airborne_rat_of_s6 Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 All smacks of duck houses to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigdan2003 Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) It's the principal, give a box to a player what's to stop other players asking for the same thing, things like that shouldn't be part of any deal, if he wants one buy one...if he's got blog on with Norwich for not refunding him his money it's got nowt to do with us....sue em if he's that bothered, if not, lump it. I would imagine this sort of thing happens all the time in deals. I bet some are even more pathetic. Edited September 2, 2015 by bigdan2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Deleted member Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Pages and pages of people saying Nixon is talking bolloxx. Sheffield Telegraph confirm story Hope that egg isn't too hot on your faces Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Last_Great_Hope Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Forget Rhodes and McCormack. They were never realistic without parachute or PL money. Vydra and Hooper were different. Reading are getting fleeced good and proper for Vydra, and I couldn't have stomached that deal either. As for Hooper, who knows? But our deal for Hooper was a loan, as I understand it, so we can always go back in next week. I still think we'll get that striker even if we don't get Hooper. Frankly, we can't afford not to. I would 100% pay £2m for one year of Vydra as the alternative to going into the rest of the season with Nuhiu / Bus / Joao / Lavery as our strikers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themaskedowl Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Absolutely no idea if this is true and I don't know how connected this Nixon is. Reading through what was said, it is possible that we as a club did everything right our end IF we matched what he earnt at Norwich and non of the delays were due to Hooper's agent looking for a last minute better deal Then why is it our fault that Norwich allegedly wouldn't refund him his box fee? IMO this is a 100% Norwich / Hooper problem whether our Box pricing is ridiculous and we have empty ones is another issue - there's doing what is necessary and there's having your pants down - we have to be sensible agents detect desperation I can buy this (and your initial disclaimer still stands), however, if that is the case what the flip is going on? If the deal's agreed then surely he comes. It's up to him to sort out any personal issues that he has with Norwich over a corporate box in his own time. How does that particular personal issue affect our deal? Unless...just thinking about it a bit more, the box was a part of his package deal with Norwich. Coming here and not getting a box or the equivalent in wages or a lump sum means he is out of pocket. It could have been a part of a structured deal to reduce personal income tax (fringe benefit/salary sacrifice). I guess that makes some sort of sense in my head. Though it still looks like a cut off your nose to spite your face type deal. He's still stuck at Norwich, unlikely to play and they're having to pay his full wage and don't have the agreed loan fee from us (which would surely have covered the cost of a corporate box with quite a bit of change left over). In short: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theowlsman Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Let's not go back for him. I'm not signing unless you give me a box. FFS. Foook off Hooper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIG D Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 As I said earlier there was nothing for Nixon to gain from making a story like this up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southportdc Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Pages and pages of people saying Nixon is talking bolloxx. Sheffield Telegraph confirm story Hope that egg isn't too hot on your faces Nixon has to be talking bolllocks as his statements directly contradict. Saying Wednesday did everything they could and the problem is between Hooper and Norwich (repeatedly) then saying the problem is we refused to supply a free box - both can't be true. He said we moved on because Norwich messed us around - now Hooper refused to sign because we wouldn't supply a box. Unless there's two Hoopers, he's talking bolllocks somewhere along the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athelwulf Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Whatever the whys and wherefores of this case are, the fact is that power is in the hands of the players these days, like it or not. And we are in grave need of a striker. Someone wrote that agents can smell desperation. Too right they can, and we're desperate. We've needed a striker for 3 years, and now that we're playing a more open, "attractive" brand of football we need one even more to cancel out the extra goals we're conceding. Give the man his box and damn his impudence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themaskedowl Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Let's not go back for him. I'm not signing unless you give me a box. FFS. Foook off Hooper. Let's not be too eager to find blame if any of this has any fact in it at all. We don't know the details of who did what when and where. He may well have been arguing with Norwich for what had been agreed in his contract. Can't fault him for that. Of course, if he just wanted a free box to come here and play then; get stuffed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Deleted member Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Whatever the whys and wherefores of this case are, the fact is that power is in the hands of the players these days, like it or not. And we are in grave need of a striker. Someone wrote that agents can smell desperation. Too right they can, and we're desperate. We've needed a striker for 3 years, and now that we're playing a more open, "attractive" brand of football we need one even more to cancel out the extra goals we're conceding. Give the man his box and damn his impudence. We've needed a striker for 15 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themaskedowl Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Nixon has to be talking bolllocks as his statements directly contradict. Saying Wednesday did everything they could and the problem is between Hooper and Norwich (repeatedly) then saying the problem is we refused to supply a free box - both can't be true. He said we moved on because Norwich messed us around - now Hooper refused to sign because we wouldn't supply a box. Unless there's two Hoopers, he's talking bolllocks somewhere along the line. I haven't read the Telegraph article but, if my proposition in post #168 is possible then it's not SWFC that's at fault, and doesn't contradict Nixon's twitter posts (as reproduced on Owlstalk because I don't have a twitter account). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Last_Great_Hope Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 If it was a loan deal, why take him now? Take him in a weeks time and save 32K. Because "Emergency Loans" are a maximum of 93 days. If he signed the first day of the loan window, he can only be here til 11 December 2015. He can also be recalled without our permission (if the loan contract has that provision, which they usually do) after the first 28 days of the 93. If we got him on a "Standard Loan" he would be here until the Jan transfer window and can't be recalled by Norwich without our express agreement to allow it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athelwulf Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 It looks like this is going to become a cause celebre. Last year we had Maygate, with Evo crying foul, and now we've got Hoopergate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theowlsman Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Let's not be too eager to find blame if any of this has any fact in it at all. We don't know the details of who did what when and where. He may well have been arguing with Norwich for what had been agreed in his contract. Can't fault him for that. Of course, if he just wanted a free box to come here and play then; get stuffed. It's clear Wednesday haven't done anything wrong. Seems Norwich accepted our terms, and were happy for Hooper to leave. That leaves Hooper and his agent. Who had the issue with the box? Hooper or Wednesday, or Norwich? He's another Bothroyd. Lucky escape. If we've got a happy dressing room at S6, let's keep it that way. "Why's he got a box and not me?" etc No prima donnas please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athelwulf Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 There'll be no whitewash, at Wednesday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Last_Great_Hope Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 It's clear Wednesday haven't done anything wrong. Seems Norwich accepted our terms, and were happy for Hooper to leave. That leaves Hooper and his agent. Who had the issue with the box? Hooper or Wednesday, or Norwich? He's another Bothroyd. Lucky escape. If we've got a happy dressing room at S6, let's keep it that way. "Why's he got a box and not me?" etc No prima donnas please. Woah Woah Woah. Lets not go too far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Deleted member Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 It's clear Wednesday haven't done anything wrong. Seems Norwich accepted our terms, and were happy for Hooper to leave. That leaves Hooper and his agent. Who had the issue with the box? Hooper or Wednesday, or Norwich? He's another Bothroyd. Lucky escape. If we've got a happy dressing room at S6, let's keep it that way. "Why's he got a box and not me?" etc No prima donnas please. To be fair this does have the reek of an agent about it Why should client be out of pocket? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theowlsman Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Woah Woah Woah. Lets not go too far. Why not? Probably wears ladies Hug boots too (or whatever they're called). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigger Guns Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 For some reason people don't realise it's all relative, they get taxed massively and have much bigger bills to pay. Lee hendry for example was made bankrupt for not looking after his money Boo hoo for lee hendry if you go bankrupt on his wage you've only got yourself to blame. Not the tax man and bigger bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now