come on Archant!

[Syteanric 1]

and i quote from the Hucks story on the front of this page

The £3.5m sale of Earnshaw supplemented the £2m interest free-loan from new directors Andrew and Sharon Turner, which guaranteed no players had to be sold.

isn''t that untrue? if it gaurentees no players had to be sold then what about Etuhu, Earnie and Saffs.

At least base the articles on what is currently going on rather than on some b***ox spouted by the chairman a few months ago!

jas :)

[yellow blood 0]

Strictly speaking Jas, didn''t the players / their agents exercise their right to move employer (due to buy-out clauses) rather than actually have to be sold?

[Jerzy Krukowski 5]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

and i quote from the Hucks story on the front of this page

The £3.5m sale of Earnshaw supplemented the £2m interest free-loan from new directors Andrew and Sharon Turner, which guaranteed no players had to be sold.

isn''t that untrue? if it gaurentees no players had to be sold then what about Etuhu, Earnie and Saffs.

At least base the articles on what is currently going on rather than on some b***ox spouted by the chairman a few months ago!

jas :)

[/quote]not that hard to understand. no players HAD to be sold, that doesn''t mean if they''re offered vast cash they won''t CHOOSE to go and there''s nothing the club can do to stop them, release clause or not.

[a1canary 0]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

and i quote from the Hucks story on the front of this page

The £3.5m sale of Earnshaw supplemented the £2m interest free-loan from new directors Andrew and Sharon Turner, which guaranteed no players had to be sold.

isn''t that untrue? if it gaurentees no players had to be sold then what about Etuhu, Earnie and Saffs.

At least base the articles on what is currently going on rather than on some b***ox spouted by the chairman a few months ago!

jas :)

[/quote]Come on Archant? Come on Jas! You are ingoring the context - we all know the guarantee is that no player has to be sold for financial reasons, to balance the books. We all know full well why they were sold - not to balance the books but because of those release clauses. There is nothing the club can do in the event that these clauses are triggered by the offering clubs. All that can save the situation once this happens is that the player refuses to leave. And no player is going to turn down premiership football.

[Le Juge 0]

From a financial point of view the money assured the players didn''t have to be sold. It didn''t guarentee the players wouldn''t want to leave and/or didn''t magically remove any buy out clauses they may have already had. If Earnshaw, Safri or Etuhu didn''t want to leave they''d still be Norwich players (and at the time of writing Safri and Etuhu technically are unless I missed the announcement)

Financially they didn''t have to be sold, it didn''t take personal preferences or contractual obligations into consideration. Story seems accurate to me.

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="a1canary"][quote user="jas the barclay king"]

and i quote from the Hucks story on the front of this page

The £3.5m sale of Earnshaw supplemented the £2m interest free-loan from new directors Andrew and Sharon Turner, which guaranteed no players had to be sold.

isn''t that untrue? if it gaurentees no players had to be sold then what about Etuhu, Earnie and Saffs.

At least base the articles on what is currently going on rather than on some b***ox spouted by the chairman a few months ago!

jas :)

[/quote]

Come on Archant? Come on Jas! You are ingoring the context - we all know the guarantee is that no player has to be sold for financial reasons, to balance the books.
We all know full well why they were sold - not to balance the books but because of those release clauses. There is nothing the club can do in the event that these clauses are triggered by the offering clubs. All that can save the situation once this happens is that the player refuses to leave. And no player is going to turn down premiership football.
[/quote]

fair comment but then why say "we dont have to sell" when we do! the clauses dictate we do! saying otherwise is both not reporting fact, and leading people astray.

the club said we didnt need to sell which was a joke in itself. when 2 players (who knows maybe more) have clauses then why make a statement indicating we wont be selling anyone?

 jas :)

[a1canary 0]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"][quote user="a1canary"][quote user="jas the barclay king"]

and i quote from the Hucks story on the front of this page

The £3.5m sale of Earnshaw supplemented the £2m interest free-loan from new directors Andrew and Sharon Turner, which guaranteed no players had to be sold.

isn''t that untrue? if it gaurentees no players had to be sold then what about Etuhu, Earnie and Saffs.

At least base the articles on what is currently going on rather than on some b***ox spouted by the chairman a few months ago!

jas :)

[/quote]Come on Archant? Come on Jas! You are ingoring the context - we all know the guarantee is that no player has to be sold for financial reasons, to balance the books. We all know full well why they were sold - not to balance the books but because of those release clauses. There is nothing the club can do in the event that these clauses are triggered by the offering clubs. All that can save the situation once this happens is that the player refuses to leave. And no player is going to turn down premiership football. [/quote]

fair comment but then why say "we dont have to sell" when we do! the clauses dictate we do! saying otherwise is both not reporting fact, and leading people astray.

the club said we didnt need to sell which was a joke in itself. when 2 players (who knows maybe more) have clauses then why make a statement indicating we wont be selling anyone?

 jas :)

[/quote]I agree that the board must have known since the last day of the season pretty much that there was a serious risk we could lose Earnie and Etuhu. So any celebrations about not having to sell, even if only whipped up in the media (archant!), were always potentially going to come back to haunt us. I just hope someone sat Grant down and told him the worst case scenarios so he could get on and do his homework on potential replacements. The Bowyer story seems to suggest some work has been going on in the backround.We haven''t heard from PG yet but i bet he''ll have plenty to say and will chose his time to say it.

[Arthur Whittle 0]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"][quote user="a1canary"][quote user="jas the barclay king"]

and i quote from the Hucks story on the front of this page

The £3.5m sale of Earnshaw supplemented the £2m interest free-loan from new directors Andrew and Sharon Turner, which guaranteed no players had to be sold.

isn''t that untrue? if it gaurentees no players had to be sold then what about Etuhu, Earnie and Saffs.

At least base the articles on what is currently going on rather than on some b***ox spouted by the chairman a few months ago!

jas :)

[/quote]

Come on Archant? Come on Jas! You are ingoring the context - we all know the guarantee is that no player has to be sold for financial reasons, to balance the books.
We all know full well why they were sold - not to balance the books but because of those release clauses. There is nothing the club can do in the event that these clauses are triggered by the offering clubs. All that can save the situation once this happens is that the player refuses to leave. And no player is going to turn down premiership football.
[/quote]

fair comment but then why say "we dont have to sell" when we do! the clauses dictate we do! saying otherwise is both not reporting fact, and leading people astray.

the club said we didnt need to sell which was a joke in itself. when 2 players (who knows maybe more) have clauses then why make a statement indicating we wont be selling anyone?

 jas :)

[/quote]

Well said Jas, glad to see one of the most if not the most intelligent posters on here is seeing through this sham!