Sarcasm, Socratic irony, reductio ad absurdum, Devil's advocacy etc.
Transfer Rumours January Incoming/Outgoing...
- Thread starter TIGERSCAVE
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Sarcasm, Socratic irony, reductio ad absurdum, Devil's advocacy etc.
He's being sarcastic because Calv seems to think anything more than 10m is unrealistic for Snoddy.
But they won't offer THE CLUB more money to woo him. They know we'll accept 10m. They'll now offer HIM a better contract to woo him.
Accepting an offer is a verbal (or written) contract though. As I said before, I've never seen a club go back on accepting a bid so really don't think you can. Burnley can certainly pull out as it's up to them to agree terms with the player which is a second contract, but they can't suddenly bid less, nor can we suddenly demand more.
It's not even his comments on Snoddy that are so laughable. I think Livermore was worth more than Snodgrass. In an ideal world we'd have signed them on better, longer contracts because they were integral parts of our squad.
You are wrong. If somebody says "I'll pay £10m" and the other party says "I accept" that is all that is needed. Nobody can back out. Obviously both sides may say something else though. For example, Burnley will say: "Subject to Snodgrass accepting our salary offer".
But from what you have said - it's totally wrong.
Yeah, but what if they didn't spit on their palms and shake hands?
This is the problem. We want players to be paid on the cheap.
He won't go where we want him to go, he'll go where he wants to go. Most likely the club offering him the biggest pay packet/longest contract.
In all seriousness what do you think we will get for Robbo? I think they way things are going he will be off to if Burnley come in.
We're not on the verge of relegation - we're in a relegation dogfight but have a reasonable chance of staying up if we keep our best players and add a few more faces.
Footballers are egos on legs and to offer our best player this season (by some distance) a meagre 1 year extension is an insult to the player.
So why is it accepted that this is precisely what happened with the sale of the club on not one but several occasions?
And that's not even taking into account that there has been no formal word on accepting any supposed offer from Burnley.
Any price can be retracted. Have you ever been in a shop or bought something online which had the wrong price and the seller refused to honour it? They are perfectly within their right - legally - by default unless for some bizarre reason they have decided to honour any price and make a contract binding at the agreement of price in their T&C's.
If he only has one offer on the table he doesn't have much choice does he. Unless we actively want rid of him, in which case we wouldn't **** about anyway.
I really don't know why people are even arguing this. You can change your mind on a price any time you want after accepting an offer.
Does the word gazumping mean nothing to people?
That's what made Snodgrass want to leave. Ehab only thinks of the money. He doesn't even make the effort to go to the matches.
Ask the Americans if you agree a deal with the Allams can they pull out