| Adam Webster AGAIN 11:34 - Jul 30 with 5257 views | briz |
Sorry to post about him again, but looks like he’s off to Brighton for £25 million, which will bank you a nice £5 million. Just thought I’d give you the info. |  | | |  |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 12:06 - Jul 30 with 1681 views | PhilTWTD |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 12:04 - Jul 30 by Kieran_Knows |
Which will offset our losses by £1.72m, then*
 |
Almost certainly! |  | | |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 12:07 - Jul 30 with 1674 views | Bluefish |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 12:03 - Jul 30 by BiGDonnie |
Let it go Fishers, let's look forward to this season instead of bleating on about that buffoon. |
Missing the point flower. I am asking the many to retract their points and therefore let it go |  |
| |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 12:15 - Jul 30 with 1622 views | Garv |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 11:58 - Jul 30 by PhilTWTD |
I think Elliott was one of the permanent targets, we tried to include him in the renegotiation of the Bart deal last month but things broke down and then he got injured. |
Supposedly Elliot was offered to us and we declined. |  |
| |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 12:20 - Jul 30 with 1591 views | Garv |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 11:41 - Jul 30 by JDB23 |
Quite sickening seeing former players move for amounts that would literally change the club.
Still, if those figures are correct then that would mean getting roughly £8m for Webster? Assuming none of the original add ons were reached. That's a tidy sum which you would hope would be partly put back into securing 1/2 key players this summer, would be no excuse not to really, especially if Bart is off also. |
Is it, but we'd have never sold Webster for that much, simply because as a team we were unlikely to be performing well enough for one player to attract that much attention. | |
| |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 12:22 - Jul 30 with 1573 views | braveblue |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 11:41 - Jul 30 by JDB23 |
Quite sickening seeing former players move for amounts that would literally change the club.
Still, if those figures are correct then that would mean getting roughly £8m for Webster? Assuming none of the original add ons were reached. That's a tidy sum which you would hope would be partly put back into securing 1/2 key players this summer, would be no excuse not to really, especially if Bart is off also. |
Reinvest. Laughs!! | | | |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 12:26 - Jul 30 with 1544 views | PhilTWTD |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 12:15 - Jul 30 by Garv |
Supposedly Elliot was offered to us and we declined. |
No, other way round, we asked about him. I've known about the interest since just after the Bart deal broke down, have been expecting it to revive once he was back towards fitness.
This post has been edited by an administrator | | | |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 12:27 - Jul 30 with 1531 views | Bluefish |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 12:02 - Jul 30 by Bluefish |
What is happening with big Kieff these days? |
I love asking phil questions | |
| |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 12:31 - Jul 30 with 1496 views | Garv |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 12:26 - Jul 30 by PhilTWTD |
No, other way round, we asked about him. I've known about the interest since just after the Bart deal broke down, have been expecting it to revive once he was back towards fitness.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
If that's the case I don't suppose you'll worry that Watson has the wrong info, he believes the opposite! | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 12:36 - Jul 30 with 1450 views | Superblue95 |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 12:02 - Jul 30 by briz |
Well you’re wrong. Our CEO all but confirmed. |
How dare you come on here and give our Phil that kind of lip. |  |
| |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 12:37 - Jul 30 with 1448 views | PhilTWTD |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 12:31 - Jul 30 by Garv |
If that's the case I don't suppose you'll worry that Watson has the wrong info, he believes the opposite! |
As I was told at the time (and have been told the same again in the last couple of days), when they tried to renegotiate we asked about including him in the deal but the overall deal broke down, presumably which is what's led us to the current position of two loans rather than permanent deals. | | | |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 12:39 - Jul 30 with 1420 views | christiand |
Isn't it quite ironic that both Webster and Clarke could potentially end up playing Premier League football for the same club!? [Post edited 30 Jul 2019 12:53]
| |
| |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 12:44 - Jul 30 with 1359 views | PhilTWTD |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 12:06 - Jul 30 by PhilTWTD |
Almost certainly! |
Seems dependent on Maguire to Man U being completed and in turn Dunk to Leicester. Not ready to push the imminent button as yet. | | | |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 12:48 - Jul 30 with 1333 views | Garv |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 12:37 - Jul 30 by PhilTWTD |
As I was told at the time (and have been told the same again in the last couple of days), when they tried to renegotiate we asked about including him in the deal but the overall deal broke down, presumably which is what's led us to the current position of two loans rather than permanent deals. |
Can you see there being loan fees involved? | |
| |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 12:51 - Jul 30 with 1303 views | chicoazul |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 11:48 - Jul 30 by Wallingford_Boy |
10% of the £21.5m profit, is £2.15m.
Take off the 20% we owe Portsmouth, that leaves £1.72m.
Still a tidy sum though! |
Assuming youre right luv and I am sure you are, that will be near enough 4m generated from the windfalls of Mings Clarke and Webster. Which would not have been on any budget anywhere. And people wonder why Lambo is acting very slightly as if he has the hump at the moment. |  |
| |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 12:54 - Jul 30 with 1281 views | Bluefish |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 12:51 - Jul 30 by chicoazul |
Assuming youre right luv and I am sure you are, that will be near enough 4m generated from the windfalls of Mings Clarke and Webster. Which would not have been on any budget anywhere. And people wonder why Lambo is acting very slightly as if he has the hump at the moment. |
Lambert wasn't spending 0 because we had 0. He was spending 0 because we had minus 9 million, he is now spending 0 because we have minus 5 million. How hard can this be?
To be fair he has spent millions since he has been here on loans fees and wages that he apparently didn't even want or choose. I would expect our wage bill in the Lambert era leading to May is the highest it has been in the history of the club | |
| |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 12:57 - Jul 30 with 1248 views | PhilTWTD |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 12:48 - Jul 30 by Garv |
Can you see there being loan fees involved? |
Not sure, not asked that. Might be more about percentage of wages covered, that sort of thing | | | |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 12:58 - Jul 30 with 1240 views | chicoazul |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 12:54 - Jul 30 by Bluefish |
Lambert wasn't spending 0 because we had 0. He was spending 0 because we had minus 9 million, he is now spending 0 because we have minus 5 million. How hard can this be?
To be fair he has spent millions since he has been here on loans fees and wages that he apparently didn't even want or choose. I would expect our wage bill in the Lambert era leading to May is the highest it has been in the history of the club |
I didnt say it is hard. I simply say that the fact he isnt getting these windfalls to use as part of his budget *may* be giving him the nark and that *may* be manifesting itself in the slightly averse comments he made recently. | |
| |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 13:00 - Jul 30 with 1221 views | judespiveyg |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 12:54 - Jul 30 by Bluefish |
Lambert wasn't spending 0 because we had 0. He was spending 0 because we had minus 9 million, he is now spending 0 because we have minus 5 million. How hard can this be?
To be fair he has spent millions since he has been here on loans fees and wages that he apparently didn't even want or choose. I would expect our wage bill in the Lambert era leading to May is the highest it has been in the history of the club |
Highest wage was surely under Jewell with Bullard, Bowyer, Ingimarsson and Chopra all surely commanding big money. |  |
| I survived Ipswich 0-0 Burton |
| |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 13:00 - Jul 30 with 1217 views | Bluefish |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 12:58 - Jul 30 by chicoazul |
I didnt say it is hard. I simply say that the fact he isnt getting these windfalls to use as part of his budget *may* be giving him the nark and that *may* be manifesting itself in the slightly averse comments he made recently. |
He should focus on his primary task.....telling the supporters how great they are #nonormal | |
| |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 13:02 - Jul 30 with 1203 views | Bluefish |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 13:00 - Jul 30 by judespiveyg |
Highest wage was surely under Jewell with Bullard, Bowyer, Ingimarsson and Chopra all surely commanding big money. |
I expect they were all dwarfed by Quaner, keane, collins, bart, judge etc | |
| |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 13:46 - Jul 30 with 1071 views | Ftnfwest |
| Adam Webster AGAIN on 11:59 - Jul 30 by Bluefish |
That is irrelevant though we are talking about how because Clarke went t the prem 1st thatbit was claimed he must be better because he had gone to the prem for 6 million whereas Webster only went to Bristol for 3.5 |
Oh was it? I've never thought there's that much difference between them tbh. Certainly MM must have thought Webster was better when he made the deal, although right now i'd take Clarke for £6m over Webster for £25m tbh if the latter actually happens |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
