Karl Henry wants paying

Sluffy wrote:I know because I've been one of them that has made similar types of decisions in the past.

I'll ask again.

So you've agreed a contract and then reneged?

Sluffy wrote:Fwiw I believe that it did affect a number of potential signings we had set up at the time but I obviously am unable to prove that.

I know of no player, let alone our managers 'top targets' refusing to sign for us because of a perception of the clubs financial mismanagement.

I’ll just leave these two statements alongside each other to show how your opinions change with the wind in your crusade to defend Anderson at all costs .

He's just made you look a right knob, Sluffy.

wanderlust wrote:

luckyPeterpiper wrote:I haven't seen a single comment anywhere on any reputable media site that says any player refused to come here because of a perception of financial mismanagement. 

Link has expired now but it was Australian captain Mark Milligan who Parky tried to sign last year. He couldn't at the time because Australia had slipped out of the FIFA top 50 World Rankings but after Oz's (and Milligan's) excellent performances at the World Cup they went back up the rankings. At which point Parky renewed his interest only to be told (eventually) that Milligan had been advised to stay away from Bolton by his agent on the grounds that the finances wouldn't be forthcoming.
The previous year he had described it as his "dream move".

How convenient eh!

Must have been from a really top notch reputable media site then!

What about the other of Parkinson's top transfer targets did we miss also (you stated that there was more than one) have the links about them expired too!

T.R.O.Y wrote:

Sluffy wrote:Fwiw I believe that it did affect a number of potential signings we had set up at the time but I obviously am unable to prove that.

I know of no player, let alone our managers 'top targets' refusing to sign for us because of a perception of the clubs financial mismanagement.

I’ll just leave these two statements alongside each other to show how your opinions change with the wind in your crusade to defend Anderson at all costs .

Eh???

What are you on about?

I do believe the strike did affect our potential signings we may have had set up at the time, and probably delayed/put on hold a number of them signing for a week or two until things settled down, whilst the club, the EFL, Anderson, etc, dealt with the immediate fall out of the illegal strike.

I know of no player...refusing to sign because of it - is a factual statement from me and isn't in any way contrary to that belief though?  

The net result of the strike imo being a delay to the eventual signings we went on to make and consequently leaving us little or no time to cast our net wider in the remaining few weeks of the window to get other players to sign (as opposed to loan) which we ended up doing with Mathews and Grounds.


Again you are simply trying to start an argument over nothing.

Not for the first time either.

Sluffy wrote:I know because I've been one of them that has made similar types of decisions in the past.

I'm going to insist you answer this one.

So you've agreed a contract and then reneged?

Sluffy you’ve clearly contradicted yourself. Just own up, we will respect you a bit more

Boggersbelief wrote:Sluffy you’ve clearly contradicted yourself. Just own up, we will respect you a bit more

Defending the indefensible is his speciality and what he lacks in reason and logic he makes up for in sheer volume of words.

Which works to some extent as it masks the crap in a shroud of indifference.

I'll respect him when he starts respecting other people's opinions instead of taking issue with everyone who doesn't agree with him or the party line on the Andersons. And cuts out the snidey juvenile comments. And stops grossly extrapolating and exaggerating what people write in order to justify his own position. And stops trying to crack on he has expertise in corporate finance.
If he can stop doing all that, he will definitely have manned up and I'll respect that.

wanderlust wrote:

Boggersbelief wrote:Sluffy you’ve clearly contradicted yourself. Just own up, we will respect you a bit more

Defending the indefensible is his speciality and what he lacks in reason and logic he makes up for in sheer volume of words.

Which works to some extent as it masks the crap in a shroud of indifference.

I'll respect him when he starts respecting other people's opinions instead of taking issue with everyone who doesn't agree with him or the party line on the Andersons. And cuts out the snidey juvenile comments. And stops grossly extrapolating and exaggerating what people write in order to justify his own position. And stops trying to crack on he has expertise in corporate finance.
If he can stop doing all that, he will definitely have manned up and I'll respect that.

What are you both on about, I've NOT contradicted myself???

It’s there in writing you absolute sausage.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Sluffy wrote:I know because I've been one of them that has made similar types of decisions in the past.

I'm going to insist you answer this one.

So you've agreed a contract and then reneged?

You've fallen a long way if these days you have to revert to trolling to get the reactions you want.

All public authorities have their own legal departments/teams/advisors because of their required specialisms so all services provided (say at a local level such as local councils) which include the provision of things like Housing, Social Care, Education, Environment, etc are covered.  So any queries managers have regarding contracts compliance, disputes, enforcement, payments, sanctions, etc, are passed to them for advice.

In my time I've certainly refused to sign off contracts and held back payments due to non agreement/satisfaction of services that had been poorly provided (or even completely omitted) from contractors after taking legal advice that I had the power to do so.

It's actually common practise and something that goes on all the time and not just exclusive to the public sector.

It’s not trolling to expect you to answer a question.

T.R.O.Y wrote:It’s there in writing you absolute sausage.

What is???

Let me make it simple.

No strike - week one, player A signs. week two and three, move on to sign other players.

Strike - week one and two, strike sorted out, week three, player A eventually signs.

So imo the strike DID affect the signings we had at the time (it delayed them) but no player I know of refused to sign for us because of the strike (they simply signed a week or two later when things had been sufficiently sorted).

It's not hard to understand what I'm saying unless you're deliberately looking to start an argument where one doesn't even exist.

wanderlust wrote: And cuts out the snidey juvenile comments.

You called Anderson a toad face.

Talk about people in glass houses!

Cajunboy wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Is that Norris?

No it's Boltonbonce tending his tomatoes.

Sadly we can't see his slippers.

karlypants wrote:

wanderlust wrote: And cuts out the snidey juvenile comments.

You called Anderson a toad face.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I apologies.
One is a small fat poisonous species of pond life and the other....

Sluffy wrote:It's not hard to understand what I'm saying unless you're deliberately looking to start an argument where one doesn't even exist.

 
Ye same old, the only reason anyone could possibly disagree with Sluffy is if they’re on a wind up/hold a grudge. 

You’d manage to ignore logic if it slapped you in the face.

To me it doesn't matter and there shouldn't a list of who gets paid first. If Henry is due a payment then it needs to be made and KA is again in the wrong on this. Its just bad business practice and he should have made sure all last seasons payments were paid before planning for this season.