Guest toonlass Posted April 9, 2010 Share Posted April 9, 2010 Pretty sure that they said on the radio today that Middlesbrough are not going to play Gary O'Neill again because it would trigger an appearance fee to be paid to Portsmouth! Cheap smoggie bastards willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted April 9, 2010 Share Posted April 9, 2010 Pretty sure that they said on the radio today that Middlesbrough are not going to play Gary O'Neill again because it would trigger an appearance fee to be paid to Portsmouth! Cheap smoggie bastards willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces! From the BBC Middlesbrough boss Strachan clarifies O'Neil absence Middlesbrough boss Gordon Strachan says financial reasons caused the omission of Gary O'Neil at Plymouth on Monday. O'Neil, who has made 99 appearances for Boro, has a clause in his deal triggering a £1m pay-out to former club Portsmouth when he reaches 100 games. "I do the footballing side; other people do the financial side," Strachan told BBC Tees. "We talked [about O'Neil] and this is the best decision." The midfielder signed a new contract in December to stay at the club till 2012. Middlesbrough have not explained what future O'Neil now has on Teesside. Reports from Portsmouth have suggested the financially stricken south coast club believe Boro are seeking to renegotiate the payment. But Middlesbrough chief executive Keith Lamb said: "I'm surprised by the comments attributed to a Portsmouth spokesman. "All of our payments to Portsmouth related to Gary's transfer are up to date and I can assure the club and their administrator that should any further payments become due under the terms of the transfer then we will, of course, honour them." First-team captain O'Neil joined Middlesbrough from Portsmouth in August 2007 for a fee of £5m, and has made 34 appearances this season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted April 9, 2010 Share Posted April 9, 2010 Pretty sure that they said on the radio today that Middlesbrough are not going to play Gary O'Neill again because it would trigger an appearance fee to be paid to Portsmouth! Cheap smoggie bastards willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces! Just lack the cash....lots of clubs will be the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted April 9, 2010 Share Posted April 9, 2010 How good is Gary O'Neil? I thought he looked a very good young player at Pompey. If they can't afford to play him and he is any good we could do with a centre mid... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted April 9, 2010 Share Posted April 9, 2010 How good is Gary O'Neil? I thought he looked a very good young player at Pompey. If they can't afford to play him and he is any good we could do with a centre mid... Would tek him like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted April 9, 2010 Share Posted April 9, 2010 How good is Gary O'Neil? I thought he looked a very good young player at Pompey. If they can't afford to play him and he is any good we could do with a centre mid... The Boro fan on the radio was having a right go, saying he has been one of their best players this season and that there is no way he should be dropped at this stage of their season. I dunno how good he is, but found it funny that the Boro fans had been laughing at us for Ashley's actions, and weren't so long ago chanting Steve Gibson's name, and yet he is prepared to risk a chance of them getting into the play-offs for the sake of £1 million! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted April 9, 2010 Share Posted April 9, 2010 If I was Portsmouth I would refuse to renegotiate, I mean they will have to play him at some point, and they have nothing to lose Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted April 9, 2010 Share Posted April 9, 2010 If I was Portsmouth I would refuse to renegotiate, I mean they will have to play him at some point, and they have nothing to lose Or sell him in under half a dozen games time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted April 9, 2010 Share Posted April 9, 2010 I hope to fuck they beat their bent former manager and assistant at Wembley even though they have fuck all chance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted April 9, 2010 Share Posted April 9, 2010 I hope to fuck they beat their bent former manager and assistant at Wembley even though they have fuck all chance. Even though my missus has a ticket in the Spurs end Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted April 9, 2010 Share Posted April 9, 2010 Pretty sure that they said on the radio today that Middlesbrough are not going to play Gary O'Neill again because it would trigger an appearance fee to be paid to Portsmouth! Cheap smoggie bastards willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces! It's not that tight. A million pounds. A million fucking quid for one game! He'd have to score a shitload of goals. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raconteur Posted April 9, 2010 Share Posted April 9, 2010 "These bullet payments mean that they can play in the semi-final, but not play another game after it, unless they waiver those payments," said Andronikou. "That would be tragic for the player if the team is in the FA Cup final, but it will be the players', or their agents', decisions. They are going to have to forfeit those contractual obligations or they cannot play again. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/8612358.stm Pretty shocking that. I just read that article on the Beeb, and what you've highlighted is exactly what jumped out at me too. Seems very cold that the administrator is putting it all back on the players (and their agents) - essentially saying "You can play in the FA Cup final if you want, all you have to do is sign this waiver releasing us from our contractual obligations". Makes one wonder about the whole "under-strength" teams argument too - is bullet payments (when in administration) a legitimate reason for not playing your best team? "Five or six players" puts it more in the Fulham controversy rather than the Wolves debacle, but it sounds like something Gold and Sullivan might bleat about...? Also makes you wonder whether there are any "restraint of trade" implications that they are so fond of in Brussels... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted April 9, 2010 Share Posted April 9, 2010 I find David James's stance on this whole situation to be a bit fucking nauseating, to be honest. It's hard to take him seriously when he pontificates on the situation, given the fact he's happily taken his 80k a week over the whole period. I get similarly fucked off when i read his Observer column, where he speaks at length of how he drives some energy efficient Euro bubble car, as if he doesn't also have a range of supercars to use when he's doing something other than posing for the press. And for all his hand-wringing and "we feel your pain" and "we want the kitman there so he can unblock the bogs" shite over the redundancies at Portsmouth, he's still there kerchinging it all the way to the bank with a weekly salary which would pay 5 or 6 of them for a year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted April 9, 2010 Share Posted April 9, 2010 He was opposed to the '39th game' on the basis that it would increase football clubs' carbon footprint. I believe he wrote a column explaining this whilst on a summer training camp in spain somewhere. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted April 9, 2010 Share Posted April 9, 2010 He was opposed to the '39th game' on the basis that it would increase football clubs' carbon footprint. I believe he wrote a column explaining this whilst on a summer training camp in spain somewhere. Thick people who think they're actually quite bright are a bigger menace to society than that Baby Bio plant food shit the kids are all snorting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted April 10, 2010 Share Posted April 10, 2010 He was opposed to the '39th game' on the basis that it would increase football clubs' carbon footprint. I believe he wrote a column explaining this whilst on a summer training camp in spain somewhere. Thick people who think they're actually quite bright are a bigger menace to society than that Baby Bio plant food shit the kids are all snorting. It's all relative though isn't it. If you've only ever seen the likes of John Terry, Steven Gerrard and Andy Cole interviewed you'd think James was a prince among men when it came to intellect in football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sittingontheball Posted April 10, 2010 Share Posted April 10, 2010 I find David James's stance on this whole situation to be a bit f***ing nauseating, to be honest. It's hard to take him seriously when he pontificates on the situation, given the fact he's happily taken his 80k a week over the whole period. I get similarly f***ed off when i read his Observer column, where he speaks at length of how he drives some energy efficient Euro bubble car, as if he doesn't also have a range of supercars to use when he's doing something other than posing for the press. And for all his hand-wringing and "we feel your pain" and "we want the kitman there so he can unblock the bogs" s**** over the redundancies at Portsmouth, he's still there kerchinging it all the way to the bank with a weekly salary which would pay 5 or 6 of them for a year. Got to agree with all of that. The "FA Cup win started our troubles" line is total bollocks. Their wage bill was unsustainable long before then. James, Sol Campbell, Distin, .... were all there for one reason only. The other one as we all know is that once a player is an higher wages, it makes it much harder to get rid of them. Especially older ones like, err, David James. I still don't understand why they were only docked nine points. Leeds got a much stiffer penalty. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza ladra Posted April 10, 2010 Share Posted April 10, 2010 Makes one wonder about the whole "under-strength" teams argument too - is bullet payments (when in administration) a legitimate reason for not playing your best team? "Five or six players" puts it more in the Fulham controversy rather than the Wolves debacle, but it sounds like something Gold and Sullivan might bleat about...? Excellent point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted April 10, 2010 Share Posted April 10, 2010 Down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iklgizmo Posted April 11, 2010 Share Posted April 11, 2010 I would love it if they won today, love it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenham Mag Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 Really hope they get the Europa League spot. It'll be sad if it goes to 7th place in the league and that could well be Liverpool. No doubt , it will go to Liverpool. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ocho Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 Really hope they get the Europa League spot. It'll be sad if it goes to 7th place in the league and that could well be Liverpool. No doubt , it will go to Liverpool. They won't get into Europe as they went into administration - they're trying to get it over turned though. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/8558580.stm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenham Mag Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 Really hope they get the Europa League spot. It'll be sad if it goes to 7th place in the league and that could well be Liverpool. No doubt , it will go to Liverpool. They won't get into Europe as they went into administration - they're trying to get it over turned though. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/8558580.stm Yeh that's what i meant , i hope they get the decision overturned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 I don't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 In that article it says that the runners up gain a place in Europe if the winners ahve already gained a place via the league, so really no matter what Portsmouth should be given a Europien place. To me I think that if they were (which they have) allowed to go as far as the final then they should be allowed the rewards for doing so, thats financial and Europien rewards. You can't say that can go on in the competition despite their position and then say they can't take the rewards for doing so. So if the rules say that Portsmouth are entitled to gain a place in Europe, then let them in, it could very well be what saves the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now