Boulding leaves Bantams

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Michael Boulding has kicked his last ball for City Michael Boulding has kicked his last ball for City

Striker Michael Boulding has left City after cancelling his contract by mutual consent.

The 34-year-old scored 19 goals in two seasons at Valley Parade. But he has started only 11 games this term and none since Peter Taylor took over.

His brother Rory has also gone after making just three appearances.

Full story in tomorrow’s T&A

Comments (39)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:49pm Mon 15 Mar 10

GT Horton Bantam says...

Whooooo Hoooooooo best news ive heard since Joe Collbeck left.
Whooooo Hoooooooo best news ive heard since Joe Collbeck left. GT Horton Bantam
  • Score: 0

1:09pm Mon 15 Mar 10

msbooie says...

Pity we didnt have a manager that could play him in the right way!
Pity we didnt have a manager that could play him in the right way! msbooie
  • Score: 0

1:22pm Mon 15 Mar 10

tyker says...

it was evident that he and his brother were not in Taylor's plans along with Brandon and Thorne and probably Rehman. There was no point in these players being on the training ground if they were never to be selected again. Michael Boulding scored goals for fun in a relegated team at Mansfield but scored very few at City. Why was that?

More worryingly for me is the future of Taylor now that Hull have sacked Brown. Taylor is 16-1 for the job.
it was evident that he and his brother were not in Taylor's plans along with Brandon and Thorne and probably Rehman. There was no point in these players being on the training ground if they were never to be selected again. Michael Boulding scored goals for fun in a relegated team at Mansfield but scored very few at City. Why was that? More worryingly for me is the future of Taylor now that Hull have sacked Brown. Taylor is 16-1 for the job. tyker
  • Score: 0

1:27pm Mon 15 Mar 10

Waynus71 says...

Oh, where were the rumours that this was going to happen? I thought the so-called 'in the know' brigade had claimed it was Thorne and Brandon that were leaving. More foolish rumours surrounding our club, from fans that know no more than the rest of us!

Personally, I don't think we ever saw the best of Mickey B. Perhaps that was the way we played the game, who knows. Either way, he didn't have the impact we had hoped and it is no surprise Taylor has shipped him out. As for his brother, I still don't understand why he was signed in the first place!
Oh, where were the rumours that this was going to happen? I thought the so-called 'in the know' brigade had claimed it was Thorne and Brandon that were leaving. More foolish rumours surrounding our club, from fans that know no more than the rest of us! Personally, I don't think we ever saw the best of Mickey B. Perhaps that was the way we played the game, who knows. Either way, he didn't have the impact we had hoped and it is no surprise Taylor has shipped him out. As for his brother, I still don't understand why he was signed in the first place! Waynus71
  • Score: 0

1:40pm Mon 15 Mar 10

fatbloke says...

read my posts Waynus, I think you will find I said 3 weeks ago, the day of the Rochdale game when I knew Brandon would never play again that Boulding along with Thorne would be history!! Cheers!
read my posts Waynus, I think you will find I said 3 weeks ago, the day of the Rochdale game when I knew Brandon would never play again that Boulding along with Thorne would be history!! Cheers! fatbloke
  • Score: 0

1:49pm Mon 15 Mar 10

Waynus71 says...

tyker wrote:
it was evident that he and his brother were not in Taylor's plans along with Brandon and Thorne and probably Rehman. There was no point in these players being on the training ground if they were never to be selected again. Michael Boulding scored goals for fun in a relegated team at Mansfield but scored very few at City. Why was that? More worryingly for me is the future of Taylor now that Hull have sacked Brown. Taylor is 16-1 for the job.
Was it 'evident'? Before the weekend and his departure, Boulding was named as sub in all 6 games Taylor has been in charge, coming off the bench in 4 of them.

Isn't this the same wild rumour you have 'made-up' about Brandon & Thorne for the past couple of seasons and again recently? Weren't you one of those (I referred to above) that also claimed Daley's time at the club was limited, because he "wouldn't fit into Taylor's plans"?

I'm still waiting to read that Brandon has "effectively had his contract paid up and has left the club" and that he "wouldn't be playing for City again in any capacity" as some claimed only last week!
[quote][p][bold]tyker[/bold] wrote: it was evident that he and his brother were not in Taylor's plans along with Brandon and Thorne and probably Rehman. There was no point in these players being on the training ground if they were never to be selected again. Michael Boulding scored goals for fun in a relegated team at Mansfield but scored very few at City. Why was that? More worryingly for me is the future of Taylor now that Hull have sacked Brown. Taylor is 16-1 for the job.[/p][/quote]Was it 'evident'? Before the weekend and his departure, Boulding was named as sub in all 6 games Taylor has been in charge, coming off the bench in 4 of them. Isn't this the same wild rumour you have 'made-up' about Brandon & Thorne for the past couple of seasons and again recently? Weren't you one of those (I referred to above) that also claimed Daley's time at the club was limited, because he "wouldn't fit into Taylor's plans"? I'm still waiting to read that Brandon has "effectively had his contract paid up and has left the club" and that he "wouldn't be playing for City again in any capacity" as some claimed only last week! Waynus71
  • Score: 0

1:55pm Mon 15 Mar 10

BIG T says...

Good riddance! He couldn't hit a barn door in his last few appearances, never rated the guy he just ball watches, never anticipates anything and his legs have gone as far as I can see as in his time at city he's looked no quicker than Thorne or Conlon were IMO.
Good riddance! He couldn't hit a barn door in his last few appearances, never rated the guy he just ball watches, never anticipates anything and his legs have gone as far as I can see as in his time at city he's looked no quicker than Thorne or Conlon were IMO. BIG T
  • Score: 0

2:05pm Mon 15 Mar 10

valleyofshame says...

Waynus, it is honestly no wild rumour, Brandon will NOT play again as it was decided before Taylor came in. Just because he hasn't left oesn't mean things are not happening behind the scenes, albeit admittedly very slow.
Boulding was a possibility to go the same way as Thorne, however, in all honesty I probably thought he would be kept until the end of the season then released.
The fact is that we are playing for nothing until the end of the season, so Taylor can experiment as much as he likes and if it makes sense to get rid of people now then so be it.
The thing will Boulding that I have said before is that money is no issue with him, same with Thorne, so he may feel no compulsion to stay at the club.
Waynus, it is honestly no wild rumour, Brandon will NOT play again as it was decided before Taylor came in. Just because he hasn't left oesn't mean things are not happening behind the scenes, albeit admittedly very slow. Boulding was a possibility to go the same way as Thorne, however, in all honesty I probably thought he would be kept until the end of the season then released. The fact is that we are playing for nothing until the end of the season, so Taylor can experiment as much as he likes and if it makes sense to get rid of people now then so be it. The thing will Boulding that I have said before is that money is no issue with him, same with Thorne, so he may feel no compulsion to stay at the club. valleyofshame
  • Score: 0

2:06pm Mon 15 Mar 10

Waynus71 says...

fatbloke wrote:
read my posts Waynus, I think you will find I said 3 weeks ago, the day of the Rochdale game when I knew Brandon would never play again that Boulding along with Thorne would be history!! Cheers!
So Brandon and Thorne have gone too, I must have missed that one. Doh!

p.s. I think you said that Brandon would never play for City again, (even for the reserves), yet there he was last Wednesday night! Thought his contract had been paid up and therefore not allowed to play for City again or train? Oops!
[quote][p][bold]fatbloke[/bold] wrote: read my posts Waynus, I think you will find I said 3 weeks ago, the day of the Rochdale game when I knew Brandon would never play again that Boulding along with Thorne would be history!! Cheers![/p][/quote]So Brandon and Thorne have gone too, I must have missed that one. Doh! p.s. I think you said that Brandon would never play for City again, (even for the reserves), yet there he was last Wednesday night! Thought his contract had been paid up and therefore not allowed to play for City again or train? Oops! Waynus71
  • Score: 0

2:06pm Mon 15 Mar 10

fatbloke says...

Waynus, Brandon will not play again, but an agreement can not be reached for early settlement, simples!!
Waynus, Brandon will not play again, but an agreement can not be reached for early settlement, simples!! fatbloke
  • Score: 0

2:28pm Mon 15 Mar 10

fatbloke says...

Waynus71 wrote:
fatbloke wrote: read my posts Waynus, I think you will find I said 3 weeks ago, the day of the Rochdale game when I knew Brandon would never play again that Boulding along with Thorne would be history!! Cheers!
So Brandon and Thorne have gone too, I must have missed that one. Doh! p.s. I think you said that Brandon would never play for City again, (even for the reserves), yet there he was last Wednesday night! Thought his contract had been paid up and therefore not allowed to play for City again or train? Oops!
Yes Thorne has gone but know you have not missed anything because its not been made official.
Brandon has not because an agreement can not be reached between the 2 party's.
I never said Chris would not play for the reserves again!! for as long as his registration remains at City and he is collecting his weekly BASIC wage he will have to play for the reserves.
One thing I have said before is I dont care one little bit if you choose to wait for it officially or believe what people on here say.
Stop been anal aynus
[quote][p][bold]Waynus71[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fatbloke[/bold] wrote: read my posts Waynus, I think you will find I said 3 weeks ago, the day of the Rochdale game when I knew Brandon would never play again that Boulding along with Thorne would be history!! Cheers![/p][/quote]So Brandon and Thorne have gone too, I must have missed that one. Doh! p.s. I think you said that Brandon would never play for City again, (even for the reserves), yet there he was last Wednesday night! Thought his contract had been paid up and therefore not allowed to play for City again or train? Oops![/p][/quote]Yes Thorne has gone but know you have not missed anything because its not been made official. Brandon has not because an agreement can not be reached between the 2 party's. I never said Chris would not play for the reserves again!! for as long as his registration remains at City and he is collecting his weekly BASIC wage he will have to play for the reserves. One thing I have said before is I dont care one little bit if you choose to wait for it officially or believe what people on here say. Stop been anal aynus fatbloke
  • Score: 0

2:33pm Mon 15 Mar 10

tyker says...

at this stage of the season why do we have to pay up compensation for the players .This takes capital out of the club in a lump sum rather than a drip effect of paying out weekly.



leave the players on their relative weekly wages and put them on "gardening leave"--i.e "please don't bother come in to training" or simply have them training but with the juniors or reserves. Why should Taylor waste his time with these players?

If clubs come in for these players they can be released from their contract so they can sign for clubs as free agents.

Worryingly though is that Taylor is 25-1 for Hull. I have a bet on Jewell as he is a close friend of Pearson.

Taylor has just stated that he is not a contender for the position:he did not, however, rule himself out of it.
at this stage of the season why do we have to pay up compensation for the players .This takes capital out of the club in a lump sum rather than a drip effect of paying out weekly. leave the players on their relative weekly wages and put them on "gardening leave"--i.e "please don't bother come in to training" or simply have them training but with the juniors or reserves. Why should Taylor waste his time with these players? If clubs come in for these players they can be released from their contract so they can sign for clubs as free agents. Worryingly though is that Taylor is 25-1 for Hull. I have a bet on Jewell as he is a close friend of Pearson. Taylor has just stated that he is not a contender for the position:he did not, however, rule himself out of it. tyker
  • Score: 0

3:13pm Mon 15 Mar 10

Waynus71 says...

I'm not being the one that is being 'anal'. The fact is, NOBODY mentioned Boulding would be leaving the club before the end of the season. However, the rumour brigade, of which you appear to be the CEO, continually make up stories to 'big' themselves up.

You claim, above, that under the Rochdale posts, you pointed out that Boulding, Thorne & Brandon would not play again. I think, if I remember rightly, what you actually said was that Brandon was not in the running to be played behind Hanson and we had a debate as to the wording of being chosen in front of another player. Can't recall any mention of Thorne and/or Boulding though!

As for the "he will never play for City again in any capacity", that was aimed at 'Valley' as he claimed Brandon's deal HAD been paid up in full, but that we had retained his registration until the end of the season.

The fact is, throughout the past couple of seasons, all we get are rumours, purporting to be fact, when clearly not.

1) Topp was a Lawn signing (UNPROVEN)
2) Eastwood signed on basis he must play (PROVED INCORRECT)
3) Rehman's contract means he HAS to play or we have to pay his wages (UNPROVEN)
4) Rehman had a spat with McCall and would never play for the club again (UNCORRECT)
5) Clarke had a bust up with McCall and would never play for the club again (UNCORRECT)
6) Thorne's contract would be cancelled by mutual consent (2009) due to his injuries (UNCORRECT)
7) Brandon's contract would be cancelled (2009) "as an insurance write-off" (UNCORRECT)
8) Thorne has already left the club but confirmation not yet released (Why would this be the case if we have announced similar departures of the Boulding brothers?) (UNPROVEN)
9) Brandon has played his last game for us because we can't afford to pay his appearance/bonus fees (UNPROVEN).

I know you aren't responsible for all these, but you are as guilty as the rest. I remember reading a quote from you that we were expecting to sign Manchester United's kid called "Oliver Gill". We then signed "Luke Oliver" from Wycombe!

Two add two doesn't make five!
I'm not being the one that is being 'anal'. The fact is, NOBODY mentioned Boulding would be leaving the club before the end of the season. However, the rumour brigade, of which you appear to be the CEO, continually make up stories to 'big' themselves up. You claim, above, that under the Rochdale posts, you pointed out that Boulding, Thorne & Brandon would not play again. I think, if I remember rightly, what you actually said was that Brandon was not in the running to be played behind Hanson and we had a debate as to the wording of being chosen in front of another player. Can't recall any mention of Thorne and/or Boulding though! As for the "he will never play for City again in any capacity", that was aimed at 'Valley' as he claimed Brandon's deal HAD been paid up in full, but that we had retained his registration until the end of the season. The fact is, throughout the past couple of seasons, all we get are rumours, purporting to be fact, when clearly not. 1) Topp was a Lawn signing (UNPROVEN) 2) Eastwood signed on basis he must play (PROVED INCORRECT) 3) Rehman's contract means he HAS to play or we have to pay his wages (UNPROVEN) 4) Rehman had a spat with McCall and would never play for the club again (UNCORRECT) 5) Clarke had a bust up with McCall and would never play for the club again (UNCORRECT) 6) Thorne's contract would be cancelled by mutual consent (2009) due to his injuries (UNCORRECT) 7) Brandon's contract would be cancelled (2009) "as an insurance write-off" (UNCORRECT) 8) Thorne has already left the club but confirmation not yet released (Why would this be the case if we have announced similar departures of the Boulding brothers?) (UNPROVEN) 9) Brandon has played his last game for us because we can't afford to pay his appearance/bonus fees (UNPROVEN). I know you aren't responsible for all these, but you are as guilty as the rest. I remember reading a quote from you that we were expecting to sign Manchester United's kid called "Oliver Gill". We then signed "Luke Oliver" from Wycombe! Two add two doesn't make five! Waynus71
  • Score: 0

3:15pm Mon 15 Mar 10

b-wildered says...

fatbloke wrote:
Waynus71 wrote:
fatbloke wrote: read my posts Waynus, I think you will find I said 3 weeks ago, the day of the Rochdale game when I knew Brandon would never play again that Boulding along with Thorne would be history!! Cheers!
So Brandon and Thorne have gone too, I must have missed that one. Doh! p.s. I think you said that Brandon would never play for City again, (even for the reserves), yet there he was last Wednesday night! Thought his contract had been paid up and therefore not allowed to play for City again or train? Oops!
Yes Thorne has gone but know you have not missed anything because its not been made official. Brandon has not because an agreement can not be reached between the 2 party's. I never said Chris would not play for the reserves again!! for as long as his registration remains at City and he is collecting his weekly BASIC wage he will have to play for the reserves. One thing I have said before is I dont care one little bit if you choose to wait for it officially or believe what people on here say. Stop been anal aynus
he cant help it.
[quote][p][bold]fatbloke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus71[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fatbloke[/bold] wrote: read my posts Waynus, I think you will find I said 3 weeks ago, the day of the Rochdale game when I knew Brandon would never play again that Boulding along with Thorne would be history!! Cheers![/p][/quote]So Brandon and Thorne have gone too, I must have missed that one. Doh! p.s. I think you said that Brandon would never play for City again, (even for the reserves), yet there he was last Wednesday night! Thought his contract had been paid up and therefore not allowed to play for City again or train? Oops![/p][/quote]Yes Thorne has gone but know you have not missed anything because its not been made official. Brandon has not because an agreement can not be reached between the 2 party's. I never said Chris would not play for the reserves again!! for as long as his registration remains at City and he is collecting his weekly BASIC wage he will have to play for the reserves. One thing I have said before is I dont care one little bit if you choose to wait for it officially or believe what people on here say. Stop been anal aynus[/p][/quote]he cant help it. b-wildered
  • Score: 0

3:18pm Mon 15 Mar 10

Waynus71 says...

Waynus71 wrote:
I'm not being the one that is being 'anal'. The fact is, NOBODY mentioned Boulding would be leaving the club before the end of the season. However, the rumour brigade, of which you appear to be the CEO, continually make up stories to 'big' themselves up. You claim, above, that under the Rochdale posts, you pointed out that Boulding, Thorne & Brandon would not play again. I think, if I remember rightly, what you actually said was that Brandon was not in the running to be played behind Hanson and we had a debate as to the wording of being chosen in front of another player. Can't recall any mention of Thorne and/or Boulding though! As for the "he will never play for City again in any capacity", that was aimed at 'Valley' as he claimed Brandon's deal HAD been paid up in full, but that we had retained his registration until the end of the season. The fact is, throughout the past couple of seasons, all we get are rumours, purporting to be fact, when clearly not. 1) Topp was a Lawn signing (UNPROVEN) 2) Eastwood signed on basis he must play (PROVED INCORRECT) 3) Rehman's contract means he HAS to play or we have to pay his wages (UNPROVEN) 4) Rehman had a spat with McCall and would never play for the club again (UNCORRECT) 5) Clarke had a bust up with McCall and would never play for the club again (UNCORRECT) 6) Thorne's contract would be cancelled by mutual consent (2009) due to his injuries (UNCORRECT) 7) Brandon's contract would be cancelled (2009) "as an insurance write-off" (UNCORRECT) 8) Thorne has already left the club but confirmation not yet released (Why would this be the case if we have announced similar departures of the Boulding brothers?) (UNPROVEN) 9) Brandon has played his last game for us because we can't afford to pay his appearance/bonus fees (UNPROVEN). I know you aren't responsible for all these, but you are as guilty as the rest. I remember reading a quote from you that we were expecting to sign Manchester United's kid called "Oliver Gill". We then signed "Luke Oliver" from Wycombe! Two add two doesn't make five!
Sorry - I originally typed "UNPROVEN" and changed to "INCORRECT" without changing the first 2 letters, thus making up a new work of "UNCORRECT"!

Doh!
[quote][p][bold]Waynus71[/bold] wrote: I'm not being the one that is being 'anal'. The fact is, NOBODY mentioned Boulding would be leaving the club before the end of the season. However, the rumour brigade, of which you appear to be the CEO, continually make up stories to 'big' themselves up. You claim, above, that under the Rochdale posts, you pointed out that Boulding, Thorne & Brandon would not play again. I think, if I remember rightly, what you actually said was that Brandon was not in the running to be played behind Hanson and we had a debate as to the wording of being chosen in front of another player. Can't recall any mention of Thorne and/or Boulding though! As for the "he will never play for City again in any capacity", that was aimed at 'Valley' as he claimed Brandon's deal HAD been paid up in full, but that we had retained his registration until the end of the season. The fact is, throughout the past couple of seasons, all we get are rumours, purporting to be fact, when clearly not. 1) Topp was a Lawn signing (UNPROVEN) 2) Eastwood signed on basis he must play (PROVED INCORRECT) 3) Rehman's contract means he HAS to play or we have to pay his wages (UNPROVEN) 4) Rehman had a spat with McCall and would never play for the club again (UNCORRECT) 5) Clarke had a bust up with McCall and would never play for the club again (UNCORRECT) 6) Thorne's contract would be cancelled by mutual consent (2009) due to his injuries (UNCORRECT) 7) Brandon's contract would be cancelled (2009) "as an insurance write-off" (UNCORRECT) 8) Thorne has already left the club but confirmation not yet released (Why would this be the case if we have announced similar departures of the Boulding brothers?) (UNPROVEN) 9) Brandon has played his last game for us because we can't afford to pay his appearance/bonus fees (UNPROVEN). I know you aren't responsible for all these, but you are as guilty as the rest. I remember reading a quote from you that we were expecting to sign Manchester United's kid called "Oliver Gill". We then signed "Luke Oliver" from Wycombe! Two add two doesn't make five![/p][/quote]Sorry - I originally typed "UNPROVEN" and changed to "INCORRECT" without changing the first 2 letters, thus making up a new work of "UNCORRECT"! Doh! Waynus71
  • Score: 0

3:29pm Mon 15 Mar 10

fatbloke says...

You check out my posts between now and rochdale mate (which I am sure you are sad enough to do), I predicted Thorne and Boulding would soon be on there way because they dont fit in to Taylor's style, which was and I quote 'a solid unit that breaks with power and pace which Boulding and Thorne have neither'
I did say more likely to be Thorne as his basic slary would not be worth hanging around for..
You check out my posts between now and rochdale mate (which I am sure you are sad enough to do), I predicted Thorne and Boulding would soon be on there way because they dont fit in to Taylor's style, which was and I quote 'a solid unit that breaks with power and pace which Boulding and Thorne have neither' I did say more likely to be Thorne as his basic slary would not be worth hanging around for.. fatbloke
  • Score: 0

4:03pm Mon 15 Mar 10

shaun from richmond says...

GREAT NEWS!! Another McCall No-hoper leaves the club!!
Taylor is doing a great job of erasing the memory of the WORST COACH IN OUR HISTORY!!
Keep it up PETER!!
GREAT NEWS!! Another McCall No-hoper leaves the club!! Taylor is doing a great job of erasing the memory of the WORST COACH IN OUR HISTORY!! Keep it up PETER!! shaun from richmond
  • Score: 0

4:08pm Mon 15 Mar 10

BD16 says...

Waynus71 wrote:
Oh, where were the rumours that this was going to happen? I thought the so-called 'in the know' brigade had claimed it was Thorne and Brandon that were leaving. More foolish rumours surrounding our club, from fans that know no more than the rest of us! Personally, I don't think we ever saw the best of Mickey B. Perhaps that was the way we played the game, who knows. Either way, he didn't have the impact we had hoped and it is no surprise Taylor has shipped him out. As for his brother, I still don't understand why he was signed in the first place!
I think Boulding was signed on the strength of one great season, the previous 10 average ones were ignored. His brother just came along as part of the package. I think Stuart said at the time Rory took over the contract of Luke Medley when he went to Barnet.
[quote][p][bold]Waynus71[/bold] wrote: Oh, where were the rumours that this was going to happen? I thought the so-called 'in the know' brigade had claimed it was Thorne and Brandon that were leaving. More foolish rumours surrounding our club, from fans that know no more than the rest of us! Personally, I don't think we ever saw the best of Mickey B. Perhaps that was the way we played the game, who knows. Either way, he didn't have the impact we had hoped and it is no surprise Taylor has shipped him out. As for his brother, I still don't understand why he was signed in the first place![/p][/quote]I think Boulding was signed on the strength of one great season, the previous 10 average ones were ignored. His brother just came along as part of the package. I think Stuart said at the time Rory took over the contract of Luke Medley when he went to Barnet. BD16
  • Score: 0

4:36pm Mon 15 Mar 10

Old Peculiar says...

"There's a taxi out front for Thorne, anyone called Peter Thorne here ?"
"There's a taxi out front for Thorne, anyone called Peter Thorne here ?" Old Peculiar
  • Score: 0

4:50pm Mon 15 Mar 10

Waynus71 says...

"The current Bantams boss guided the Tigers from the Football League's bottom division to the Championship between 2002 and 2006, but he does not believe he will be a target.

He said: "Me being interested in Hull City, I think that's pretty obvious, but I don't think I'm a contender."

It's obvious that IF Hull were to approach him, Taylor will be gone, we will left back at first base and no compensation to boot. Rhodes and Lawn have made a big gaffe here and should be offering him at least a 2 year deal!
"The current Bantams boss guided the Tigers from the Football League's bottom division to the Championship between 2002 and 2006, but he does not believe he will be a target. He said: "Me being interested in Hull City, I think that's pretty obvious, but I don't think I'm a contender." It's obvious that IF Hull were to approach him, Taylor will be gone, we will left back at first base and no compensation to boot. Rhodes and Lawn have made a big gaffe here and should be offering him at least a 2 year deal! Waynus71
  • Score: 0

4:55pm Mon 15 Mar 10

Waynus71 says...

fatbloke wrote:
You check out my posts between now and rochdale mate (which I am sure you are sad enough to do), I predicted Thorne and Boulding would soon be on there way because they dont fit in to Taylor's style, which was and I quote 'a solid unit that breaks with power and pace which Boulding and Thorne have neither' I did say more likely to be Thorne as his basic slary would not be worth hanging around for..
Oh fantastic, first you say it WAS "on the day of the Rochdale game", now you claim it was somewhere "between now and rochdale". Make your mind up fella, I haven't got all day to find your spurious posts!

The fact is, it was obvious they would "soon be on their way", as the season ends "soon"! Don't recall you saying they would be gone before the season ends and more importantly the other claims that have been made, admittedly not just by you, have also proven to be unfounded!

But hey, you know best don't you..... or so you like to think!
[quote][p][bold]fatbloke[/bold] wrote: You check out my posts between now and rochdale mate (which I am sure you are sad enough to do), I predicted Thorne and Boulding would soon be on there way because they dont fit in to Taylor's style, which was and I quote 'a solid unit that breaks with power and pace which Boulding and Thorne have neither' I did say more likely to be Thorne as his basic slary would not be worth hanging around for..[/p][/quote]Oh fantastic, first you say it WAS "on the day of the Rochdale game", now you claim it was somewhere "between now and rochdale". Make your mind up fella, I haven't got all day to find your spurious posts! The fact is, it was obvious they would "soon be on their way", as the season ends "soon"! Don't recall you saying they would be gone before the season ends and more importantly the other claims that have been made, admittedly not just by you, have also proven to be unfounded! But hey, you know best don't you..... or so you like to think! Waynus71
  • Score: 0

5:48pm Mon 15 Mar 10

the city realist says...

sorry i thought this was the t + a web site not waynus me thinks none of his friends let him speak thats why he thinks hes the voice of reason on here
sorry i thought this was the t + a web site not waynus me thinks none of his friends let him speak thats why he thinks hes the voice of reason on here the city realist
  • Score: 0

5:59pm Mon 15 Mar 10

J4CKO says...

Waynus, I havent read all your ramblings but can you please stop ruining this article with your bickerings? Its impossible to read genuine comments from other readers with you stamping your feet every two minutes.
Regardless of who said what when, the fact is that it has been all over the OMB and C and B since Saturday afternoon that both Bouldings and Thorne have left with immediate effect.
I am sure the Thorne thing will prove to be right as I am sure he will retire after his latest injury.
Micky is a gent and regardless of his performance levels I will be sad to see him go. A top bloke indeed but I can see why he has left.
Waynus, I havent read all your ramblings but can you please stop ruining this article with your bickerings? Its impossible to read genuine comments from other readers with you stamping your feet every two minutes. Regardless of who said what when, the fact is that it has been all over the OMB and C and B since Saturday afternoon that both Bouldings and Thorne have left with immediate effect. I am sure the Thorne thing will prove to be right as I am sure he will retire after his latest injury. Micky is a gent and regardless of his performance levels I will be sad to see him go. A top bloke indeed but I can see why he has left. J4CKO
  • Score: 0

6:35pm Mon 15 Mar 10

Farsley XI says...

Must admit the bickering puts you off on this post, but as for Boulding, it just didn’t work for him at City, maybe it was just the style of play and the service to him, he always had a defender to beat. One thing for sure he is a far better finisher than some of our other strikers. It was Thorne’s swan song this season, unfortunately he suffered too many injuries, IMO some of our fans should show some respect for these guys because they both took a pay cut to play and gave 100% every game. Good luck to them in their next venture.
Must admit the bickering puts you off on this post, but as for Boulding, it just didn’t work for him at City, maybe it was just the style of play and the service to him, he always had a defender to beat. One thing for sure he is a far better finisher than some of our other strikers. It was Thorne’s swan song this season, unfortunately he suffered too many injuries, IMO some of our fans should show some respect for these guys because they both took a pay cut to play and gave 100% every game. Good luck to them in their next venture. Farsley XI
  • Score: 0

6:39pm Mon 15 Mar 10

gspot says...

Waynus71 wrote:
I'm not being the one that is being 'anal'. The fact is, NOBODY mentioned Boulding would be leaving the club before the end of the season. However, the rumour brigade, of which you appear to be the CEO, continually make up stories to 'big' themselves up. You claim, above, that under the Rochdale posts, you pointed out that Boulding, Thorne & Brandon would not play again. I think, if I remember rightly, what you actually said was that Brandon was not in the running to be played behind Hanson and we had a debate as to the wording of being chosen in front of another player. Can't recall any mention of Thorne and/or Boulding though! As for the "he will never play for City again in any capacity", that was aimed at 'Valley' as he claimed Brandon's deal HAD been paid up in full, but that we had retained his registration until the end of the season. The fact is, throughout the past couple of seasons, all we get are rumours, purporting to be fact, when clearly not. 1) Topp was a Lawn signing (UNPROVEN) 2) Eastwood signed on basis he must play (PROVED INCORRECT) 3) Rehman's contract means he HAS to play or we have to pay his wages (UNPROVEN) 4) Rehman had a spat with McCall and would never play for the club again (UNCORRECT) 5) Clarke had a bust up with McCall and would never play for the club again (UNCORRECT) 6) Thorne's contract would be cancelled by mutual consent (2009) due to his injuries (UNCORRECT) 7) Brandon's contract would be cancelled (2009) "as an insurance write-off" (UNCORRECT) 8) Thorne has already left the club but confirmation not yet released (Why would this be the case if we have announced similar departures of the Boulding brothers?) (UNPROVEN) 9) Brandon has played his last game for us because we can't afford to pay his appearance/bonus fees (UNPROVEN). I know you aren't responsible for all these, but you are as guilty as the rest. I remember reading a quote from you that we were expecting to sign Manchester United's kid called "Oliver Gill". We then signed "Luke Oliver" from Wycombe! Two add two doesn't make five!
read yestersdays posts and it clearly states boulding and thorne left on saturday before the game rather then wasting your time writing pointless posts
[quote][p][bold]Waynus71[/bold] wrote: I'm not being the one that is being 'anal'. The fact is, NOBODY mentioned Boulding would be leaving the club before the end of the season. However, the rumour brigade, of which you appear to be the CEO, continually make up stories to 'big' themselves up. You claim, above, that under the Rochdale posts, you pointed out that Boulding, Thorne & Brandon would not play again. I think, if I remember rightly, what you actually said was that Brandon was not in the running to be played behind Hanson and we had a debate as to the wording of being chosen in front of another player. Can't recall any mention of Thorne and/or Boulding though! As for the "he will never play for City again in any capacity", that was aimed at 'Valley' as he claimed Brandon's deal HAD been paid up in full, but that we had retained his registration until the end of the season. The fact is, throughout the past couple of seasons, all we get are rumours, purporting to be fact, when clearly not. 1) Topp was a Lawn signing (UNPROVEN) 2) Eastwood signed on basis he must play (PROVED INCORRECT) 3) Rehman's contract means he HAS to play or we have to pay his wages (UNPROVEN) 4) Rehman had a spat with McCall and would never play for the club again (UNCORRECT) 5) Clarke had a bust up with McCall and would never play for the club again (UNCORRECT) 6) Thorne's contract would be cancelled by mutual consent (2009) due to his injuries (UNCORRECT) 7) Brandon's contract would be cancelled (2009) "as an insurance write-off" (UNCORRECT) 8) Thorne has already left the club but confirmation not yet released (Why would this be the case if we have announced similar departures of the Boulding brothers?) (UNPROVEN) 9) Brandon has played his last game for us because we can't afford to pay his appearance/bonus fees (UNPROVEN). I know you aren't responsible for all these, but you are as guilty as the rest. I remember reading a quote from you that we were expecting to sign Manchester United's kid called "Oliver Gill". We then signed "Luke Oliver" from Wycombe! Two add two doesn't make five![/p][/quote]read yestersdays posts and it clearly states boulding and thorne left on saturday before the game rather then wasting your time writing pointless posts gspot
  • Score: 0

6:40pm Mon 15 Mar 10

b-wildered says...

the city realist wrote:
sorry i thought this was the t + a web site not waynus me thinks none of his friends let him speak thats why he thinks hes the voice of reason on here
he hasn't any friends and there's no reason to read his posts he knows nothing about everything and hes a complete waste of space,be careful you like i will be reported and removed from site.
[quote][p][bold]the city realist[/bold] wrote: sorry i thought this was the t + a web site not waynus me thinks none of his friends let him speak thats why he thinks hes the voice of reason on here[/p][/quote]he hasn't any friends and there's no reason to read his posts he knows nothing about everything and hes a complete waste of space,be careful you like i will be reported and removed from site. b-wildered
  • Score: 0

6:44pm Mon 15 Mar 10

gspot says...

although i can see the thinking of Lawn and Rhodes at the time i think they have missed the boat big time with Taylor because he would be a fool not to consider the Hull job if approached, they must be worried now.....a very high quality coach comes along and managers a league 2 club and you insist on only giving him a 15 week contract??? quality idea!! if a lesser candidate on a 15 week contract then fair enough but not one of his calibre.
Good luck Boulding but i suppose you will retire now and if you have took a smaller payment to leave then good on ya!!
although i can see the thinking of Lawn and Rhodes at the time i think they have missed the boat big time with Taylor because he would be a fool not to consider the Hull job if approached, they must be worried now.....a very high quality coach comes along and managers a league 2 club and you insist on only giving him a 15 week contract??? quality idea!! if a lesser candidate on a 15 week contract then fair enough but not one of his calibre. Good luck Boulding but i suppose you will retire now and if you have took a smaller payment to leave then good on ya!! gspot
  • Score: 0

7:12pm Mon 15 Mar 10

BD16 says...

Farsley XI wrote:
Must admit the bickering puts you off on this post, but as for Boulding, it just didn’t work for him at City, maybe it was just the style of play and the service to him, he always had a defender to beat. One thing for sure he is a far better finisher than some of our other strikers. It was Thorne’s swan song this season, unfortunately he suffered too many injuries, IMO some of our fans should show some respect for these guys because they both took a pay cut to play and gave 100% every game. Good luck to them in their next venture.
Agree with your post, especially on the respect comment. Reading some of the bile expressed on here you would think some of these players were armed robbers rather than profesionals who got injured earning a living.
[quote][p][bold]Farsley XI[/bold] wrote: Must admit the bickering puts you off on this post, but as for Boulding, it just didn’t work for him at City, maybe it was just the style of play and the service to him, he always had a defender to beat. One thing for sure he is a far better finisher than some of our other strikers. It was Thorne’s swan song this season, unfortunately he suffered too many injuries, IMO some of our fans should show some respect for these guys because they both took a pay cut to play and gave 100% every game. Good luck to them in their next venture.[/p][/quote]Agree with your post, especially on the respect comment. Reading some of the bile expressed on here you would think some of these players were armed robbers rather than profesionals who got injured earning a living. BD16
  • Score: 0

7:23pm Mon 15 Mar 10

shaun from richmond says...

gspot wrote:
although i can see the thinking of Lawn and Rhodes at the time i think they have missed the boat big time with Taylor because he would be a fool not to consider the Hull job if approached, they must be worried now.....a very high quality coach comes along and managers a league 2 club and you insist on only giving him a 15 week contract??? quality idea!! if a lesser candidate on a 15 week contract then fair enough but not one of his calibre. Good luck Boulding but i suppose you will retire now and if you have took a smaller payment to leave then good on ya!!
YOU ARE SPOT ON WITH REGARD TAYLOR!!
It beggars belief that we are playing Ducks and Drakes with this bloke.
We will end up losing him, and then what??!! ..........JACOBS????
!!!!!
Mind you........that would please Lonnie!!!
[quote][p][bold]gspot[/bold] wrote: although i can see the thinking of Lawn and Rhodes at the time i think they have missed the boat big time with Taylor because he would be a fool not to consider the Hull job if approached, they must be worried now.....a very high quality coach comes along and managers a league 2 club and you insist on only giving him a 15 week contract??? quality idea!! if a lesser candidate on a 15 week contract then fair enough but not one of his calibre. Good luck Boulding but i suppose you will retire now and if you have took a smaller payment to leave then good on ya!![/p][/quote]YOU ARE SPOT ON WITH REGARD TAYLOR!! It beggars belief that we are playing Ducks and Drakes with this bloke. We will end up losing him, and then what??!! ..........JACOBS???? !!!!! Mind you........that would please Lonnie!!! shaun from richmond
  • Score: 0

7:33pm Mon 15 Mar 10

gspot says...

shaun from richmond wrote:
gspot wrote: although i can see the thinking of Lawn and Rhodes at the time i think they have missed the boat big time with Taylor because he would be a fool not to consider the Hull job if approached, they must be worried now.....a very high quality coach comes along and managers a league 2 club and you insist on only giving him a 15 week contract??? quality idea!! if a lesser candidate on a 15 week contract then fair enough but not one of his calibre. Good luck Boulding but i suppose you will retire now and if you have took a smaller payment to leave then good on ya!!
YOU ARE SPOT ON WITH REGARD TAYLOR!! It beggars belief that we are playing Ducks and Drakes with this bloke. We will end up losing him, and then what??!! ..........JACOBS???? !!!!! Mind you........that would please Lonnie!!!
G Spot always hits the spot...the next few days could be crucial for our clubs long term plans
[quote][p][bold]shaun from richmond[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gspot[/bold] wrote: although i can see the thinking of Lawn and Rhodes at the time i think they have missed the boat big time with Taylor because he would be a fool not to consider the Hull job if approached, they must be worried now.....a very high quality coach comes along and managers a league 2 club and you insist on only giving him a 15 week contract??? quality idea!! if a lesser candidate on a 15 week contract then fair enough but not one of his calibre. Good luck Boulding but i suppose you will retire now and if you have took a smaller payment to leave then good on ya!![/p][/quote]YOU ARE SPOT ON WITH REGARD TAYLOR!! It beggars belief that we are playing Ducks and Drakes with this bloke. We will end up losing him, and then what??!! ..........JACOBS???? !!!!! Mind you........that would please Lonnie!!![/p][/quote]G Spot always hits the spot...the next few days could be crucial for our clubs long term plans gspot
  • Score: 0

9:06pm Mon 15 Mar 10

fatbloke says...

Imagine if he went in the middle of his clear out!!! and we think McCall left us in a bad position!!!!!!
Please dont go....on a positive note Sky Sports aren't even really talking about him..
They say bookies dont often get it wrong lets hope they dont this time with odds of 25 to 1..
Anything to pick at here aynus?
By the way Waynus I have been told the Andora man thingy me bob is a load of rubbish, but I cant say I know it is not true!
Imagine if he went in the middle of his clear out!!! and we think McCall left us in a bad position!!!!!! Please dont go....on a positive note Sky Sports aren't even really talking about him.. They say bookies dont often get it wrong lets hope they dont this time with odds of 25 to 1.. Anything to pick at here aynus? By the way Waynus I have been told the Andora man thingy me bob is a load of rubbish, but I cant say I know it is not true! fatbloke
  • Score: 0

9:59pm Mon 15 Mar 10

thecitygent says...

Waynus71 wrote:
I'm not being the one that is being 'anal'. The fact is, NOBODY mentioned Boulding would be leaving the club before the end of the season. However, the rumour brigade, of which you appear to be the CEO, continually make up stories to 'big' themselves up. You claim, above, that under the Rochdale posts, you pointed out that Boulding, Thorne & Brandon would not play again. I think, if I remember rightly, what you actually said was that Brandon was not in the running to be played behind Hanson and we had a debate as to the wording of being chosen in front of another player. Can't recall any mention of Thorne and/or Boulding though! As for the "he will never play for City again in any capacity", that was aimed at 'Valley' as he claimed Brandon's deal HAD been paid up in full, but that we had retained his registration until the end of the season. The fact is, throughout the past couple of seasons, all we get are rumours, purporting to be fact, when clearly not. 1) Topp was a Lawn signing (UNPROVEN) 2) Eastwood signed on basis he must play (PROVED INCORRECT) 3) Rehman's contract means he HAS to play or we have to pay his wages (UNPROVEN) 4) Rehman had a spat with McCall and would never play for the club again (UNCORRECT) 5) Clarke had a bust up with McCall and would never play for the club again (UNCORRECT) 6) Thorne's contract would be cancelled by mutual consent (2009) due to his injuries (UNCORRECT) 7) Brandon's contract would be cancelled (2009) "as an insurance write-off" (UNCORRECT) 8) Thorne has already left the club but confirmation not yet released (Why would this be the case if we have announced similar departures of the Boulding brothers?) (UNPROVEN) 9) Brandon has played his last game for us because we can't afford to pay his appearance/bonus fees (UNPROVEN). I know you aren't responsible for all these, but you are as guilty as the rest. I remember reading a quote from you that we were expecting to sign Manchester United's kid called "Oliver Gill". We then signed "Luke Oliver" from Wycombe! Two add two doesn't make five!
Heavens we haven't had this level of passion and hand bagging since the days of debating the merits of our previous manager! Calm down girls. For what it's worth if Taylor goes to Hull he will have less money there than he has at VP...
[quote][p][bold]Waynus71[/bold] wrote: I'm not being the one that is being 'anal'. The fact is, NOBODY mentioned Boulding would be leaving the club before the end of the season. However, the rumour brigade, of which you appear to be the CEO, continually make up stories to 'big' themselves up. You claim, above, that under the Rochdale posts, you pointed out that Boulding, Thorne & Brandon would not play again. I think, if I remember rightly, what you actually said was that Brandon was not in the running to be played behind Hanson and we had a debate as to the wording of being chosen in front of another player. Can't recall any mention of Thorne and/or Boulding though! As for the "he will never play for City again in any capacity", that was aimed at 'Valley' as he claimed Brandon's deal HAD been paid up in full, but that we had retained his registration until the end of the season. The fact is, throughout the past couple of seasons, all we get are rumours, purporting to be fact, when clearly not. 1) Topp was a Lawn signing (UNPROVEN) 2) Eastwood signed on basis he must play (PROVED INCORRECT) 3) Rehman's contract means he HAS to play or we have to pay his wages (UNPROVEN) 4) Rehman had a spat with McCall and would never play for the club again (UNCORRECT) 5) Clarke had a bust up with McCall and would never play for the club again (UNCORRECT) 6) Thorne's contract would be cancelled by mutual consent (2009) due to his injuries (UNCORRECT) 7) Brandon's contract would be cancelled (2009) "as an insurance write-off" (UNCORRECT) 8) Thorne has already left the club but confirmation not yet released (Why would this be the case if we have announced similar departures of the Boulding brothers?) (UNPROVEN) 9) Brandon has played his last game for us because we can't afford to pay his appearance/bonus fees (UNPROVEN). I know you aren't responsible for all these, but you are as guilty as the rest. I remember reading a quote from you that we were expecting to sign Manchester United's kid called "Oliver Gill". We then signed "Luke Oliver" from Wycombe! Two add two doesn't make five![/p][/quote]Heavens we haven't had this level of passion and hand bagging since the days of debating the merits of our previous manager! Calm down girls. For what it's worth if Taylor goes to Hull he will have less money there than he has at VP... thecitygent
  • Score: 0

10:23pm Mon 15 Mar 10

unique 3 says...

pt's giong nowhere so you can all sleep easy. what chairman/men would allow some one to boot out players if they were leaving in 10 weeks. Planning for the future me thinks, and can f**k another 5 or 6 off for me.
pt's giong nowhere so you can all sleep easy. what chairman/men would allow some one to boot out players if they were leaving in 10 weeks. Planning for the future me thinks, and can f**k another 5 or 6 off for me. unique 3
  • Score: 0

2:16am Tue 16 Mar 10

valleyofshame says...

Waynus71 wrote:
I'm not being the one that is being 'anal'. The fact is, NOBODY mentioned Boulding would be leaving the club before the end of the season. However, the rumour brigade, of which you appear to be the CEO, continually make up stories to 'big' themselves up. You claim, above, that under the Rochdale posts, you pointed out that Boulding, Thorne & Brandon would not play again. I think, if I remember rightly, what you actually said was that Brandon was not in the running to be played behind Hanson and we had a debate as to the wording of being chosen in front of another player. Can't recall any mention of Thorne and/or Boulding though! As for the "he will never play for City again in any capacity", that was aimed at 'Valley' as he claimed Brandon's deal HAD been paid up in full, but that we had retained his registration until the end of the season. The fact is, throughout the past couple of seasons, all we get are rumours, purporting to be fact, when clearly not. 1) Topp was a Lawn signing (UNPROVEN) 2) Eastwood signed on basis he must play (PROVED INCORRECT) 3) Rehman's contract means he HAS to play or we have to pay his wages (UNPROVEN) 4) Rehman had a spat with McCall and would never play for the club again (UNCORRECT) 5) Clarke had a bust up with McCall and would never play for the club again (UNCORRECT) 6) Thorne's contract would be cancelled by mutual consent (2009) due to his injuries (UNCORRECT) 7) Brandon's contract would be cancelled (2009) "as an insurance write-off" (UNCORRECT) 8) Thorne has already left the club but confirmation not yet released (Why would this be the case if we have announced similar departures of the Boulding brothers?) (UNPROVEN) 9) Brandon has played his last game for us because we can't afford to pay his appearance/bonus fees (UNPROVEN). I know you aren't responsible for all these, but you are as guilty as the rest. I remember reading a quote from you that we were expecting to sign Manchester United's kid called "Oliver Gill". We then signed "Luke Oliver" from Wycombe! Two add two doesn't make five!
WTF?????
I cannot ever recall saying Brandon "HAD been paid up in full, but that we had retained his registration until the end of the season."
The fact is the club ARE trying to negotiate an early settlement - as Fatbloke says and they haven't reached an agreement - as Fatbloke says. Just because WE KNOW this information and you don't, doesn't make it untrue but it does seem to irk you that that the club aren't coming iout to tell you this.
And if the club come out a say one thing it doesn't mean that it's the truth - it's what they want fans/the public to know. Our Politicians do it all the time, I hope you realise that in life there are smoke and mirrors!
If they pay him up, then he cannot move to another club.
If another club takes him on loan different situation arises, he doesn't get paid by city, etc, etc.
Only when he has been paid up and I know it WILL I say it until then its as Fatbloke and I have said.
I also remember saying that as Brandon will not feature then whats the point of him playing in the reserves, even though I KNOW he is still playing for the reserves!!!!! He is surely taking the chances of a junior player who is trying to make a name for themselves a bit of a make or break situation for them, whats Brandon got to prove to city - they don't want him.

Just to clear it up for you Waynus, this is what I said at 11:34 – 02/03/10 to Boothtown comments (on the link below)

"As I said the other day Brandon will not feature again and it has very little to do with Taylor, the decision was already made.
He hasn't been paid up like you say it wouldn't make financial sense to the club and as Taylor says - he is still a City player - for now."


http://www.thetelegr
aphandargus.co.uk/sp
ort/sportbcfc/503464
9.Body_blow_for_Bran
don/


I don't think you can mistake that for me saying that he had been paid up can you? And I don't recall making many if any other posts recently - I haven't had the chance.
[quote][p][bold]Waynus71[/bold] wrote: I'm not being the one that is being 'anal'. The fact is, NOBODY mentioned Boulding would be leaving the club before the end of the season. However, the rumour brigade, of which you appear to be the CEO, continually make up stories to 'big' themselves up. You claim, above, that under the Rochdale posts, you pointed out that Boulding, Thorne & Brandon would not play again. I think, if I remember rightly, what you actually said was that Brandon was not in the running to be played behind Hanson and we had a debate as to the wording of being chosen in front of another player. Can't recall any mention of Thorne and/or Boulding though! As for the "he will never play for City again in any capacity", that was aimed at 'Valley' as he claimed Brandon's deal HAD been paid up in full, but that we had retained his registration until the end of the season. The fact is, throughout the past couple of seasons, all we get are rumours, purporting to be fact, when clearly not. 1) Topp was a Lawn signing (UNPROVEN) 2) Eastwood signed on basis he must play (PROVED INCORRECT) 3) Rehman's contract means he HAS to play or we have to pay his wages (UNPROVEN) 4) Rehman had a spat with McCall and would never play for the club again (UNCORRECT) 5) Clarke had a bust up with McCall and would never play for the club again (UNCORRECT) 6) Thorne's contract would be cancelled by mutual consent (2009) due to his injuries (UNCORRECT) 7) Brandon's contract would be cancelled (2009) "as an insurance write-off" (UNCORRECT) 8) Thorne has already left the club but confirmation not yet released (Why would this be the case if we have announced similar departures of the Boulding brothers?) (UNPROVEN) 9) Brandon has played his last game for us because we can't afford to pay his appearance/bonus fees (UNPROVEN). I know you aren't responsible for all these, but you are as guilty as the rest. I remember reading a quote from you that we were expecting to sign Manchester United's kid called "Oliver Gill". We then signed "Luke Oliver" from Wycombe! Two add two doesn't make five![/p][/quote]WTF????? I cannot ever recall saying Brandon "HAD been paid up in full, but that we had retained his registration until the end of the season." The fact is the club ARE trying to negotiate an early settlement - as Fatbloke says and they haven't reached an agreement - as Fatbloke says. Just because WE KNOW this information and you don't, doesn't make it untrue but it does seem to irk you that that the club aren't coming iout to tell you this. And if the club come out a say one thing it doesn't mean that it's the truth - it's what they want fans/the public to know. Our Politicians do it all the time, I hope you realise that in life there are smoke and mirrors! If they pay him up, then he cannot move to another club. If another club takes him on loan different situation arises, he doesn't get paid by city, etc, etc. Only when he has been paid up and I know it WILL I say it until then its as Fatbloke and I have said. I also remember saying that as Brandon will not feature then whats the point of him playing in the reserves, even though I KNOW he is still playing for the reserves!!!!! He is surely taking the chances of a junior player who is trying to make a name for themselves a bit of a make or break situation for them, whats Brandon got to prove to city - they don't want him. Just to clear it up for you Waynus, this is what I said at 11:34 – 02/03/10 to Boothtown comments (on the link below) "As I said the other day Brandon will not feature again and it has very little to do with Taylor, the decision was already made. He hasn't been paid up like you say it wouldn't make financial sense to the club and as Taylor says - he is still a City player - for now." http://www.thetelegr aphandargus.co.uk/sp ort/sportbcfc/503464 9.Body_blow_for_Bran don/ I don't think you can mistake that for me saying that he had been paid up can you? And I don't recall making many if any other posts recently - I haven't had the chance. valleyofshame
  • Score: 0

2:40am Tue 16 Mar 10

valleyofshame says...

P.S. Fatbloke...... I can see posts recently where you state that Boulding may suffer the same fate, albeit, he has actually suffered it before Brandon.
The thing is Brandon might not get paid off as the offer may be so worthless then why would he accept it? And the chances are now he won't get a loan offer as there are very little games left to play.
P.S. Fatbloke...... I can see posts recently where you state that Boulding may suffer the same fate, albeit, he has actually suffered it before Brandon. The thing is Brandon might not get paid off as the offer may be so worthless then why would he accept it? And the chances are now he won't get a loan offer as there are very little games left to play. valleyofshame
  • Score: 0

9:11am Tue 16 Mar 10

Waynus71 says...

valleyofshame wrote:
P.S. Fatbloke...... I can see posts recently where you state that Boulding may suffer the same fate, albeit, he has actually suffered it before Brandon. The thing is Brandon might not get paid off as the offer may be so worthless then why would he accept it? And the chances are now he won't get a loan offer as there are very little games left to play.
Surely he has to start thinking of NEXT season and not just how much more money he is due from City? I'm not saying he isn't entitled to stay and collect the wages due, but surely playing the odd game in our reserves is hardly gonna put him in the shop window for his next contract.

Would it not make more sense to agree early settlement and try to get a short-deal deal now in anticipation for next season?
[quote][p][bold]valleyofshame[/bold] wrote: P.S. Fatbloke...... I can see posts recently where you state that Boulding may suffer the same fate, albeit, he has actually suffered it before Brandon. The thing is Brandon might not get paid off as the offer may be so worthless then why would he accept it? And the chances are now he won't get a loan offer as there are very little games left to play.[/p][/quote]Surely he has to start thinking of NEXT season and not just how much more money he is due from City? I'm not saying he isn't entitled to stay and collect the wages due, but surely playing the odd game in our reserves is hardly gonna put him in the shop window for his next contract. Would it not make more sense to agree early settlement and try to get a short-deal deal now in anticipation for next season? Waynus71
  • Score: 0

11:04am Tue 16 Mar 10

Waynus71 says...

valleyofshame wrote:
Waynus71 wrote: I'm not being the one that is being 'anal'. The fact is, NOBODY mentioned Boulding would be leaving the club before the end of the season. However, the rumour brigade, of which you appear to be the CEO, continually make up stories to 'big' themselves up. You claim, above, that under the Rochdale posts, you pointed out that Boulding, Thorne & Brandon would not play again. I think, if I remember rightly, what you actually said was that Brandon was not in the running to be played behind Hanson and we had a debate as to the wording of being chosen in front of another player. Can't recall any mention of Thorne and/or Boulding though! As for the "he will never play for City again in any capacity", that was aimed at 'Valley' as he claimed Brandon's deal HAD been paid up in full, but that we had retained his registration until the end of the season. The fact is, throughout the past couple of seasons, all we get are rumours, purporting to be fact, when clearly not. 1) Topp was a Lawn signing (UNPROVEN) 2) Eastwood signed on basis he must play (PROVED INCORRECT) 3) Rehman's contract means he HAS to play or we have to pay his wages (UNPROVEN) 4) Rehman had a spat with McCall and would never play for the club again (UNCORRECT) 5) Clarke had a bust up with McCall and would never play for the club again (UNCORRECT) 6) Thorne's contract would be cancelled by mutual consent (2009) due to his injuries (UNCORRECT) 7) Brandon's contract would be cancelled (2009) "as an insurance write-off" (UNCORRECT) 8) Thorne has already left the club but confirmation not yet released (Why would this be the case if we have announced similar departures of the Boulding brothers?) (UNPROVEN) 9) Brandon has played his last game for us because we can't afford to pay his appearance/bonus fees (UNPROVEN). I know you aren't responsible for all these, but you are as guilty as the rest. I remember reading a quote from you that we were expecting to sign Manchester United's kid called "Oliver Gill". We then signed "Luke Oliver" from Wycombe! Two add two doesn't make five!
WTF????? I cannot ever recall saying Brandon "HAD been paid up in full, but that we had retained his registration until the end of the season." The fact is the club ARE trying to negotiate an early settlement - as Fatbloke says and they haven't reached an agreement - as Fatbloke says. Just because WE KNOW this information and you don't, doesn't make it untrue but it does seem to irk you that that the club aren't coming iout to tell you this. And if the club come out a say one thing it doesn't mean that it's the truth - it's what they want fans/the public to know. Our Politicians do it all the time, I hope you realise that in life there are smoke and mirrors! If they pay him up, then he cannot move to another club. If another club takes him on loan different situation arises, he doesn't get paid by city, etc, etc. Only when he has been paid up and I know it WILL I say it until then its as Fatbloke and I have said. I also remember saying that as Brandon will not feature then whats the point of him playing in the reserves, even though I KNOW he is still playing for the reserves!!!!! He is surely taking the chances of a junior player who is trying to make a name for themselves a bit of a make or break situation for them, whats Brandon got to prove to city - they don't want him. Just to clear it up for you Waynus, this is what I said at 11:34 – 02/03/10 to Boothtown comments (on the link below) "As I said the other day Brandon will not feature again and it has very little to do with Taylor, the decision was already made. He hasn't been paid up like you say it wouldn't make financial sense to the club and as Taylor says - he is still a City player - for now." http://www.thetelegr aphandargus.co.uk/sp ort/sportbcfc/503464 9.Body_blow_for_Bran don/ I don't think you can mistake that for me saying that he had been paid up can you? And I don't recall making many if any other posts recently - I haven't had the chance.
Sorry - a case of head down running and not looking where going. The point I was making was not to do with Brandon's pending departure. It is obvious that Taylor doesn't rate Brandon or believe he has a part to play. The same went for the Boudings and Thorne.

My issue wasn't that we are trying to get an early release from his contract, it was the incorrect rumour from 'fatbloke' that claimed "Brandon has a clause in his contract that says if he plays 30 something games in his 2 year contract, we HAVE to give him another year". That was the rumour I disputed.

You, yourself, pointed out that there was probably a clause, but probably more likely to be a case of having to play a certain amount of games in his 2ND season and not over the 2 years of his contract.

As you said, until he comes to an agreement with the club, he is being paid and is eligible to play for the reserves. As such, I doubt that he is out of the running to be picked for the first team, should Taylor need/want him.
[quote][p][bold]valleyofshame[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus71[/bold] wrote: I'm not being the one that is being 'anal'. The fact is, NOBODY mentioned Boulding would be leaving the club before the end of the season. However, the rumour brigade, of which you appear to be the CEO, continually make up stories to 'big' themselves up. You claim, above, that under the Rochdale posts, you pointed out that Boulding, Thorne & Brandon would not play again. I think, if I remember rightly, what you actually said was that Brandon was not in the running to be played behind Hanson and we had a debate as to the wording of being chosen in front of another player. Can't recall any mention of Thorne and/or Boulding though! As for the "he will never play for City again in any capacity", that was aimed at 'Valley' as he claimed Brandon's deal HAD been paid up in full, but that we had retained his registration until the end of the season. The fact is, throughout the past couple of seasons, all we get are rumours, purporting to be fact, when clearly not. 1) Topp was a Lawn signing (UNPROVEN) 2) Eastwood signed on basis he must play (PROVED INCORRECT) 3) Rehman's contract means he HAS to play or we have to pay his wages (UNPROVEN) 4) Rehman had a spat with McCall and would never play for the club again (UNCORRECT) 5) Clarke had a bust up with McCall and would never play for the club again (UNCORRECT) 6) Thorne's contract would be cancelled by mutual consent (2009) due to his injuries (UNCORRECT) 7) Brandon's contract would be cancelled (2009) "as an insurance write-off" (UNCORRECT) 8) Thorne has already left the club but confirmation not yet released (Why would this be the case if we have announced similar departures of the Boulding brothers?) (UNPROVEN) 9) Brandon has played his last game for us because we can't afford to pay his appearance/bonus fees (UNPROVEN). I know you aren't responsible for all these, but you are as guilty as the rest. I remember reading a quote from you that we were expecting to sign Manchester United's kid called "Oliver Gill". We then signed "Luke Oliver" from Wycombe! Two add two doesn't make five![/p][/quote]WTF????? I cannot ever recall saying Brandon "HAD been paid up in full, but that we had retained his registration until the end of the season." The fact is the club ARE trying to negotiate an early settlement - as Fatbloke says and they haven't reached an agreement - as Fatbloke says. Just because WE KNOW this information and you don't, doesn't make it untrue but it does seem to irk you that that the club aren't coming iout to tell you this. And if the club come out a say one thing it doesn't mean that it's the truth - it's what they want fans/the public to know. Our Politicians do it all the time, I hope you realise that in life there are smoke and mirrors! If they pay him up, then he cannot move to another club. If another club takes him on loan different situation arises, he doesn't get paid by city, etc, etc. Only when he has been paid up and I know it WILL I say it until then its as Fatbloke and I have said. I also remember saying that as Brandon will not feature then whats the point of him playing in the reserves, even though I KNOW he is still playing for the reserves!!!!! He is surely taking the chances of a junior player who is trying to make a name for themselves a bit of a make or break situation for them, whats Brandon got to prove to city - they don't want him. Just to clear it up for you Waynus, this is what I said at 11:34 – 02/03/10 to Boothtown comments (on the link below) "As I said the other day Brandon will not feature again and it has very little to do with Taylor, the decision was already made. He hasn't been paid up like you say it wouldn't make financial sense to the club and as Taylor says - he is still a City player - for now." http://www.thetelegr aphandargus.co.uk/sp ort/sportbcfc/503464 9.Body_blow_for_Bran don/ I don't think you can mistake that for me saying that he had been paid up can you? And I don't recall making many if any other posts recently - I haven't had the chance.[/p][/quote]Sorry - a case of head down running and not looking where going. The point I was making was not to do with Brandon's pending departure. It is obvious that Taylor doesn't rate Brandon or believe he has a part to play. The same went for the Boudings and Thorne. My issue wasn't that we are trying to get an early release from his contract, it was the incorrect rumour from 'fatbloke' that claimed "Brandon has a clause in his contract that says if he plays 30 something games in his 2 year contract, we HAVE to give him another year". That was the rumour I disputed. You, yourself, pointed out that there was probably a clause, but probably more likely to be a case of having to play a certain amount of games in his 2ND season and not over the 2 years of his contract. As you said, until he comes to an agreement with the club, he is being paid and is eligible to play for the reserves. As such, I doubt that he is out of the running to be picked for the first team, should Taylor need/want him. Waynus71
  • Score: 0

11:10am Tue 16 Mar 10

fatbloke says...

Not if he is planning on retiring!!!!
Not if he is planning on retiring!!!! fatbloke
  • Score: 0

12:39pm Tue 16 Mar 10

valleyofshame says...

Waynus71 wrote:
valleyofshame wrote:
Waynus71 wrote: I'm not being the one that is being 'anal'. The fact is, NOBODY mentioned Boulding would be leaving the club before the end of the season. However, the rumour brigade, of which you appear to be the CEO, continually make up stories to 'big' themselves up. You claim, above, that under the Rochdale posts, you pointed out that Boulding, Thorne & Brandon would not play again. I think, if I remember rightly, what you actually said was that Brandon was not in the running to be played behind Hanson and we had a debate as to the wording of being chosen in front of another player. Can't recall any mention of Thorne and/or Boulding though! As for the "he will never play for City again in any capacity", that was aimed at 'Valley' as he claimed Brandon's deal HAD been paid up in full, but that we had retained his registration until the end of the season. The fact is, throughout the past couple of seasons, all we get are rumours, purporting to be fact, when clearly not. 1) Topp was a Lawn signing (UNPROVEN) 2) Eastwood signed on basis he must play (PROVED INCORRECT) 3) Rehman's contract means he HAS to play or we have to pay his wages (UNPROVEN) 4) Rehman had a spat with McCall and would never play for the club again (UNCORRECT) 5) Clarke had a bust up with McCall and would never play for the club again (UNCORRECT) 6) Thorne's contract would be cancelled by mutual consent (2009) due to his injuries (UNCORRECT) 7) Brandon's contract would be cancelled (2009) "as an insurance write-off" (UNCORRECT) 8) Thorne has already left the club but confirmation not yet released (Why would this be the case if we have announced similar departures of the Boulding brothers?) (UNPROVEN) 9) Brandon has played his last game for us because we can't afford to pay his appearance/bonus fees (UNPROVEN). I know you aren't responsible for all these, but you are as guilty as the rest. I remember reading a quote from you that we were expecting to sign Manchester United's kid called "Oliver Gill". We then signed "Luke Oliver" from Wycombe! Two add two doesn't make five!
WTF????? I cannot ever recall saying Brandon "HAD been paid up in full, but that we had retained his registration until the end of the season." The fact is the club ARE trying to negotiate an early settlement - as Fatbloke says and they haven't reached an agreement - as Fatbloke says. Just because WE KNOW this information and you don't, doesn't make it untrue but it does seem to irk you that that the club aren't coming iout to tell you this. And if the club come out a say one thing it doesn't mean that it's the truth - it's what they want fans/the public to know. Our Politicians do it all the time, I hope you realise that in life there are smoke and mirrors! If they pay him up, then he cannot move to another club. If another club takes him on loan different situation arises, he doesn't get paid by city, etc, etc. Only when he has been paid up and I know it WILL I say it until then its as Fatbloke and I have said. I also remember saying that as Brandon will not feature then whats the point of him playing in the reserves, even though I KNOW he is still playing for the reserves!!!!! He is surely taking the chances of a junior player who is trying to make a name for themselves a bit of a make or break situation for them, whats Brandon got to prove to city - they don't want him. Just to clear it up for you Waynus, this is what I said at 11:34 – 02/03/10 to Boothtown comments (on the link below) "As I said the other day Brandon will not feature again and it has very little to do with Taylor, the decision was already made. He hasn't been paid up like you say it wouldn't make financial sense to the club and as Taylor says - he is still a City player - for now." http://www.thetelegr aphandargus.co.uk/sp ort/sportbcfc/503464 9.Body_blow_for_Bran don/ I don't think you can mistake that for me saying that he had been paid up can you? And I don't recall making many if any other posts recently - I haven't had the chance.
Sorry - a case of head down running and not looking where going. The point I was making was not to do with Brandon's pending departure. It is obvious that Taylor doesn't rate Brandon or believe he has a part to play. The same went for the Boudings and Thorne. My issue wasn't that we are trying to get an early release from his contract, it was the incorrect rumour from 'fatbloke' that claimed "Brandon has a clause in his contract that says if he plays 30 something games in his 2 year contract, we HAVE to give him another year". That was the rumour I disputed. You, yourself, pointed out that there was probably a clause, but probably more likely to be a case of having to play a certain amount of games in his 2ND season and not over the 2 years of his contract. As you said, until he comes to an agreement with the club, he is being paid and is eligible to play for the reserves. As such, I doubt that he is out of the running to be picked for the first team, should Taylor need/want him.
Waynus, I have never said there probably is a clause I have said THERE is a claus. The exact wording is what I don't know.
It depends on him reaching a certain amount of games, which I believe is in the 2nd yr of the contract and then he DOES get offered a contract.
The fact is it has nothing to do with Taylor, Brandon was NEVER going to get offered the contract by the CLUB, hence the situation he is in.
And finally IF he takes a settlement fee he CANNOT go and play for another club THIS season as city would hold his registration. The ONLY way he can play for another club is by going out on loan, which now I think is unlikely.
As for Boulding and Thorne, well Fatbloke had previously mentioned it, and was found to be correct.
Whether Taylor stays or not, these will not be the only ones to leave the club which is obvious.
[quote][p][bold]Waynus71[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]valleyofshame[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynus71[/bold] wrote: I'm not being the one that is being 'anal'. The fact is, NOBODY mentioned Boulding would be leaving the club before the end of the season. However, the rumour brigade, of which you appear to be the CEO, continually make up stories to 'big' themselves up. You claim, above, that under the Rochdale posts, you pointed out that Boulding, Thorne & Brandon would not play again. I think, if I remember rightly, what you actually said was that Brandon was not in the running to be played behind Hanson and we had a debate as to the wording of being chosen in front of another player. Can't recall any mention of Thorne and/or Boulding though! As for the "he will never play for City again in any capacity", that was aimed at 'Valley' as he claimed Brandon's deal HAD been paid up in full, but that we had retained his registration until the end of the season. The fact is, throughout the past couple of seasons, all we get are rumours, purporting to be fact, when clearly not. 1) Topp was a Lawn signing (UNPROVEN) 2) Eastwood signed on basis he must play (PROVED INCORRECT) 3) Rehman's contract means he HAS to play or we have to pay his wages (UNPROVEN) 4) Rehman had a spat with McCall and would never play for the club again (UNCORRECT) 5) Clarke had a bust up with McCall and would never play for the club again (UNCORRECT) 6) Thorne's contract would be cancelled by mutual consent (2009) due to his injuries (UNCORRECT) 7) Brandon's contract would be cancelled (2009) "as an insurance write-off" (UNCORRECT) 8) Thorne has already left the club but confirmation not yet released (Why would this be the case if we have announced similar departures of the Boulding brothers?) (UNPROVEN) 9) Brandon has played his last game for us because we can't afford to pay his appearance/bonus fees (UNPROVEN). I know you aren't responsible for all these, but you are as guilty as the rest. I remember reading a quote from you that we were expecting to sign Manchester United's kid called "Oliver Gill". We then signed "Luke Oliver" from Wycombe! Two add two doesn't make five![/p][/quote]WTF????? I cannot ever recall saying Brandon "HAD been paid up in full, but that we had retained his registration until the end of the season." The fact is the club ARE trying to negotiate an early settlement - as Fatbloke says and they haven't reached an agreement - as Fatbloke says. Just because WE KNOW this information and you don't, doesn't make it untrue but it does seem to irk you that that the club aren't coming iout to tell you this. And if the club come out a say one thing it doesn't mean that it's the truth - it's what they want fans/the public to know. Our Politicians do it all the time, I hope you realise that in life there are smoke and mirrors! If they pay him up, then he cannot move to another club. If another club takes him on loan different situation arises, he doesn't get paid by city, etc, etc. Only when he has been paid up and I know it WILL I say it until then its as Fatbloke and I have said. I also remember saying that as Brandon will not feature then whats the point of him playing in the reserves, even though I KNOW he is still playing for the reserves!!!!! He is surely taking the chances of a junior player who is trying to make a name for themselves a bit of a make or break situation for them, whats Brandon got to prove to city - they don't want him. Just to clear it up for you Waynus, this is what I said at 11:34 – 02/03/10 to Boothtown comments (on the link below) "As I said the other day Brandon will not feature again and it has very little to do with Taylor, the decision was already made. He hasn't been paid up like you say it wouldn't make financial sense to the club and as Taylor says - he is still a City player - for now." http://www.thetelegr aphandargus.co.uk/sp ort/sportbcfc/503464 9.Body_blow_for_Bran don/ I don't think you can mistake that for me saying that he had been paid up can you? And I don't recall making many if any other posts recently - I haven't had the chance.[/p][/quote]Sorry - a case of head down running and not looking where going. The point I was making was not to do with Brandon's pending departure. It is obvious that Taylor doesn't rate Brandon or believe he has a part to play. The same went for the Boudings and Thorne. My issue wasn't that we are trying to get an early release from his contract, it was the incorrect rumour from 'fatbloke' that claimed "Brandon has a clause in his contract that says if he plays 30 something games in his 2 year contract, we HAVE to give him another year". That was the rumour I disputed. You, yourself, pointed out that there was probably a clause, but probably more likely to be a case of having to play a certain amount of games in his 2ND season and not over the 2 years of his contract. As you said, until he comes to an agreement with the club, he is being paid and is eligible to play for the reserves. As such, I doubt that he is out of the running to be picked for the first team, should Taylor need/want him.[/p][/quote]Waynus, I have never said there probably is a clause I have said THERE is a claus. The exact wording is what I don't know. It depends on him reaching a certain amount of games, which I believe is in the 2nd yr of the contract and then he DOES get offered a contract. The fact is it has nothing to do with Taylor, Brandon was NEVER going to get offered the contract by the CLUB, hence the situation he is in. And finally IF he takes a settlement fee he CANNOT go and play for another club THIS season as city would hold his registration. The ONLY way he can play for another club is by going out on loan, which now I think is unlikely. As for Boulding and Thorne, well Fatbloke had previously mentioned it, and was found to be correct. Whether Taylor stays or not, these will not be the only ones to leave the club which is obvious. valleyofshame
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

Get Adobe Flash player
About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree