The "Mighty Juggernaut" thread

I was merely trying to avoid an "owning" of epic proportions.

 

Spurs reported to have reduced their £100k per week they've been giving to Adebayor to £35k per week after he has signed for Palace

While the player became a free agent, Spurs have effectively been paying his £100,000-a-week wages as per their original contract with the 31-year-old, with that arrangement due to run through to the end of June.

It is understood their contribution to his weekly salary will now be reduced to around £35,000-a-week until the summer with Palace making up the remainder.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/jan/26/emmanuel-adebayor-crystal-palace-signs-short-term

 

So exactly what I said, in that the payments to him are reduced and the signing club are required to make up the rest.
What happened to negotiating it down and not paying him anything ludicrous?
Your mates at the Telegraph claim that it's actually £65k + bonuses.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...osing-in-on-signing-of-Emmanuel-Adebayor.html

They all seem to be playing a game of Chinese whispers and approximating it, to me.

 

Surely, Pixie isn't going to be so stupid as to try to give this dead horse another run!

 

Yes, that's what I reported on right from the first post about this

 

You suggested that Palace might pay £25k, if Spurs were lucky.
I suggested that the contract wouldn't make any sense, going by your interpretation of it.
The reports suggest that his new club are playing about three times what you said they would. Not very close, is it?

 

I think your contribution was to insist that the buying club would have nothing to do with Spurs / wages as he had no contract with them.

You said something along the lines of 'don't try and tell me about the construction of contracts Pixie, I'll own you every time'

and here's the story being confirmed again that Spurs were paying him 100k per week, until another club came in and met a proportion of that original severance package with Spurs.

Lawyer my arse

 

I said that any buying club would meet a negotiated proportion of the 100k Spurs were paying him and Spurs would make up the rest as per the severance package, you insisted that it was all 'bullshit' though ....

 

So you didn't say that Spurs would be lucky to get £25k out of it and that Levy would still be on the hook for £75k?

There's no evidence of any negotiation between Palace and Spurs having taken place, by the way.

 

I might have done, I was just speculating on the figures. But this is secondary to the point of what I initially said, which you went to great pains to dispute; which was that Spurs have been paying him £100k per week, up until either the end of the initial contract term or until another club came in and met a proportion of that £100k.

 

You did, you just can't actually bring yourself to admit to being wrong.

When did I dispute that?

 

I was wrong about the figure that Palace eventually ended up paying, as I said it was just a speculative amount and secondary to the main point about Spurs paying him 100k until either the end of his initial contract or until another club came in and met a proportion of that figure. You are trying to argue a moot point.

As for the second part, seriously ? When I referenced the story from the Telegraph, you went to great pains to try and discredit the source and went as far to call the the story 'bullshit'

Can you admit to being wrong about that ?

 

I said that what the Burt was claiming made no sense and there's still no evidence that it did.
Palace have done exactly what I said that they'd have to do and there's nothing to suggest that they had to negotiate with Spurs.

 

Try not to let go of that straw you're clutching onto

 

What straw? Exactly what I said would happen has happened. You were absolutely miles out.

 

You spent a considerable amount of time trying to discredit the whole story, inventing all sorts of scenarios as to how it couldn't be true, you tried to discredit the journalist, called the story bullshit and tried to claim that I simply believed anything that was written in the press.

Well, it seems the story was true.

Can you admit that you were wrong ? I doubt it.

 

I've noticed that you've hidden your account so that people can't see your posts too.

Something to hide ?

 

What about the story was true? Certainly not the part that I was disputing.
The report from your own favoured source, The Telegraph, suggests that I was spot on.

 

I haven't. You should be able to see them.
I had that happen with you before. If you didn't activate anything, then it might be a site 'feature'.