It's Quiet Corrections

[mad zab]

What evidence do you have that other's opinion on here is pure fantasy?

You have a conversation with execs from the club at an OSC and then proceed to tell everyone on here that this somehow validates your own personal opinion.

Personally I neither believe or disbelieve the so called ITK's on here, but I don't go out of my way to try and make them out to be liars, unlike you!!

My opinion is based on what was said last night, I haven't called anybody a liar. Thank you.

Yes you have!!

You said some of the names bandied about here was pure fantasy, meaning that the people posting them were fantatists, implying they are lying!!

I would have answered earlier but my work's server went down!!

 

[hilts]

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.

totally agree no one should mention the word done deal unless a player has signed onb the dotted line, its a contradiction which some find hard to understand, i also think if some hear talks are progressing well they say done deal to get the info out first in the hope it will get done

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

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....

Sure. One player has signed a pre-contract agreement (that shouldn't be too hard to guess in terms of player)

The the other two set of negotiations NO CONTRACTS HAVE BEEN SIGNED - they have been agreed to the point of negotiation - nothing has been ratified in term of the ink drying.

There is a separate dialogue of negotiations with two other clubs.

One in particular, there is an 'understanding' in terms of fee/fees.

The other is with Aston Villa re Milner, they made our bid public and different permutations have now been presented.

Chelsea's interest in Milner is also very real, although it seems a little too convenient in terms of other mutual targets.

 

[Pearce_out]

If we take aside the transfer speculation from yesterday, what has come out is that the club are investing heavily at every level. They justified the reasoning behind moving people and the club are connecting with the fans i.e. evenings like last night.<br /><br />-- Fri May 21, 2010 4:54 pm --<br /><br />

My opinion is based on what was said last night, I haven't called anybody a liar. Thank you.

Yes you have!!

You said some of the names bandied about here was pure fantasy, meaning that the people posting them were fantatists, implying they are lying!!

I would have answered earlier but my work's server went down!!

I said my opinion is that some of the names are pure fantasy, that is my OPINION and that hasn't changed. My opinion doesn't constitute calling somebody else a liar.

 

[shootmeifipost10k]

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 I questioned the thing about a club executive going to an open public meeting and being alowed to tell a lie if he did,for no other reason than my thinking on how the club is and should be run and nothing to do with what you or anybody else as posted about posible transfers.I read them raise my eyebrows smile in hope and wait most of the time.I thought the club would have learned from the whole MH thing and how they were villified by the press so something liek this would be the same if he openly lied.

If they did allow him to do this then in my view we can take what is put on the OS like the interview with Khaldoon as nothing more than what we want to hear although I don't think that's how it is.
I understand to some degree things can't be told and some sort of privacy is needed when it comes to transfers and we all will be told when it suits the club,

All I want really is for City to be run professionally and that includes everything from the cleaners all the way to transfers includind open meetings with fans and allowing one to openly lie if he did is not the way to go about this because it will be picked up on by not only us but the press.

 

[hilts]

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....

Sure. One player has signed a pre-contract agreement (that shouldn't be too hard to guess in terms of player)

The the other two set of negotiations NO CONTRACTS HAVE BEEN SIGNED - they have been agreed to the point of negotiation - nothing has been ratified in term of the ink drying.

There is a separate dialogue of negotiations with two other clubs.

One in particular, there is an 'understanding' in terms of fee/fees.

The other is with Aston Villa re Milner, they made our bid public and different permutations have now been presented.

Chelsea's interest in Milner is also very real, although it seems a little too convenient in terms of other mutual targets.

cheers fella thanks for that this confirms what i thought, i wont hold my breath with certain posters apologising for ridiculing my arguement that 3 players havent signed

fingers crossed they all get through

 

[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 I questioned the thing about a club executive going to an open public meeting and being alowed to tell a lie if he did,for no other reason than my thinking on how the club is and should be run and nothing to do with what you or anybody else as posted about posible transfers.I read them raise my eyebrows smile in hope and wait most of the time.I thought the club would have learned from the whole MH thing and how they were villified by the press so something liek this would be the same if he openly lied.

If they did allow him to do this then in my view we can take what is put on the OS like the interview with Khaldoon as nothing more than what we want to hear although I don't think that's how it is.
I understand to some degree things can't be told and some sort of privacy is needed when it comes to transfers and we all will be told when it suits the club,

All I want really is for City to be run professionally and that includes everything from the cleaners all the way to transfers includind open meetings with fans and allowing one to openly lie if he did is not the way to go about this because it will be picked up on by not only us but the press.

<br /><br />-- Fri May 21, 2010 6:00 pm --<br /><br />

Sure. One player has signed a pre-contract agreement (that shouldn't be too hard to guess in terms of player)

The the other two set of negotiations NO CONTRACTS HAVE BEEN SIGNED - they have been agreed to the point of negotiation - nothing has been ratified in term of the ink drying.

There is a separate dialogue of negotiations with two other clubs.

One in particular, there is an 'understanding' in terms of fee/fees.

The other is with Aston Villa re Milner, they made our bid public and different permutations have now been presented.

Chelsea's interest in Milner is also very real, although it seems a little too convenient in terms of other mutual targets.

cheers fella thanks for that this confirms what i thought, i wont hold my breath with certain posters apologising for ridiculing my arguement that 3 players havent signed

fingers crossed they all get through

We've all known the above (apart from the interesting Milner update which somewhat casts Villa in a bad light) for the last 24 hours. You need to keep up, Terminator, lad.

 

[BringBackSwales]

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?

pmsfl very much

 

[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 I questioned the thing about a club executive going to an open public meeting and being alowed to tell a lie if he did,for no other reason than my thinking on how the club is and should be run and nothing to do with what you or anybody else as posted about posible transfers.I read them raise my eyebrows smile in hope and wait most of the time.I thought the club would have learned from the whole MH thing and how they were villified by the press so something liek this would be the same if he openly lied.

If they did allow him to do this then in my view we can take what is put on the OS like the interview with Khaldoon as nothing more than what we want to hear although I don't think that's how it is.
I understand to some degree things can't be told and some sort of privacy is needed when it comes to transfers and we all will be told when it suits the club,

All I want really is for City to be run professionally and that includes everything from the cleaners all the way to transfers includind open meetings with fans and allowing one to openly lie if he did is not the way to go about this because it will be picked up on by not only us but the press.

im not sure the guy did lie he said there was an agreement with one and negotiations are going on with the other two, this ties up with tolmies post i believe

 

[Anonymous]

I also trust Tolmie. I don't believe Ajay for a second but find him funny.

But if Ajay is giving this info via PM's why do these people (whoever they are) never post that he was correct as they had a PM before the signing hit the news from Ajay.

If you challenge Ajay he says he has been insulted and runs for the hills. Classic cold reading technique. He is Derek Acorah and Elton John rolled into one.

Why can't our ITK's name names like Spursmad did? It's all a bit convenient don't you think?

Because the names are commercially sensitive information. Because they don't want to compromise their sources. To be fair Tolmie has named names. The thread was then pulled because of pressure from the club. That alone leant his comments weight.

Ajay, well, I'm a lot less certain of but I don't like to see people being hounded. He does no harm.

Do you really believe this. That the club controls what is and what is not allowed on a public forum. Please explain further.