No thanks. Made no attempt to redeem himself to show he didn't want to go to scum. Doesn't really seem to give a ****. He can jog on.
Yep, it's the words to a song. I like the song. I sing it. One of the best footy songs ever However, I do believe that in order to really go forward we need to all be singing from the same hymn sheet ie marching on together. Look at Norwich, Southampton, Reading, Swansea. While Bates is there, we will not, as he has no connection with the fans. So at the moment, I don't believe in "Marching on together" as anything other than a song chant because it is irrelevant. It is not a mantra that should mean we all agree about everything, especially whether the club is in a good shape or not. If that brings me into argument with other Leeds fans then so be it. But it will come relevant again. I don't know when, but it will likely be once Bates has gone for good, or once he stops being so proud and changes his ways
I don't think it's necessary getting in to arguments with anyone on here though. We all have differing opinions on matters, yes, but the important thing is that we are all against Bates' ownership of the club. Whether we think Warnock has a say in transfer dealings and budgets and if we think selling McCormack is a good idea or not, or if some of us rate Clayton and others don't - it's silly to get into arguments about it! Debates are fine, that's natural, but don't bother arguing with us over things Bates is responsible for...it'll just end up dividing the fan base even more. And to highlight how sad that would be, I'll even bring out the unhappy face
Lets agree we all support and love Leeds United, which means we support the team no matter what, its the team that counts.
Kiwi, I think what is sad for all of us is whenever we see a glimmer of hope or reason for optimism (latest example is NW coming in), we soon see the familiar pattern emerging that we have dealt with for a number of years already. The Spanish concept of "mañana," which never seems to come.
Yep I agree, but through it all the fanbase has stuck together...don't want to start dividing now. We all want the same thing at the end of the day, no reason to attack people for being overly positive or negative about the situation (and I'm just as guilty as the next man). We're all Leeds fans and we all want the best for the club - just some people need to realise (nobody on here that I'm aware of) that the best thing for the club is Bates leaving
Agreed, yet there are still some out there who believe it is best to do nothing. We all know what happens in evil situations when good people do nothing.
Regarding Mccormack,you'd think that players leaving such as O'brien,Bruce,Forrsell and so on. Would be able to extend the wage budget to a reasonable amount for certain players demands
Enoch, the club has a certain wage structure and they are unwilling to be flexible about it, regardless of the squad size. This is very clear from past practice and statements made by the various members of management, past and present.
To be fair, this is probably the most acceptable thing about Bates' reign. Whether the maximum wage is high enough is acceptable is a different matter, but I would be wary about paying McCormack too much, because then other potential signings/players seeking new contracts will wonder why they aren't on the same pay - especially if McCormack doesn't have a great season next year. Obviously what he actually asked for and was offered are important - but I do agree with having a wage structure in place, simply because sometimes what players ask for really is ridiculous in conjunction with what they actually produce on the pitch - and sometimes, it does make financial sense to refuse to give them a new contract, sell them, and sign someone else of equal/better ability on wages that suits their ability. Btw, not saying McCormack shouldn't be offered a new deal, I have no idea what he's currently on, what he's asked for or what we offered. Just making the point that personally I have no problems with wage structures - as long as they're realistic (although Bates' structure is almost certainly not in the slightest bit realistic...)
Agree Kiwi. Maybe if our wage structure wasn't so low we could be signings bigger and better players. Until then,we won't
Yeah, a real shame as well, because I'd imagine a lot of players would be attracted to us simply because of the name. That said, I'm curious to know how much Pearce is on, seeing as he's likely to become first choice centre half and therefore a first team player.
"Realistic and reasonable" in the circumstances - absolutely. Interesting read is "Footballnomics" (for the purist)/"Soccernomics" (if you actually want to find it on the shelf) in which this issue is discussed. Three salient points for this situation are: - never over-pay for a player who has just had 1 good season/1 good major tournament, - better to pay a good player a higher wage than plan on trying to replace him with another, - before you sell a player, make sure his replacement is in place. They write that the one area Taylor and Clough were masters at was the buying and selling of players, with very few missteps. Great examples are Birtles, Keane and Kenny Burns. One of tehir mistakes was Stan Bowles.
You have to get shot of them first and I can't exactly see a queue forming, actually I can see them all still on the wage roll come the start of the season.
Definitely agree with the first and third point - signing players on the back of a good world cup/european championship has never been a good idea. Obviously making sure you have a replacement in place is a given, but I don't necessarily agree with the second point. Depends if you mean good player or outstanding player I guess. I could see the logic in Barcelona offering Messi a higher wage, because he's irreplaceable. But I couldn't necessarily see the point in it all the time. Depends what constitutes a higher wage I guess Taylor and Clough masters at buying and selling, absolutely. Taylor's ability to scout a player was phenomenal.
Of course, it depends, but that's the general rule. Obviously, if the player is being unreasonable then it does not apply.
In that case I do agree with it as a general rule obviously though you do always get players and agents who think they're of a much higher standard than they really are. I remember seeing a video of Clough talking about agents once, pretty sure he said he'd hold him down while Shankly would hit him
