Because you don't run a business into the ground which makes it totally worthless to the prospective buyer you keep it ticking along quietly for the new owners to takeover you don't make massive investments either, just a bit maintenance here and there Charnley is filling a gap Gayle is filling a gap 1 year extensions to contracts are filling a gap maybe Gayle said he wanted a longer contract Ashley would have a pre-takeover contract with AS/RB/Pif to deliver a premier league club he doesn't want to get sued for breach of contract either
From day 1 over 15 months go you along with many simply ignored every single red flag. Even the piracy issue was laughed off and unfortunately you were all way off because it was an issue Even the leaving statement was a strategy at the time according to the blind faith brigade. Why don't you all just accept that you were wrong the other day when you claimed it was done. It is not ****ing done. It's business as usual Jesus
Yes you do. I take it you've never sold a house. When exchange happens the buyer at that point is agreeing to the condition of the house at the point in time. If for example the boiler was working on that day and then it breaks it's the seller that has to fix it.
There are two ways of looking at it. It’s normal business. Things have to tick over in the event of a failed ARB hearing. It’s normal business until ARB hearing is successful. In either scenario the club has to tick over and keeping Gayle on a contact seems the sensible thing to do for the club. However from Gayles perspective I do wonder the motive. He didn’t play without a takeover and he certainly won’t play with one?
Mate there's been loads of red flags from the very 1st day burt reported papers went. All im saying is that some fans just ignored them all using some days of thunder colt trickle just plough through the smoke mentality. I think it's clear there's no certainty in the way the clubs operating.. They're quite clearly preparing to lose and rightly so.
Again, fair points. Atsu/Saivet were not involved in the first team, no value, not assets. For all I ****ing hate Gayle, he does have value and shouldn't be walking out the door for free.
@Roland Deschain your recent post mimics what I said in my last paragraph. It makes sense for the club but not for Gayle?
I get the logic in keeping all the players that contributed (albeit minimally in gayles situation) however a 3 year contract seems bizarre?
According to you and others the deal was done. I doubt signing up Dwight gayle is a huge priority that couldn't wait 3 weeks while the funds are transfered It's quite clear that Mike ashley is preparing for the scenario in which he's still here after this summer, so he's not that certain afterall. My position is that it's a coin flip and that's based on what nick demarco said 8 months ago... Arbitration is a last resort and a lottery.
Yes possibly. So a half way house. I mean he might have family and is settled in Newcastle so that’s a factor. But isn’t he a London lad? Fulham wanted him and could have had him for free. And pay him the same wages we will and get game time!
I reckon he could make more money leaving us. Honestly do. He would get a big signing on fee and possibly similar wages. And game time if he left. Unless there is loyalty bonuses etc for staying. In all seriousness it’s probably the right call by the club at this particular moment in time and I don’t think it has any bearing on the takeover one iota!
Nobody wants him because he's **** and on high wages for someone that has his arse halfway up his back
