Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, S36 OWL said:

Does he work on the top floor ? 

 

UF1vQAB.gif

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Yeah there's no way that were repaying Norwich what they gave us to take Rhodes back.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, darra said:

Norwich have "first refusal" to sign him. If we want him back we have to pay back the loan fee and wages paid to him.  Fee is still being negotiated by the clubs with Norwich wanting to pay less than first agreed

Where is this info publically available ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A case of crossed wires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, S36 OWL said:

 

Does he work on the top floor ? 

On stilts

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OWLERTON GHOST said:

Bit of a stab in the dark here ..

Is this why the accounts are delayed ?

EFL have been informed of a possible large adjustment pending transfer /sale of an asset ? 

A stab in the dark ?

 

:Sid:

What's this, another carry on film ?

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OWLERTON GHOST said:

Bit of a stab in the dark here ..

Is this why the accounts are delayed ?

EFL have been informed of a possible large adjustment pending transfer /sale of an asset ? 

 

The accounts we are currently awaiting cover the year to May 31, 2018.

 

So, no. Rhodes’ loan and/or sale will not be reflected in there.

  • Thanks 1

The owls are not what they seem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Sergeant Tibbs said:

A stab in the dark ?

 

:Sid:

What's this, another carry on film ?

No mate Clousseau!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is already the longest summer on record.

  • Agree 1
  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, darra said:

Question is if his loan is over which it is why has he not returned to us. It was announced that all our players we loaned, Hector et all have returned to their parent clubs. Nothing about Rhodes as yet. When Bruce was asked at the end of the season he said he didn't know what was happening with Rhodes.

 

Have Norwich actually announced their retained list? And why would it be announced anyway that Rhodes has returned to us, the season's over and the players are on holiday.

 

Our loan players have returned to PL clubs whose season isn't finished yet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Shot down in flames. said:

So my dads boss was sat in our kitchen earlier he isn’t an owl or a pig, not sure who he supports if I am honest, is very high up at a large company that operates across Europe, he regularly gets top level hospitality at football up and down the country, directors box seats,  was at Norwich a couple of weeks ago and talking to one of there directors, said that they were paying half his wages and Wednesday the other half as the deal, reckoned Norwich are paying him 36k a week as are we surely he can’t be on 72k but the way things were back then it is plausible. If it is true (personally I doubt it) no wonder we are in a pickle!

 

If that was my boss I would at least invite him into the lounge.lol

Edited by oldtawnyowl
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, darra said:

Norwich have "first refusal" to sign him. If we want him back we have to pay back the loan fee and wages paid to him.  Fee is still being negotiated by the clubs with Norwich wanting to pay less than first agreed

 

So Norwich loan an £8m striker for a season, but if we have the audacity to actually want our own player back we have to pay his last year's wages plus the loan fee back meaning that Norwich had him completely free for a year at our expense? And not only that but they're also trying to diddle us on the agreed fee (in the highly unlikely event that they want to sign him permanently after he contributed virtually nothing to their season)?

 

The first and last sentences actually do sound possible, but let's just take a minute to think about how ridiculously implausible that middle sentence is...

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 7
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Rhodes is on anything north of £20,000 per week at Wednesday, then that is all the proof you need that the individuals acting on behalf of Sheffield Wednesday, that were responsible for that particular contract, are not fit for purpose.

 

The collection of dozy transfer flops like Rhodes that we accrued in the 2016/17 transfer windows, mean that we’re running up huge debts and the rumours that Hillsborough stadium, the club’s home for generations, could be sold in order to facilitate this feckless governance, are not going away.  It stinks.

 

Let’s hope the individuals responsible are now gone for good.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mrs Blenkinsops shed said:

That's a hell of a haircut

Wonder if he's changed his agent!!!

:Sid:


Should've signed with Doyen! Heard they sorted out an extremely sweet pay packet for David Jones, one which saw him earn more in a week than the entire Blades team earns in a year, combined (including coaching staff).

 

lol

 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These low flying execs are full of their own self importance, talk any old chite for a bit of attention ! 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Utah Owl said:

No mate Clousseau!

Not now Utah !

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Shot down in flames. said:

So my dads boss was sat in our kitchen earlier he isn’t an owl or a pig, not sure who he supports if I am honest, is very high up at a large company that operates across Europe, he regularly gets top level hospitality at football up and down the country, directors box seats,  was at Norwich a couple of weeks ago and talking to one of there directors, said that they were paying half his wages and Wednesday the other half as the deal, reckoned Norwich are paying him 36k a week as are we surely he can’t be on 72k but the way things were back then it is plausible. If it is true (personally I doubt it) no wonder we are in a pickle!

 

Im relatively high up in a company that operates across the world. I have literally no idea what any of ‘em earn. 

 

Also relatively speaking it could be said I’m not that high up in said company. 

 

Hope that helps. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, NYCOWL said:

This is already the longest summer on record.

I agree. And summer doesn't even start until 21st June.....

 

Think I need to get meself a hobby.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, darra said:

Norwich have "first refusal" to sign him. If we want him back we have to pay back the loan fee and wages paid to him.  Fee is still being negotiated by the clubs with Norwich wanting to pay less than first agreed

 

Even if this mental clause is true, presumably it would only operate if we wanted to overrule Norwich's right to sign him. If they turn down the chance to do so, as presumably they will, then we'll get him back for nowt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, alanharper said:

 

So Norwich loan an £8m striker for a season, but if we have the audacity to actually want our own player back we have to pay his last year's wages plus the loan fee back meaning that Norwich had him completely free for a year at our expense? And not only that but they're also trying to diddle us on the agreed fee (in the highly unlikely event that they want to sign him permanently after he contributed virtually nothing to their season)?

 

The first and last sentences actually do sound possible, but let's just take a minute to think about how ridiculously implausible that middle sentence is...

 

 

So implausible that there is no middle sentence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...