The end for Thorne and Boulding (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

gasbird wrote:
Gutted! Good luck Peter, I'm just concerned that Peter taylor is interested in the Hull job, where will that leave us if he gets the job after his cull of players. Rehmen next to go?????

gasbird wrote:
Gutted! Good luck Peter, I'm just concerned that Peter taylor is interested in the Hull job, where will that leave us if he gets the job after his cull of players. Rehmen next to go?????

fatbloke wrote:
There you go aynus.. As previously predicted weeks ago both you and Boulding do not fit into Taylor's system. 'A big solid unit that likes to break with pace and power' Best of luck Thorney!!

fatbloke wrote:
ha,ha....sorry keefluarr dont bet on horses apart from grand national...
Had a few winners on footy accumalators this year though. Latest one had City on it again against Aldershot..
Try this one, when in the bookies I do the odd trap 4 on the next dog race it works well for me.

fatbloke wrote:
Okay fair point. I do try to make it clear if I know something is factual to me or a rumour. I can not always reveal my source, because I aint that type of person. I cant always post things on here neither as I would not want to ruin my source of information. The things I know are true cant be proved on here either. I do know that City would not give Chris a 3 yr deal (I assume this is because of his historical injury record or his age at the time of signing) so he was told he had to earn/prove he was worthy of a 3rd year. Also City were gambling on back to back promotions hence McCalls large budget. Therefore the trigger was 36 games in the 2 years (not sure if it was 36 appearances, starts or completed games) what I do know is he is 5 short of triggering that clause. If City had hit their targets the xtra year would have easy affordable had he played the desired games. You seemed shocked Wyanus that such an option exists, like things like that never happen, this is not the first time I have heard of such a clause and to the best of my knowledge appear in a lot of contracts when players are on the wrong side of 30 when they wanted more years then the club are willing to give them.

Waynus71 wrote:

fatbloke wrote:
Okay fair point. I do try to make it clear if I know something is factual to me or a rumour. I can not always reveal my source, because I aint that type of person. I cant always post things on here neither as I would not want to ruin my source of information. The things I know are true cant be proved on here either. I do know that City would not give Chris a 3 yr deal (I assume this is because of his historical injury record or his age at the time of signing) so he was told he had to earn/prove he was worthy of a 3rd year. Also City were gambling on back to back promotions hence McCalls large budget. Therefore the trigger was 36 games in the 2 years (not sure if it was 36 appearances, starts or completed games) what I do know is he is 5 short of triggering that clause. If City had hit their targets the xtra year would have easy affordable had he played the desired games. You seemed shocked Wyanus that such an option exists, like things like that never happen, this is not the first time I have heard of such a clause and to the best of my knowledge appear in a lot of contracts when players are on the wrong side of 30 when they wanted more years then the club are willing to give them.

I've never suggested clauses don't exist, I just don't believe ANY club would be stupid enough to offer the one you suggest.

'Valley' said that he believed the clause was more likely to be that Brandon had to play in 36 games in his 2nd year, (thereby proving he still had a part to play) and would be the more logical clause.

If we were gambling on back-to-back promotions, this would be an even less likely clause to have in his contract. You are suggesting that we could have potentially been 'lumbered' with a player that did not feature at all in League 1, but we would be forced into giving him a new contract in the Championship!

For example, if Brandon had NOT picked up his ankle injury and played the desired number of games in League2, but deemed not good enough for League1 (as the quality is even higher), why would we leave ourselves open to the possibility of having to pay a wage (3rd year) on a player not in the manager's plans. Let's face it, even if we (the club) believed Brandon was good enough or League2 or even League1, he was never going to be good enough for the Championship!

And this is the sole basis of my argument. I don't doubt that there is a clause, but don't believe it has anything to do with 36 games (in total). It is more likely to be 36 games this season.

I also believe that the reason he isn't getting picked is because Taylor believes he can get better value elsewhere, and by not picking Brandon, the saving of his bonuses/appearance fees.

Perhaps the rumour came from Brandon himself, as he needs to justify to himself (and his acquaintances) as to why Taylor isn't picking him. Easier to blame some spurious clause than admit his boss simply doesn't rate him!

BCFCBoothy wrote:

Waynus71 wrote:

fatbloke wrote: Okay fair point. I do try to make it clear if I know something is factual to me or a rumour. I can not always reveal my source, because I aint that type of person. I cant always post things on here neither as I would not want to ruin my source of information. The things I know are true cant be proved on here either. I do know that City would not give Chris a 3 yr deal (I assume this is because of his historical injury record or his age at the time of signing) so he was told he had to earn/prove he was worthy of a 3rd year. Also City were gambling on back to back promotions hence McCalls large budget. Therefore the trigger was 36 games in the 2 years (not sure if it was 36 appearances, starts or completed games) what I do know is he is 5 short of triggering that clause. If City had hit their targets the xtra year would have easy affordable had he played the desired games. You seemed shocked Wyanus that such an option exists, like things like that never happen, this is not the first time I have heard of such a clause and to the best of my knowledge appear in a lot of contracts when players are on the wrong side of 30 when they wanted more years then the club are willing to give them.

I've never suggested clauses don't exist, I just don't believe ANY club would be stupid enough to offer the one you suggest. 'Valley' said that he believed the clause was more likely to be that Brandon had to play in 36 games in his 2nd year, (thereby proving he still had a part to play) and would be the more logical clause. If we were gambling on back-to-back promotions, this would be an even less likely clause to have in his contract. You are suggesting that we could have potentially been 'lumbered' with a player that did not feature at all in League 1, but we would be forced into giving him a new contract in the Championship! For example, if Brandon had NOT picked up his ankle injury and played the desired number of games in League2, but deemed not good enough for League1 (as the quality is even higher), why would we leave ourselves open to the possibility of having to pay a wage (3rd year) on a player not in the manager's plans. Let's face it, even if we (the club) believed Brandon was good enough or League2 or even League1, he was never going to be good enough for the Championship! And this is the sole basis of my argument. I don't doubt that there is a clause, but don't believe it has anything to do with 36 games (in total). It is more likely to be 36 games this season. I also believe that the reason he isn't getting picked is because Taylor believes he can get better value elsewhere, and by not picking Brandon, the saving of his bonuses/appearance fees. Perhaps the rumour came from Brandon himself, as he needs to justify to himself (and his acquaintances) as to why Taylor isn't picking him. Easier to blame some spurious clause than admit his boss simply doesn't rate him!

Waynus - is it really that important that you win this argument? I have read your posts about this (and there have been a few) and all I keep thinking is WHY? Why are you that bothered? Why have you wasted so much of your time arguing about it and repeating yourself? It would appear that Fatbloke has a good source of info inside the club and that is (no offense) more reliable than your theories. It sounds feasible to me, just because Lawn is a business man does not mean he is great at negotiating player contracts, he was also fairly new to his role when Brandon joined. I say let it rest Waynus and spend your time on something else mate.

fatbloke wrote:
'I also believe that the reason he isn't getting picked is because Taylor believes he can get better value elsewhere, and by not picking Brandon, the saving of his bonuses/appearance fees' By gosh your quick Waynus I said this the day of the Rochdale game!!!! With regards the clause I dont believe there was ever a risk as the club were and always will be in control which is been proven as we speak...

fatbloke wrote:
Nice one Boothy!! He has been doing since Saturday about Thorne no longer been at the club!!!!

valleyofshame wrote:

BCFCBoothy wrote:

Waynus71 wrote:

fatbloke wrote: Okay fair point. I do try to make it clear if I know something is factual to me or a rumour. I can not always reveal my source, because I aint that type of person. I cant always post things on here neither as I would not want to ruin my source of information. The things I know are true cant be proved on here either. I do know that City would not give Chris a 3 yr deal (I assume this is because of his historical injury record or his age at the time of signing) so he was told he had to earn/prove he was worthy of a 3rd year. Also City were gambling on back to back promotions hence McCalls large budget. Therefore the trigger was 36 games in the 2 years (not sure if it was 36 appearances, starts or completed games) what I do know is he is 5 short of triggering that clause. If City had hit their targets the xtra year would have easy affordable had he played the desired games. You seemed shocked Wyanus that such an option exists, like things like that never happen, this is not the first time I have heard of such a clause and to the best of my knowledge appear in a lot of contracts when players are on the wrong side of 30 when they wanted more years then the club are willing to give them.

I've never suggested clauses don't exist, I just don't believe ANY club would be stupid enough to offer the one you suggest. 'Valley' said that he believed the clause was more likely to be that Brandon had to play in 36 games in his 2nd year, (thereby proving he still had a part to play) and would be the more logical clause. If we were gambling on back-to-back promotions, this would be an even less likely clause to have in his contract. You are suggesting that we could have potentially been 'lumbered' with a player that did not feature at all in League 1, but we would be forced into giving him a new contract in the Championship! For example, if Brandon had NOT picked up his ankle injury and played the desired number of games in League2, but deemed not good enough for League1 (as the quality is even higher), why would we leave ourselves open to the possibility of having to pay a wage (3rd year) on a player not in the manager's plans. Let's face it, even if we (the club) believed Brandon was good enough or League2 or even League1, he was never going to be good enough for the Championship! And this is the sole basis of my argument. I don't doubt that there is a clause, but don't believe it has anything to do with 36 games (in total). It is more likely to be 36 games this season. I also believe that the reason he isn't getting picked is because Taylor believes he can get better value elsewhere, and by not picking Brandon, the saving of his bonuses/appearance fees. Perhaps the rumour came from Brandon himself, as he needs to justify to himself (and his acquaintances) as to why Taylor isn't picking him. Easier to blame some spurious clause than admit his boss simply doesn't rate him!

Waynus - is it really that important that you win this argument? I have read your posts about this (and there have been a few) and all I keep thinking is WHY? Why are you that bothered? Why have you wasted so much of your time arguing about it and repeating yourself? It would appear that Fatbloke has a good source of info inside the club and that is (no offense) more reliable than your theories. It sounds feasible to me, just because Lawn is a business man does not mean he is great at negotiating player contracts, he was also fairly new to his role when Brandon joined. I say let it rest Waynus and spend your time on something else mate.

Boothy, excellent point well made. But just to correct you again on a few things Waynus, I never mentioned the figure 36, I believe he has to play a certain amount of games this season to get the contract and he is not far off it and therefore comes under the 36 games other people are mentioning. As for Brandon having to justify himself, well it's funny how I also got told the same information by an ex-pro of city that has been involved with the club very recently. Like Fatbloke, revealing my source(s) is not posssible, but as I said before it seems to irk you that others seem to get info that you don't. I don't think me or fatbloke are saying we know the exact detail nor would we unless we were party to the conversations, but like anything things leak out and this is how we know. The truth might be that Brandon wouldn't feature in Taylors plans short or long term, but it is immaterial as he was told that Brandon will NOT feature.

BCFCBoothy wrote:

Waynus71 wrote:

fatbloke wrote: Okay fair point. I do try to make it clear if I know something is factual to me or a rumour. I can not always reveal my source, because I aint that type of person. I cant always post things on here neither as I would not want to ruin my source of information. The things I know are true cant be proved on here either. I do know that City would not give Chris a 3 yr deal (I assume this is because of his historical injury record or his age at the time of signing) so he was told he had to earn/prove he was worthy of a 3rd year. Also City were gambling on back to back promotions hence McCalls large budget. Therefore the trigger was 36 games in the 2 years (not sure if it was 36 appearances, starts or completed games) what I do know is he is 5 short of triggering that clause. If City had hit their targets the xtra year would have easy affordable had he played the desired games. You seemed shocked Wyanus that such an option exists, like things like that never happen, this is not the first time I have heard of such a clause and to the best of my knowledge appear in a lot of contracts when players are on the wrong side of 30 when they wanted more years then the club are willing to give them.

I've never suggested clauses don't exist, I just don't believe ANY club would be stupid enough to offer the one you suggest. 'Valley' said that he believed the clause was more likely to be that Brandon had to play in 36 games in his 2nd year, (thereby proving he still had a part to play) and would be the more logical clause. If we were gambling on back-to-back promotions, this would be an even less likely clause to have in his contract. You are suggesting that we could have potentially been 'lumbered' with a player that did not feature at all in League 1, but we would be forced into giving him a new contract in the Championship! For example, if Brandon had NOT picked up his ankle injury and played the desired number of games in League2, but deemed not good enough for League1 (as the quality is even higher), why would we leave ourselves open to the possibility of having to pay a wage (3rd year) on a player not in the manager's plans. Let's face it, even if we (the club) believed Brandon was good enough or League2 or even League1, he was never going to be good enough for the Championship! And this is the sole basis of my argument. I don't doubt that there is a clause, but don't believe it has anything to do with 36 games (in total). It is more likely to be 36 games this season. I also believe that the reason he isn't getting picked is because Taylor believes he can get better value elsewhere, and by not picking Brandon, the saving of his bonuses/appearance fees. Perhaps the rumour came from Brandon himself, as he needs to justify to himself (and his acquaintances) as to why Taylor isn't picking him. Easier to blame some spurious clause than admit his boss simply doesn't rate him!

Waynus - is it really that important that you win this argument? I have read your posts about this (and there have been a few) and all I keep thinking is WHY? Why are you that bothered? Why have you wasted so much of your time arguing about it and repeating yourself? It would appear that Fatbloke has a good source of info inside the club and that is (no offense) more reliable than your theories. It sounds feasible to me, just because Lawn is a business man does not mean he is great at negotiating player contracts, he was also fairly new to his role when Brandon joined. I say let it rest Waynus and spend your time on something else mate.

Cityman23 wrote:
Peter Taylor is doing now what I wish Stuart could have brought himself to do, when he was in charge ie letting players go who clearly do not have enough still (in the 'tank') to offer City at this level. Peter Thorne was a good signing when he came but was allowed to stay at City too long. He was/is an older player and should certainly never have been signed up for this last year at City. He has virtually been paid all year yet not figured to any great extent in any matches. A team like City can't afford that kind of squandering of resources. Likewise, Boulding senior was a decent option (at first) but it soon became clear he was not going to be the kind of player we'd hoped for either. Another aging player, unfortunately, for some crazy reason, we 'had' (??!!) to take his younger (less-talented!!) brother as well (or else he wouldn't sign?!!) It all seems a series of bad decisions which have cost the club a lot of money AND prevented us from getting the players we really needed!! With 'Admin' always 'just around the corner' for many teams in the lower divisions these days, fotball/financial decisions need to be made a lot more thoughtfully/rationa lly than this!! I wish all three of these players well (as I would to anyone trying to get a job/earn their living) and hold no malice towards any of them but I think BETTER DECISIONS must be made in the future. Perhaps Peter Taylor has proved (if he hasn't already done so on the basis of his football ability) that he can be the one to MAKE those BETTER decisions!! I hope so!

fatbloke wrote:
My point was and still is, the amount of heresay on these message boards is absurd. Didn't see you try to defend the 'Rehman deal', 'Clarke to never play for the club again', 'eastwood must play', 'Brandon to be paid off with an insurance pay-out (2008/09)' or 'Thorney to have his contract ended by mutual consent (2008/09)???? Waynus, the only one here I claim was 'Eastwood must play' the evidence suggests I was right.... I never said any of the others.

fatbloke wrote:
'However, when he made this riddiculous claim of City being FORCED to hand Brandon a 3rd year if he plays 36 times in 2 seasons, I couldn't help but question the logic in it. He still hasn't given my a logic reason as to why we would leave ourselves open to the possibility of having a player in the Championship, even though he couldn't get in our team in League 1. You would have to ask whoever agreed the deal Mr Waynus what the logic was. I told you my logic behind it abovem, at 32 the club were not sure Chris could do 3 years, playing 36 times in the 1st 2 seasons was a way Chris could prove he could. Unfortunatley it hasnt worked out and the club has proven they were in control. But I am sure you will come back with, what IF this, what IF that....ask the negoiator..

Waynus71 wrote:

fatbloke wrote: My point was and still is, the amount of heresay on these message boards is absurd. Didn't see you try to defend the 'Rehman deal', 'Clarke to never play for the club again', 'eastwood must play', 'Brandon to be paid off with an insurance pay-out (2008/09)' or 'Thorney to have his contract ended by mutual consent (2008/09)???? Waynus, the only one here I claim was 'Eastwood must play' the evidence suggests I was right.... I never said any of the others.

That is my whole point 'fatbloke'. Ever since I started this "why don't we stick to the facts and stop posting heresay", you have assumed that I was referring to you. I have said umpteen times that I know you weren't responsible for the majority, but it doesn't stop the fact that others have! As for 'evidence to suggest you was right', where is that? I DID hear (and read) an interview with McCall (after he left City), ADMITTING Eastwood was his signing. He stated that he only had £600 of his reduced budget left for a keeper and that was the reason we plumped for Simon. He was within McCall's price-range. So, where is YOUR evidence to counter McCall's claim? And that just goes to prove my point, that you may know 'some' goings on at City, but not all, as it appears!

Cityman23 wrote:
Peter Taylor is doing now what I wish Stuart could have brought himself to do, when he was in charge ie letting players go who clearly do not have enough still (in the 'tank') to offer City at this level. Peter Thorne was a good signing when he came but was allowed to stay at City too long. He was/is an older player and should certainly never have been signed up for this last year at City. He has virtually been paid all year yet not figured to any great extent in any matches. A team like City can't afford that kind of squandering of resources. Likewise, Boulding senior was a decent option (at first) but it soon became clear he was not going to be the kind of player we'd hoped for either. Another aging player, unfortunately, for some crazy reason, we 'had' (??!!) to take his younger (less-talented!!) brother as well (or else he wouldn't sign?!!) It all seems a series of bad decisions which have cost the club a lot of money AND prevented us from getting the players we really needed!! With 'Admin' always 'just around the corner' for many teams in the lower divisions these days, fotball/financial decisions need to be made a lot more thoughtfully/rationa lly than this!! I wish all three of these players well (as I would to anyone trying to get a job/earn their living) and hold no malice towards any of them but I think BETTER DECISIONS must be made in the future. Perhaps Peter Taylor has proved (if he hasn't already done so on the basis of his football ability) that he can be the one to MAKE those BETTER decisions!! I hope so!

Waynus71 wrote:

valleyofshame wrote:

BCFCBoothy wrote:

Waynus71 wrote:

fatbloke wrote: Okay fair point. I do try to make it clear if I know something is factual to me or a rumour. I can not always reveal my source, because I aint that type of person. I cant always post things on here neither as I would not want to ruin my source of information. The things I know are true cant be proved on here either. I do know that City would not give Chris a 3 yr deal (I assume this is because of his historical injury record or his age at the time of signing) so he was told he had to earn/prove he was worthy of a 3rd year. Also City were gambling on back to back promotions hence McCalls large budget. Therefore the trigger was 36 games in the 2 years (not sure if it was 36 appearances, starts or completed games) what I do know is he is 5 short of triggering that clause. If City had hit their targets the xtra year would have easy affordable had he played the desired games. You seemed shocked Wyanus that such an option exists, like things like that never happen, this is not the first time I have heard of such a clause and to the best of my knowledge appear in a lot of contracts when players are on the wrong side of 30 when they wanted more years then the club are willing to give them.

I've never suggested clauses don't exist, I just don't believe ANY club would be stupid enough to offer the one you suggest. 'Valley' said that he believed the clause was more likely to be that Brandon had to play in 36 games in his 2nd year, (thereby proving he still had a part to play) and would be the more logical clause. If we were gambling on back-to-back promotions, this would be an even less likely clause to have in his contract. You are suggesting that we could have potentially been 'lumbered' with a player that did not feature at all in League 1, but we would be forced into giving him a new contract in the Championship! For example, if Brandon had NOT picked up his ankle injury and played the desired number of games in League2, but deemed not good enough for League1 (as the quality is even higher), why would we leave ourselves open to the possibility of having to pay a wage (3rd year) on a player not in the manager's plans. Let's face it, even if we (the club) believed Brandon was good enough or League2 or even League1, he was never going to be good enough for the Championship! And this is the sole basis of my argument. I don't doubt that there is a clause, but don't believe it has anything to do with 36 games (in total). It is more likely to be 36 games this season. I also believe that the reason he isn't getting picked is because Taylor believes he can get better value elsewhere, and by not picking Brandon, the saving of his bonuses/appearance fees. Perhaps the rumour came from Brandon himself, as he needs to justify to himself (and his acquaintances) as to why Taylor isn't picking him. Easier to blame some spurious clause than admit his boss simply doesn't rate him!

Waynus - is it really that important that you win this argument? I have read your posts about this (and there have been a few) and all I keep thinking is WHY? Why are you that bothered? Why have you wasted so much of your time arguing about it and repeating yourself? It would appear that Fatbloke has a good source of info inside the club and that is (no offense) more reliable than your theories. It sounds feasible to me, just because Lawn is a business man does not mean he is great at negotiating player contracts, he was also fairly new to his role when Brandon joined. I say let it rest Waynus and spend your time on something else mate.

Boothy, excellent point well made. But just to correct you again on a few things Waynus, I never mentioned the figure 36, I believe he has to play a certain amount of games this season to get the contract and he is not far off it and therefore comes under the 36 games other people are mentioning. As for Brandon having to justify himself, well it's funny how I also got told the same information by an ex-pro of city that has been involved with the club very recently. Like Fatbloke, revealing my source(s) is not posssible, but as I said before it seems to irk you that others seem to get info that you don't. I don't think me or fatbloke are saying we know the exact detail nor would we unless we were party to the conversations, but like anything things leak out and this is how we know. The truth might be that Brandon wouldn't feature in Taylors plans short or long term, but it is immaterial as he was told that Brandon will NOT feature.

"Waynus, I never mentioned the figure 36". It was a mis-type, pure and simple. 'fatbloke' was the one that kept using the figure, not you and in another post, I quoted you as saying 'x number of games'. My mistake. As for "irk you that others seem to get info that you don't", what info is that as I am still waiting. The "Brandon having to justify himself", I was joking. Should I have added LOL at the end so you had more reason to try to belittle me? I see your "I believe he has to play a certain amount of games this season" is significantly different to 'fatblokes' "the trigger was 36 games in the 2 years. I do know is he is 5 short of triggering that clause" claim. Talking of waiting, I am still waiting for you to find this supposed evidence of where I changed my tact on Brandon's worth. haven't I given you enought time yet!

Waynus71 wrote:

fatbloke wrote: My point was and still is, the amount of heresay on these message boards is absurd. Didn't see you try to defend the 'Rehman deal', 'Clarke to never play for the club again', 'eastwood must play', 'Brandon to be paid off with an insurance pay-out (2008/09)' or 'Thorney to have his contract ended by mutual consent (2008/09)???? Waynus, the only one here I claim was 'Eastwood must play' the evidence suggests I was right.... I never said any of the others.

That is my whole point 'fatbloke'. Ever since I started this "why don't we stick to the facts and stop posting heresay", you have assumed that I was referring to you. I have said umpteen times that I know you weren't responsible for the majority, but it doesn't stop the fact that others have! As for 'evidence to suggest you was right', where is that? I DID hear (and read) an interview with McCall (after he left City), ADMITTING Eastwood was his signing. He stated that he only had £600 of his reduced budget left for a keeper and that was the reason we plumped for Simon. He was within McCall's price-range. So, where is YOUR evidence to counter McCall's claim? And that just goes to prove my point, that you may know 'some' goings on at City, but not all, as it appears!

reportmeagain wrote:
With Thorne going is the physio going part time?

BCFCBoothy wrote:

Waynus71 wrote:

fatbloke wrote: Okay fair point. I do try to make it clear if I know something is factual to me or a rumour. I can not always reveal my source, because I aint that type of person. I cant always post things on here neither as I would not want to ruin my source of information. The things I know are true cant be proved on here either. I do know that City would not give Chris a 3 yr deal (I assume this is because of his historical injury record or his age at the time of signing) so he was told he had to earn/prove he was worthy of a 3rd year. Also City were gambling on back to back promotions hence McCalls large budget. Therefore the trigger was 36 games in the 2 years (not sure if it was 36 appearances, starts or completed games) what I do know is he is 5 short of triggering that clause. If City had hit their targets the xtra year would have easy affordable had he played the desired games. You seemed shocked Wyanus that such an option exists, like things like that never happen, this is not the first time I have heard of such a clause and to the best of my knowledge appear in a lot of contracts when players are on the wrong side of 30 when they wanted more years then the club are willing to give them.

I've never suggested clauses don't exist, I just don't believe ANY club would be stupid enough to offer the one you suggest. 'Valley' said that he believed the clause was more likely to be that Brandon had to play in 36 games in his 2nd year, (thereby proving he still had a part to play) and would be the more logical clause. If we were gambling on back-to-back promotions, this would be an even less likely clause to have in his contract. You are suggesting that we could have potentially been 'lumbered' with a player that did not feature at all in League 1, but we would be forced into giving him a new contract in the Championship! For example, if Brandon had NOT picked up his ankle injury and played the desired number of games in League2, but deemed not good enough for League1 (as the quality is even higher), why would we leave ourselves open to the possibility of having to pay a wage (3rd year) on a player not in the manager's plans. Let's face it, even if we (the club) believed Brandon was good enough or League2 or even League1, he was never going to be good enough for the Championship! And this is the sole basis of my argument. I don't doubt that there is a clause, but don't believe it has anything to do with 36 games (in total). It is more likely to be 36 games this season. I also believe that the reason he isn't getting picked is because Taylor believes he can get better value elsewhere, and by not picking Brandon, the saving of his bonuses/appearance fees. Perhaps the rumour came from Brandon himself, as he needs to justify to himself (and his acquaintances) as to why Taylor isn't picking him. Easier to blame some spurious clause than admit his boss simply doesn't rate him!

Waynus - is it really that important that you win this argument? I have read your posts about this (and there have been a few) and all I keep thinking is WHY? Why are you that bothered? Why have you wasted so much of your time arguing about it and repeating yourself? It would appear that Fatbloke has a good source of info inside the club and that is (no offense) more reliable than your theories. It sounds feasible to me, just because Lawn is a business man does not mean he is great at negotiating player contracts, he was also fairly new to his role when Brandon joined. I say let it rest Waynus and spend your time on something else mate.

fatbloke wrote:
My evidence regarding Eastwood was there for all people with a football brain to see, he carried on playing when costing us games and as soon as it was possible we got rid. Dont you think that is evident enough to see Hudders lent him to us to develop him therefore we dont pay anything but we must play him. Also the fact Jonny was not even given a sniff in the any of the mickey mouse cups. I didnt hear this from McCall, Simon himself or any of the chairmen, but I have no reason to disbelief my source and looking at all the info available I would bet my last quid is was true. Similar to the 3rd year agreement with City and Brandon, do you not think Waynus agreements between clubs dont go on like the one with Hudders/Eastwood and us? Am I right in thinking you are a retired lonley old man with nothing better to do then reply to every post you disagree with and ask for evidence. As Boothy said read it, believe or ignore it. Either way I dont give a dam. I read posts on here and I know who's posts I decide to read and believe and who's I choose read and ignore and finally peoples posts who I ignore totally when I see who the aurthor is. If you did the same Waynus the site might become enjoyable reading again?

Bradford1903 wrote:

fatbloke wrote: My evidence regarding Eastwood was there for all people with a football brain to see, he carried on playing when costing us games and as soon as it was possible we got rid. Dont you think that is evident enough to see Hudders lent him to us to develop him therefore we dont pay anything but we must play him. Also the fact Jonny was not even given a sniff in the any of the mickey mouse cups. I didnt hear this from McCall, Simon himself or any of the chairmen, but I have no reason to disbelief my source and looking at all the info available I would bet my last quid is was true. Similar to the 3rd year agreement with City and Brandon, do you not think Waynus agreements between clubs dont go on like the one with Hudders/Eastwood and us? Am I right in thinking you are a retired lonley old man with nothing better to do then reply to every post you disagree with and ask for evidence. As Boothy said read it, believe or ignore it. Either way I dont give a dam. I read posts on here and I know who's posts I decide to read and believe and who's I choose read and ignore and finally peoples posts who I ignore totally when I see who the aurthor is. If you did the same Waynus the site might become enjoyable reading again?

I'm sorry, but I just don't believe this rumour that Eastwood had to play in all circumstances. Imagine the effect this would have on team morale for one, it would cause a mutiny, someone playing irrespective of their form. If Stuart did agree to such a clause, then he should've been sacked on the spot.

Waynus71 wrote:
Peter has been an absolute legend here"fatbloke, eccleshill says... 1:05pm Tue 2 Mar 10 Have heard St Johnstone might be interested (in signing Brandon) and have also heard he might retire.. It could be possible Chris and BCFC re-negoiate to suit all parties and then Chris could continue with us? I do know Taylor rates him so rather then take the money and retire why not do what Weathers did, re-negoiate a deal that ends at the end of next season, which suits all parties? Maybe I am miles off the mark, its things I have been told by various people in the last few days. These people are NOT people I can say it MUST be true because they told me so yes Waynus from the first word 'allegedly' I CAN'T say it is factual". Make your mind up 'fatbloke'. Either your sources are reliable or they are not!

tyker wrote:
so now we know that Brandon was offered the same deal as Thorne and the Boulding brothers. However Mr Bradford City deems it is not good enough even though his input in the team is significantly less that that of Thorne and Michael Boulding. So why does Mr Bradford City , with claret and amber coursing through his veins, think he is worth a superior offer and why did he refuse to accept a pay cut willingly accepted by others. The bottom line : he wants to screw the club he loves for the last penny. The answer is simple: he should be left to rot in the stands. the less he plays the less likely he is of getting a meaningful contract again: he has no future at league level or even Blue Square premier and clubs possibly interested in him will be put off by his overall attitude. waynus says Chris is rated by Taylor-- funny that. PT has chopped him and told him he is not required this season and will not be required next season. Had he been so rated he would have played at least another 3 or 4 games: just enough not to trigger the renewal contract. NOW WE KNOW WHY BRANDON WAS INSISTENT ON SM PLAYING HIM; HE WANTED AS MANY GAMES IN AS SOON AS POSSIBLE SO THE RENEWAL CONTRACT WOULD BE TRIGGERED!!

macca1969 wrote:

tyker wrote:
so now we know that Brandon was offered the same deal as Thorne and the Boulding brothers. However Mr Bradford City deems it is not good enough even though his input in the team is significantly less that that of Thorne and Michael Boulding. So why does Mr Bradford City , with claret and amber coursing through his veins, think he is worth a superior offer and why did he refuse to accept a pay cut willingly accepted by others. The bottom line : he wants to screw the club he loves for the last penny. The answer is simple: he should be left to rot in the stands. the less he plays the less likely he is of getting a meaningful contract again: he has no future at league level or even Blue Square premier and clubs possibly interested in him will be put off by his overall attitude. waynus says Chris is rated by Taylor-- funny that. PT has chopped him and told him he is not required this season and will not be required next season. Had he been so rated he would have played at least another 3 or 4 games: just enough not to trigger the renewal contract. NOW WE KNOW WHY BRANDON WAS INSISTENT ON SM PLAYING HIM; HE WANTED AS MANY GAMES IN AS SOON AS POSSIBLE SO THE RENEWAL CONTRACT WOULD BE TRIGGERED!!

I think Waynus was quoting fatbloke Tyker try reading again.

tyker wrote:

macca1969 wrote:

tyker wrote: so now we know that Brandon was offered the same deal as Thorne and the Boulding brothers. However Mr Bradford City deems it is not good enough even though his input in the team is significantly less that that of Thorne and Michael Boulding. So why does Mr Bradford City , with claret and amber coursing through his veins, think he is worth a superior offer and why did he refuse to accept a pay cut willingly accepted by others. The bottom line : he wants to screw the club he loves for the last penny. The answer is simple: he should be left to rot in the stands. the less he plays the less likely he is of getting a meaningful contract again: he has no future at league level or even Blue Square premier and clubs possibly interested in him will be put off by his overall attitude. waynus says Chris is rated by Taylor-- funny that. PT has chopped him and told him he is not required this season and will not be required next season. Had he been so rated he would have played at least another 3 or 4 games: just enough not to trigger the renewal contract. NOW WE KNOW WHY BRANDON WAS INSISTENT ON SM PLAYING HIM; HE WANTED AS MANY GAMES IN AS SOON AS POSSIBLE SO THE RENEWAL CONTRACT WOULD BE TRIGGERED!!

I think Waynus was quoting fatbloke Tyker try reading again.

i have lost the will to live reading the spats between the two: this ought to be called the Fatbloke Waynus show: it's tedious in the extreme. If have misquaoted--apologie s but I fell certain you will understand the post timed at 11.59 from Waynus stated inter alia " "I do know Taylor rates him so rather then take the money and retire why not do what Weathers............ .................... .................... " it matters not: Brandon is squeezing the last penny and then wanting to keep his contract so that he can go elsewhere and get a double whammy-------------- - the offer should be withdrawn. Brandon should be made to train with the reserves and juniors and ordered to attend all home games so he can sit and wallow in his own misfortune at being rejected as " not fit for purpose"

im a lady wrote:
with regards to contracts, agreements, arrangements etc most of you losers that argue with each other on here have NO idea. keep guessing & get a life!!!!

tyker wrote:

macca1969 wrote:

tyker wrote: so now we know that Brandon was offered the same deal as Thorne and the Boulding brothers. However Mr Bradford City deems it is not good enough even though his input in the team is significantly less that that of Thorne and Michael Boulding. So why does Mr Bradford City , with claret and amber coursing through his veins, think he is worth a superior offer and why did he refuse to accept a pay cut willingly accepted by others. The bottom line : he wants to screw the club he loves for the last penny. The answer is simple: he should be left to rot in the stands. the less he plays the less likely he is of getting a meaningful contract again: he has no future at league level or even Blue Square premier and clubs possibly interested in him will be put off by his overall attitude. waynus says Chris is rated by Taylor-- funny that. PT has chopped him and told him he is not required this season and will not be required next season. Had he been so rated he would have played at least another 3 or 4 games: just enough not to trigger the renewal contract. NOW WE KNOW WHY BRANDON WAS INSISTENT ON SM PLAYING HIM; HE WANTED AS MANY GAMES IN AS SOON AS POSSIBLE SO THE RENEWAL CONTRACT WOULD BE TRIGGERED!!

I think Waynus was quoting fatbloke Tyker try reading again.

i have lost the will to live reading the spats between the two: this ought to be called the Fatbloke Waynus show: it's tedious in the extreme. If have misquaoted--apologie s but I fell certain you will understand the post timed at 11.59 from Waynus stated inter alia " "I do know Taylor rates him so rather then take the money and retire why not do what Weathers............ .................... .................... " it matters not: Brandon is squeezing the last penny and then wanting to keep his contract so that he can go elsewhere and get a double whammy-------------- - the offer should be withdrawn. Brandon should be made to train with the reserves and juniors and ordered to attend all home games so he can sit and wallow in his own misfortune at being rejected as " not fit for purpose"

Waynus71 wrote:

tyker wrote:

macca1969 wrote:

tyker wrote: so now we know that Brandon was offered the same deal as Thorne and the Boulding brothers. However Mr Bradford City deems it is not good enough even though his input in the team is significantly less that that of Thorne and Michael Boulding. So why does Mr Bradford City , with claret and amber coursing through his veins, think he is worth a superior offer and why did he refuse to accept a pay cut willingly accepted by others. The bottom line : he wants to screw the club he loves for the last penny. The answer is simple: he should be left to rot in the stands. the less he plays the less likely he is of getting a meaningful contract again: he has no future at league level or even Blue Square premier and clubs possibly interested in him will be put off by his overall attitude. waynus says Chris is rated by Taylor-- funny that. PT has chopped him and told him he is not required this season and will not be required next season. Had he been so rated he would have played at least another 3 or 4 games: just enough not to trigger the renewal contract. NOW WE KNOW WHY BRANDON WAS INSISTENT ON SM PLAYING HIM; HE WANTED AS MANY GAMES IN AS SOON AS POSSIBLE SO THE RENEWAL CONTRACT WOULD BE TRIGGERED!!

I think Waynus was quoting fatbloke Tyker try reading again.

i have lost the will to live reading the spats between the two: this ought to be called the Fatbloke Waynus show: it's tedious in the extreme. If have misquaoted--apologie s but I fell certain you will understand the post timed at 11.59 from Waynus stated inter alia " "I do know Taylor rates him so rather then take the money and retire why not do what Weathers............ .................... .................... " it matters not: Brandon is squeezing the last penny and then wanting to keep his contract so that he can go elsewhere and get a double whammy-------------- - the offer should be withdrawn. Brandon should be made to train with the reserves and juniors and ordered to attend all home games so he can sit and wallow in his own misfortune at being rejected as " not fit for purpose"

Tyker, 'maccas69' was correct. I have not said (nor suggested) that Taylor rates Brandon. If you had been reading my posts and then used the common-sense test, you would have been able to work that out.

As for "I do know Taylor rates him so rather then take the money and retire why not do what Weathers....", why would I say that?
Firstly, I don't know Peter Taylor so how would I know 'he rates him' and secondly, I know how to spell 'Wethers'!!!

I have been arguing against 'fatblokes' insistence of a 36 game clause and that is the sole reason behind Brandon not being picked. I have said that I don't believe there is such a clause and that it has probably more to do with the fact that Taylor DOES NOT rate Brandon!

However, in relation to 'squeezing the last penny...' I do agree with you. That said, according to 'fatbloke' or 'valley' (can't remember which one) claims that we are prepared to pay him off but not release his papers, thus stopping him from playing elsewhere. Not sure if this is legal, but that is what has been claimed. Should that be the case, you can't blame the lad for staying put.

We gave Chris the contract (with or without alleged clause) and, although I agree with you that he has not justified the salary/bonuses etc, we can't expect him to just walk away. It certainly wouldn't be fair to make him train with the youth etc, even if that was legal (isn't it discrimation to make his working environment intollerable just because he refused to tear up a contract we had given?)

tyker wrote:

Waynus71 wrote:

tyker wrote:

macca1969 wrote:

tyker wrote: so now we know that Brandon was offered the same deal as Thorne and the Boulding brothers. However Mr Bradford City deems it is not good enough even though his input in the team is significantly less that that of Thorne and Michael Boulding. So why does Mr Bradford City , with claret and amber coursing through his veins, think he is worth a superior offer and why did he refuse to accept a pay cut willingly accepted by others. The bottom line : he wants to screw the club he loves for the last penny. The answer is simple: he should be left to rot in the stands. the less he plays the less likely he is of getting a meaningful contract again: he has no future at league level or even Blue Square premier and clubs possibly interested in him will be put off by his overall attitude. waynus says Chris is rated by Taylor-- funny that. PT has chopped him and told him he is not required this season and will not be required next season. Had he been so rated he would have played at least another 3 or 4 games: just enough not to trigger the renewal contract. NOW WE KNOW WHY BRANDON WAS INSISTENT ON SM PLAYING HIM; HE WANTED AS MANY GAMES IN AS SOON AS POSSIBLE SO THE RENEWAL CONTRACT WOULD BE TRIGGERED!!

I think Waynus was quoting fatbloke Tyker try reading again.

i have lost the will to live reading the spats between the two: this ought to be called the Fatbloke Waynus show: it's tedious in the extreme. If have misquaoted--apologie s but I fell certain you will understand the post timed at 11.59 from Waynus stated inter alia " "I do know Taylor rates him so rather then take the money and retire why not do what Weathers............ .................... .................... " it matters not: Brandon is squeezing the last penny and then wanting to keep his contract so that he can go elsewhere and get a double whammy-------------- - the offer should be withdrawn. Brandon should be made to train with the reserves and juniors and ordered to attend all home games so he can sit and wallow in his own misfortune at being rejected as " not fit for purpose"

Tyker, 'maccas69' was correct. I have not said (nor suggested) that Taylor rates Brandon. If you had been reading my posts and then used the common-sense test, you would have been able to work that out. As for "I do know Taylor rates him so rather then take the money and retire why not do what Weathers....", why would I say that? Firstly, I don't know Peter Taylor so how would I know 'he rates him' and secondly, I know how to spell 'Wethers'!!! I have been arguing against 'fatblokes' insistence of a 36 game clause and that is the sole reason behind Brandon not being picked. I have said that I don't believe there is such a clause and that it has probably more to do with the fact that Taylor DOES NOT rate Brandon! However, in relation to 'squeezing the last penny...' I do agree with you. That said, according to 'fatbloke' or 'valley' (can't remember which one) claims that we are prepared to pay him off but not release his papers, thus stopping him from playing elsewhere. Not sure if this is legal, but that is what has been claimed. Should that be the case, you can't blame the lad for staying put. We gave Chris the contract (with or without alleged clause) and, although I agree with you that he has not justified the salary/bonuses etc, we can't expect him to just walk away. It certainly wouldn't be fair to make him train with the youth etc, even if that was legal (isn't it discrimation to make his working environment intollerable just because he refused to tear up a contract we had given?)

who cares:he has gone and long may he wallow in the Saturday/Sunday pub leagues following the likes of Ronnie Brown and many others.

tyker wrote:
Waynus--- rumour has it elsewhere that you are leaving us as you are of contract at the end of the season: many wish it were true but, sadly, my sourcestell me that you are still contracted and have refused all offers to go elsewhere. Could this be true LOL

dannbradfc wrote:

tyker wrote:
Waynus--- rumour has it elsewhere that you are leaving us as you are of contract at the end of the season: many wish it were true but, sadly, my sourcestell me that you are still contracted and have refused all offers to go elsewhere. Could this be true LOL

rumur has it that he has been offerd a contract by Hudd******D Town 'cos he knows alltheir players but he may change his mind alittle too often for their liking ;)

BD16 wrote:

Bradford1903 wrote:

fatbloke wrote: My evidence regarding Eastwood was there for all people with a football brain to see, he carried on playing when costing us games and as soon as it was possible we got rid. Dont you think that is evident enough to see Hudders lent him to us to develop him therefore we dont pay anything but we must play him. Also the fact Jonny was not even given a sniff in the any of the mickey mouse cups. I didnt hear this from McCall, Simon himself or any of the chairmen, but I have no reason to disbelief my source and looking at all the info available I would bet my last quid is was true. Similar to the 3rd year agreement with City and Brandon, do you not think Waynus agreements between clubs dont go on like the one with Hudders/Eastwood and us? Am I right in thinking you are a retired lonley old man with nothing better to do then reply to every post you disagree with and ask for evidence. As Boothy said read it, believe or ignore it. Either way I dont give a dam. I read posts on here and I know who's posts I decide to read and believe and who's I choose read and ignore and finally peoples posts who I ignore totally when I see who the aurthor is. If you did the same Waynus the site might become enjoyable reading again?

I'm sorry, but I just don't believe this rumour that Eastwood had to play in all circumstances. Imagine the effect this would have on team morale for one, it would cause a mutiny, someone playing irrespective of their form. If Stuart did agree to such a clause, then he should've been sacked on the spot.

1903: I know what you mean about Eastwood but lokk at it another way. If he did not have the clause previously mentioned, how on earth did he keep getting a game given his performances for us? He was the worst City keeper I can remember, and I remember Stephen Smith and Billy Punton.

dannbradfc wrote:
Peter has been an absolute legend herewaynus it was a joke yu no.

I feel it gets to you just a tad that i am usually quite correct in a few of things i say. The fact that you have to point out typo's rather than your usual examples to proove a point supports the fact that i do tend to get alot right. I'm not infalable:) and never said otherwise. My qualifications are of a very high standard thank you very much and i repeat that the fact you have to resort to picking o typo's makes me a very happy bunny indeed. How do yu feal?? Dont bee chainging yor mined tho

Waynus71 wrote:

dannbradfc wrote: Peter has been an absolute legend herewaynus it was a joke yu no. I feel it gets to you just a tad that i am usually quite correct in a few of things i say. The fact that you have to point out typo's rather than your usual examples to proove a point supports the fact that i do tend to get alot right. I'm not infalable:) and never said otherwise. My qualifications are of a very high standard thank you very much and i repeat that the fact you have to resort to picking o typo's makes me a very happy bunny indeed. How do yu feal?? Dont bee chainging yor mined tho

My response was meant to be a similar 'style' joke to your post. I know you don't like the LOL (gushing teen and all that), so I left it off deliberately. Honest.