Adebayor gone (& we aren't paying his wages)

[Ray78]

Adebayor is not our problem.

 

[sniff]

We aren't paying his wages

Im open to both arguments, but unless you have a source saying as such... well no one's going to take it as fact are they ?

It's true because you shouted loudest isnt realy cutting it it seem's.

 

[pudge]

We aren't paying his wages

Im open to both arguments, but unless you have a source saying as such... well no one's going to take it as fact are they ?

It's true because you shouted loudest isnt realy cutting it it seem's.

I didn't shout my head just exploded

 

[SWP's back]

We aren't paying his wages

Im open to both arguments, but unless you have a source saying as such... well no one's going to take it as fact are they ?

It's true because you shouted loudest isnt realy cutting it it seem's.

Yes I do have a source who I believe very firmly.

 

[pudge]

Adebayor had been on £170,000-a-week at City and, while that salary has been reduced to around £100,000 to fit Tottenham’s wage structure...It is understood that Adebayor received a signing-on fee from Tottenham of around £4 million...It all means that Adebayor has been compensated for his reduced wages.

 

[Rammyblues]

I wonder how much longer should we have a thread dedicated to a Spurs player when all said and done. I couldn't give two hoots whether we did or did not pay for some of his wages the only thing I wanted was him to go and he has.

 

[SWP's back]

Adebayor had been on £170,000-a-week at City and, while that salary has been reduced to around £100,000 to fit Tottenham’s wage structure...It is understood that Adebayor received a signing-on fee from Tottenham of around £4 million...It all means that Adebayor has been compensated for his reduced wages.

But but that's the Telegraph and the BBC says.....

 

[sniff]

We aren't paying his wages

Im open to both arguments, but unless you have a source saying as such... well no one's going to take it as fact are they ?

It's true because you shouted loudest isnt realy cutting it it seem's.

Yes I do have a source who I believe very firmly.

But whilst your source remains incognito, and the only person who has information from said source you must see why people are sceptical...

In what other debate could you use that argument and make out everyone is stupid for taking information actually serious, certainly at more value than a stranger on the inter saying xxx told me ?

It's not about questioning the source, more impossible for you to argue a point, when the whole point is "because i know"

 

[Rolee]

Apply a bit of common sense to this and you get your answer.

Why would City continue to subsidise his wage when he is no longer on their books? Is it not more likely that they paid him off in a lump sum and then cut all ties?

 

[Marvin]

We aren't paying his wages

Im open to both arguments, but unless you have a source saying as such... well no one's going to take it as fact are they ?

It's true because you shouted loudest isnt realy cutting it it seem's.

Yes I do have a source who I believe very firmly.

Fair enough. That's fine.

All I was trying to say was that the Mail article you referred to was saying the opposite.