That's what the Pompey Administrator thinks .... http://www.teamtalk.com/leeds-unite...ent?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
Leeds should have got this wrapped up over a week ago, instead a whole host of other teams have started sniffing around him. How we handled the Pearce deal was superb and Ward should have followed a few days later but no... Someone (Bates) somewhere dilly dallied and we now risk missing a major target.
Trevor Birch alerted clubs to try and get the best possible deal for Pompey, nothing to do with Bates or Warnock. So now the player has a few bids to consider and discuss with his family, and this takes time. What's the rush for Ward anyway, not as if there's games to be played. He will decide what's best for him and so be it.
And how the **** does that matter? Birch has one job to do, get the best for Pompey. The player's agent would have told him to hang on and see if better offers came in, so a "deal" counts for nothing. We've seen this happen how many times over decades of transfers, but until he signs for someone else I look at it that he is still considering Leeds. Maybe his family doesn't want to move north, and that's always a deal breaker.
Ah I see you were there were you when this deal was struck, ah so its your fault then you didnt push hard enough !!!!!!!!!!
Have to disagree, Norwich wanted Pearce and they couldn't make a move as their season had not finished, we moved quick and secured the deal, they need to bring cash in fast and by all accounts this was a done deal until we (Leeds Utd) pissed around in regards to the funding.
IT'S GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH WARD!!!!!!!!! If we can't pay the transfer fee what's he supposed to do? As ristac said it was a done deal until we started messing Pompey about. Of course you can continue to ignore this and spout crap about getting behind the manager and how we only want players who want to play for Leeds etc. etc.
In fairness I dont believe either you or Ristac know what happened because I highly doubt you were there. Not saying I know but to speak as if what you are saying is fact is what annoys me. It could well have been the agent wanting too much money and that allowed other clubs to come in for him, it could well have been bates (for an weird unknown reason that wouldn't make sense)
1. State an opinion backed up by facts and multiple sources. or 2. Make up a different random scenario. Ristac and I are doing one, you are doing the other.
An alternative view: Because we paid Pompey £500k (or whatever it was) for Pearce, Pompey had the ability to slow things down because they had some cashflow. As such, Pompey could take longer time to make sure thye got the best deal in selling Ward, whereas selling Pearce quickly was a must-do (ie it could have been a quick deal for Ward and then a slower one for Pearce etc etc) Just a random different scenario
It certainly fits, Elmo. Pompey would have gone into liquidation if we had not signed Pearce. They didn't have any money to pay wages. Makes you wonder why we didn't lever this at the time, though, and get all our Pompey wish list at the one time. Another bates fail?
No, I wouldn't put that one down as a fail. We got in quick and got Pearce, good for us, and a good bit of business. If that then meant Pompey could take longer on other possibilities, I think that is more a learning experience than anything else
Once again reports stating that the hold up is Leeds stumping up the £400k payment http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co....-a-frustrating-may-for-neil-warnock-1-4576482
Why, when there's no evidence of what happened, is it ok to assume it was the player who made the decision? WHY is it not ok to assume Leeds, the club notorious for dicking around with contracts and transfers, ****ed up yet again, but it's ok to assume that it's the players decision not to come? You're making assumptions just like everyone else, just ristacs assumption is realistic and based on experience.
I can understand that Bates doesn't to spend cash bringing in more players without any guarantee of interest in the transfer listed players we have (Clayton aside), purely from a business point of view. But he supposedly promised Warnock he'd back him, and sometimes you have to gamble on the fact the manager will be able to get rid of the players he doesn't want to make room for the new signings. If that means, for a month or two, Bates has to dip into his own pocket to buy the player and pay his wages in addition to those already on the wage will, he has to be prepared to do that, else he runs the risk of the player turning us down and moving elsewhere...does my head in sometimes.
