Charlie Kirk has left the club by mutual agreement. Best possible outcome to be honest. He clearly wasn't happy here, and the club and fans were unhappy with his performances. I wish him well in the future - sometimes it doesn't work out - and hopefully we can get in a decent replacement.
I don't know why he's been so poor for us. It's not lack of ability, but watching him has been excruciating at times.
our formation doesn't help. every player learns to play in a 4-4-2... for some reason, we havent tried it in 10 years
Mmmmm……can’t help wondering what the ‘amicable agreement’ is exactly. Kirk would have wanted some sort of payout to walk away. No way has he just agreed to cancel a lucrative contract, still with another 18 months to go and no club to go to, without either us agreeing to carry on paying his wages until he finds another club or giving him a lump sum payout. Interesting that Scott talks about freeing up some space but doesn’t talk about freeing up some funds. We are still bound by the SCMP rules. I expect Kirk to be replaced by a cheap loan signing or another journeyman. The devil is in the detail and basically there isn’t any in that statement from Scott.
TBF he wasn't a Scott signing. He was a Sandgaard signing and the great majority of fans were happy to get him. Scott might be rubbish at signing players but offloading Kirk was the correct decision, even if it cost the club. There's no way back for him after a series of fluffed opportunities.
Virtually all agreed. There appeared to be no good solution to this once Kirk had decided that he didn’t want to be with us. My concerns are again about the honesty of our new SMT. Is this the correct decision ? It’s impossible to know based on what’s been said, as we have no idea how much this is costing us. If we have just paid up the contract in full or are continuing to pay his salary it doesn’t help us as we are supposedly at the limit of our SCMP cap so couldn’t then go out, find another player and pay him. I understand that full details of any agreement would be confidential, but part of that could have included the club being able to be more open with fans. Does this move release any funds for new players or doesn’t it ? Based on Scott’s statement, absolutely none of us know the answer to that and that is wrong in my opinion.
I share your position @Ubedizzy2 We didn't know much about the first ESI take-over. Scumbag Southall lied and lied and lied and lied. Then eventually we found out the truth. And it was worse than most of us had feared. Who is to say that isn't happening all over again right now.
It could be and we wouldn’t know. HOWEVER, let me be clear. I DO NOT think it is. And my main reason for saying that is Charlie Methven. I believe that Charlie is in this to make money (and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that at all), but I do not believe that Charlie is a crook or anything like ESI. For that at least, I am grateful.
I agree to an extent, but the club would certainly have paid Kirk something. He signed a contract and would legally be entitled to sue if the agreement wasn't mutual. And the fans don't really have the right to know how much he was paid. He's gone - time to draw a line under this one.
I beg to differ. Whoever resurrected the 2023 January transfer window thread has done that. I create only peace and harmony
I'll not be surprised if the dude from Cheltenham moved to Oxford. He'd not have to relocate, and besides, we're just another run of the mill division three side nowadays.
As sceptical as I am of Mary, Mungo and Midge, I have to give them credit for acting early in the window. Whether the players turn out any good is another matter. IMO they are s******* themselves as they were not expecting to be in a relegation fight, I'm assuming America are asking questions.
