It's Quiet Corrections

[terrychoichelsea]

The title of the thread has not exactly helped the flow of it, I would offer?

Corrections, can be interpreted in many ways. Contradictions, would probably have been more suitable?

And surely would have remained valid within the 'It's quiet thread', rather than as a separate stand-alone?

If nothing else, it increases the division on here, unless the original aim, on the part of the OP, was to somehow provide him with a platform to rub others' noses in it? Sincere apologies should this likely not be the case.

Pearcey is clearly an intelligent poster, showing plenty of respect in his subsequent responses.

But he is naive, as are some others, in the extreme, to suggest the club policy line is somehow opaque.

Two words - Mark Hughes - and I can tell you for a fact that the club were lying to his face well before he was dismissed.

In fact, all the fans were deceived, as club officials remained tight-lipped throughout the so-called dead-man walking period.

In itself, perpetuating a blatant lie.

I would not say they have lied during the meeting, as some others may have, only that they are being extremely econonical with the truth, to serve an agenda, for the good of the club.

The original thread was pulled for a reason, along with Peacey's more than valid opinions, is it also not beyond the realms to consider the club want this version out in the public domain for very real reasons!

cheers

tolmie,
is the situation remain the same as yesterday?

thanks.

 

[hilts]

I bet everything in your world is very black and white. Have a nice B&W weekend.

What,you mean there are REALLY shades of grey?

there are shades of grey, a player may have verbally agreed, may have shaken hands on it, but a done deal is a signed contract which is black and white thats what contracts are about and that is the whole point

 

[RandyBlue]

I bet everything in your world is very black and white. Have a nice B&W weekend.

so you cant answer against the points then so whats the point

You've been given any number of possible reasons. You just choose not to believe any of them.

 

[hilts]

The title of the thread has not exactly helped the flow of it, I would offer?

Corrections, can be interpreted in many ways. Contradictions, would probably have been more suitable?

And surely would have remained valid within the 'It's quiet thread', rather than as a separate stand-alone?

If nothing else, it increases the division on here, unless the original aim, on the part of the OP, was to somehow provide him with a platform to rub others' noses in it? Sincere apologies should this likely not be the case.

Pearcey is clearly an intelligent poster, showing plenty of respect in his subsequent responses.

But he is naive, as are some others, in the extreme, to suggest the club policy line is somehow opaque.

Two words - Mark Hughes - and I can tell you for a fact that the club were lying to his face well before he was dismissed.

In fact, all the fans were deceived, as club officials remained tight-lipped throughout the so-called dead-man walking period.

In itself, perpetuating a blatant lie.

I would not say they have lied during the meeting, as some others may have, only that they are being extremely econonical with the truth, to serve an agenda, for the good of the club.

The original thread was pulled for a reason, along with Peacey's more than valid opinions, is it also not beyond the realms to consider the club want this version out in the public domain for very real reasons!

cheers

tolmie can you clarify from your info have 3 players actually SIGNED A CONTRACT or is it more it looks like they have agreed to sign but have yet to do so, this would be helpful info without going into names etc....

 

[Jack74]

Hi Tolmie do u bet on players joining City ? , would have pm u but didnt think that was the right thing to do

 

[RandyBlue]

The title of the thread has not exactly helped the flow of it, I would offer?

Corrections, can be interpreted in many ways. Contradictions, would probably have been more suitable?

And surely would have remained valid within the 'It's quiet thread', rather than as a separate stand-alone?

If nothing else, it increases the division on here, unless the original aim, on the part of the OP, was to somehow provide him with a platform to rub others' noses in it? Sincere apologies should this likely not be the case.

Pearcey is clearly an intelligent poster, showing plenty of respect in his subsequent responses.

But he is naive, as are some others, in the extreme, to suggest the club policy line is somehow opaque.

Two words - Mark Hughes - and I can tell you for a fact that the club were lying to his face well before he was dismissed.

In fact, all the fans were deceived, as club officials remained tight-lipped throughout the so-called dead-man walking period.

In itself, perpetuating a blatant lie.

I would not say they have lied during the meeting, as some others may have, only that they are being extremely econonical with the truth, to serve an agenda, for the good of the club.

The original thread was pulled for a reason, along with Peacey's more than valid opinions, is it also not beyond the realms to consider the club want this version out in the public domain for very real reasons!

cheers

tolmie can you clarify from your info have 3 players actually SIGNED A CONTRACT or is it more it looks like they have agreed to sign but have yet to do so, this would be helpful info without going into names etc....

Fuck me, are you a solicitor touting for work?

 

[Scooby Blue]

To try and cut out some of the name calling etc , can we just agree that "posting in good faith" is not the same thing as correctly outlining the current status of our transfer negotiations.

Tolmie (apart from some self-indulgence on the music clue episode) is posting in good faith i.e. he is accurately passing on what he believes to be the state of play. I think his source has a partial but not necessarily complete view of what is going on.

I would put Ajay's comments in a different category.Maybe his source is more excitable / more optimistic / more gullible and therefore has a "glass half full" approach to life....hence "3 deals done" vs "3 deals in the works".

If you took 6 Blue-mooners at random and allowed them to be a "fly on the wall" at the final transfer discussions between the Club and a prospective transfer target's agent , I think you would get 6 different assessments of where we stood: ranging from "done deal" to "we are being used by the player to get a higher salary at his existing club".

A player's agent "agreeing in principle" to a deal is not the same thing as a player signing for a City... and I think this is leading to some of the confusion.

 

[hilts]

so you cant answer against the points then so whats the point

You've been given any number of possible reasons. You just choose not to believe any of them.

yeah thats right all 3 players have special reasons for the signing of a contract to be kept secret, i especially like the one about the paperwork has not been completed but they have signed, great logic that

 

[Pearce_out]

The title of the thread has not exactly helped the flow of it, I would offer?

Corrections, can be interpreted in many ways. Contradictions, would probably have been more suitable?

And surely would have remained valid within the 'It's quiet thread', rather than as a separate stand-alone?

If nothing else, it increases the division on here, unless the original aim, on the part of the OP, was to somehow provide him with a platform to rub others' noses in it? Sincere apologies should this likely not be the case.

Pearcey is clearly an intelligent poster, showing plenty of respect in his subsequent responses.

But he is naive, as are some others, in the extreme, to suggest the club policy line is somehow opaque.

Two words - Mark Hughes - and I can tell you for a fact that the club were lying to his face well before he was dismissed.

In fact, all the fans were deceived, as club officials remained tight-lipped throughout the so-called dead-man walking period.

In itself, perpetuating a blatant lie.

I would not say they have lied during the meeting, as some others may have, only that they are being extremely econonical with the truth, to serve an agenda, for the good of the club.

The original thread was pulled for a reason, along with Peacey's more than valid opinions, is it also not beyond the realms to consider the club want this version out in the public domain for very real reasons!

cheers

There is probably quite alot of sense in that thread even though I was labled as naieve :P

 

[RandyBlue]

You've been given any number of possible reasons. You just choose not to believe any of them.

yeah thats right all 3 players have special reasons for the signing of a contract to be kept secret, i especially like the one about the paperwork has not been completed but they have signed, great logic that

I try and lighten things up and still, on you bulldoze, like a humourless Terminator, looking for those elusive signed contracts.....

Hilts, yesterday, looking for signed contracts