want to. If Earnshaw had that clause in his contract Mumby should not have made that statement.

I''m certain that the chairman and the chief exec think most supporters are thick.

[/quote]

Nail.. head.. Hit! ridgman that post says it all mate!

jas :)

[/quote]

 

who said they didnt want to sell Earny?, if they did they would be correct in their statement. they may have wanted rid of him for other reasons, who knows. i certainly dont. i wish it hadnt have happened as it did seem unnessercary to sell him, but i cant help feeling that if such a clause was essential to him signing for us they could have at least come up with a sensible amount. if he believed he was the dogs, and thought he would score 30+ a £5mil minimum fee shouldnt have worried him. like someone said........i think we''ve been used as a shop window. i just hope he kept us up long enough for the rebuilding to get to a stage where he was no longer i last means of survival. but we shall see i guess. if that money isnt used wisely im going to be seriously unimpressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ridgeman"]

The lies came from Mumby when he said (when the Turners joined the board) that Norwich City didn''t have to sell players if they didn''t want to. If Earnshaw had that clause in his contract Mumby should not have made that statement.

I''m certain that the chairman and the chief exec think most supporters are thick.

[/quote]

Can only agree here I''m afraid. Whilst Mumby obviously can''t come out and state that this clause existed it would have been far wiser not to have said anything. Technically it may be true that we didn''t have to sell for financial reasons i.e balancing books we would have to sell if someone offers £3.5 million for Earnie - I suspect we have other players ith similar clauses - I cn recall someone mentioning a £1.5M clause with Etuhu and I believe there is a £5 and a pot noodle clause in Hughes contract.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Hardhouse44"]

We were lead to believe that Earnshaw was not for sale unless we got an offer that was too good to refuse. That offer turns out to be only £500,000 more than we paid for him and as it was a clause it was always going to be that. Yet again we have been lead up the garden path buy the Carrow Rd spin Doctors.

Without a doubt WBA had a percentage sell on clause so we probably won''t even make that.

The crap spouted by all in the Norwich City hierarchy is getting to much to stomach and I for one would appreciate a little honesty as to our real ambitions and our real hopes for the future.

I can''t say that I''m not disappointed at Earnshaw’s departure but it was inevitable. I''m more disappointed at the price he went for and that we were lead to believe it would be for much more

I fear we will replace him with a player far below his standard and that is not progress. If the board really are interested in promotion then why did this clause exist if we failed got gain it last term. Smacks of the player using our club as a shop window and the club allowing it. It was clear from the first few weeks of last season that promotion was not on the cards. Therefore Earnshaw should have been sold before the end for bigger buck when we could, rather than allow this clause to come in to effect. That might not sound good but would have been better business than what we have just done.

[/quote]

I''m sick of the accusations of lies, there was no lies!! The club said he is not for sale and that is correct the club was not going to sell him and they didnt want to, but unfortunatly he had a get out clause and we would have never had Earnshaw if it wasn''t for that clause in his contract. Surprise, surprise Derby come in with just the right bid, I suspect Earnie''s agent tipped them off about it and I wouldn''t be surprised, he''s a player thats out for himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I''m certain that the chairman and the chief exec think most supporters are thick."

I''m certain most readers on this forum think so too...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we were told he would only go for silly money-lie 1

Were told that trying to sign cureton/eastwood or sharp was not to replace earnshaw-lie 2

when we were relegated from the prem Doomcaster said norwich will never put clauses in players contracts as they dfont believe in it-lie 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Millo"]

Well we were told he would only go for silly money-lie 1

Were told that trying to sign cureton/eastwood or sharp was not to replace earnshaw-lie 2

when we were relegated from the prem Doomcaster said norwich will never put clauses in players contracts as they dfont believe in it-lie 3

[/quote]

Well he certainly went for silly money. £3.5m for a player of his quality is a bloody joke.

Have a clause if you must but make it in everybody''s favour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would you rather they publicised the fact that anyone could stroll in and pick up Earnie for 3.5 mill?  Seems to me they didn''t want people to know about it.  In the end it appears Earnie wanted to go - ( fair enough really, seems like the right move for him ) which has dictated the fact that Derby can sign him for so cheap.  I''m a bit p*ssed off that Earnshaw has gone so cheap, but don''t really think its the board should get blamed for making the classic ''we don''t need to sell!'' comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ridgeman"]

The lies came from Mumby when he said (when the Turners joined the board) that Norwich City didn''t have to sell players if they didn''t want to. If Earnshaw had that clause in his contract Mumby should not have made that statement.

I''m certain that the chairman and the chief exec think most supporters are thick.

[/quote]

Absolute nonsense Ridgeman.   Norwich didn''t have to sell Earnie and didn''t want to sell Earnie.  Mimby said that there would be no forced sales as we saw at the ender of Fat Bob''s time.  Remember Sutton, Newsome etc.  Forced sales to raise cash to pay the bills.  Mumby said that would not happen this year.  It has not happened.  Whatever else he has done, he did lie here.

What you and most other posters do not seem to acknowledge is that this deal happened because Earnie wanted to go and under the terms of his contract the Club cannot block his move.  once the offer was made by Derby, the club was obligated to allow Earnie to talk to them and allow the move if that is what he wanted.

Be upset if you want.  I am disappointed but not weeping and wailing.  Be anti Mumby by all means.  I find him far from impressive.

However, hit the right targets and don''t distort what Mumby said to construct another attack on the Board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...