Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 That was the way I was looking in to things too. Makes no sense using McGowan or Encklemen's wage on some one who isn't even being paid by Hearts. This would be a delightful turn of events. I hope John Murray and John McGlynn were as shrewd of thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroonlegions Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 All you do is pay a fee to Liverpool and they keep picking up his wages. good shout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart McNeill Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Supposedly this should be finished tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambo 2k9 Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Supposedly this should be finished tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammy T Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 It is a good point about the one in and one out business and the lower wage than the out-going player though. If Wilson's wages are being entirely taken up by Liverpool then it would make sense that Hearts would have assigned him as a replacement for the lowest paid of our outgoing players and that would be the young lad from the U20's, no? That leaves a good wage for McGowan and what was probably a half decent one for Encklemen to play with. Here's hoping that leaves us the opportunity to get a forward in, if not N'Goo then someone else. An interesting little additional thought to your comment. Is a new player that Hearts are paying no wage for and no future financial liability for under the terms of our deal captured by the embargo imposed upon us? i.e. are we really bound by one in one out where none of the leaving players wages are being spent on the new player....? I know the answer, but you could have fun debating the principles around it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Bapswent Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 If this comes off, and considering Danny Wilson turns out to be a success this season too - is McGlynn gonna get any credit for this, is this in anyway gonna placate the naysayers? Or is it conveniently gonna be all down to John Murray and McGlynn is still no good for the club? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenor Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Supposedly this should be finished tomorrow. Any sentence that begins with "supposedly" or "apparently" is normally bulls**t! But I SO BADLY want this to be true that I'm willing to accept it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gav M Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Supposedly this should be finished tomorrow. Finished as in signed or finished in that we should know whether we've got him or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Buck Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 If this comes off, and considering Danny Wilson turns out to be a success this season too - is McGlynn gonna get any credit for this, is this in anyway gonna placate the naysayers? Or is it conveniently gonna be all down to John Murray and McGlynn is still no good for the club? You're the one that wants him dead Idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirt Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Why would the wages have to be less than Enklemans? Who's to say he's not replacing McGowan??? Wilson already replaced McGowan did he not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudiboy Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Wilson already replaced McGowan did he not? Not necessarily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ribble Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Wilson already replaced McGowan did he not? Nobody knows! we had space for 3 players to come in:- 1 player on less than Enkleman at ?x per week 1 player on less than McGowan at ?x per week 1 player on less than the youth player at ?x per week Which one of those spaces has been filled by Wilson is anyone's guess! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory House M.D. Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 If this comes off, and considering Danny Wilson turns out to be a success this season too - is McGlynn gonna get any credit for this, is this in anyway gonna placate the naysayers? Or is it conveniently gonna be all down to John Murray and McGlynn is still no good for the club? This coming from the guy who wished death on him 2 or 3 days ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Bapswent Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 This coming from the guy who wished death on him 2 or 3 days ago You're the one that wants him dead Idiot. Really? Run along. Any genuine answers from grown ups? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart McNeill Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Finished as in signed or finished in that we should know whether we've got him or not? the deal should be a done deal tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory House M.D. Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Really? Run along. Any genuine answers from grown ups? You saying you never like? Even if you were joking you have a cheek taking a dig at anyone. You stay classy, Dr Bapswent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazo Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Really? Run along. Any genuine answers from grown ups? Better to judge him on results rather than loan signings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudiboy Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 the deal should be a done deal tomorrow. Hope you're right, would be nice to have another striker in the squad for Saturdays game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alwaysinourshadows Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 the deal should be a done deal tomorrow. Hmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Bapswent Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 You saying you never like? Even if you were joking you have a cheek taking a dig at anyone. You stay classy, Dr Bapswent. Not joking, nor saying i didn't make the post. The point was in miss reading the title turning it into something else, I don't recall stating a desire for it to happen. But as usual, whatever fits best with the KB clique's bovine mentality eh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Bapswent Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Better to judge him on results rather than loan signings. Yeah of course, what i guess im asking is, If these signings really make an impact and turn the season around for us, will McGlynn go from being woeful, to an inspired choice - his tactics might never be top drawer, but he can wheel and deal and get players in that are class, results would improve and would he be allowed credit for that? As he is roundly unliked on here - Id imagine many would struggle to give him any credit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Buck Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Not joking, nor saying i didn't make the post. The point was in miss reading the title turning it into something else, I don't recall stating a desire for it to happen. But as usual, whatever fits best with the KB clique's bovine mentality eh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Bapswent Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Ah, the smiley retort... when you have no point to make but want to seem like you have won whatever argument is taking place. Classic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboAl Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 An interesting little additional thought to your comment. Is a new player that Hearts are paying no wage for and no future financial liability for under the terms of our deal captured by the embargo imposed upon us? i.e. are we really bound by one in one out where none of the leaving players wages are being spent on the new player....? I know the answer, but you could have fun debating the principles around it The embargo applies to players registered and one with no wage would still have to be registered. The player must be 1 for 1 and also be within the under 21 rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory House M.D. Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Not joking, nor saying i didn't make the post. The point was in miss reading the title turning it into something else, I don't recall stating a desire for it to happen. But as usual, whatever fits best with the KB clique's bovine mentality eh. So you don't see it as hypocritical that after that post (Which was against forum rules), you're now trolling (also against forum rules by the way) the McGlynn haters? The KB clique? Aye, because I'm certainly "in" with the majority on this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:shitwine: Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Not joking, nor saying i didn't make the post. The point was in miss reading the title turning it into something else, I don't recall stating a desire for it to happen. But as usual, whatever fits best with the KB clique's bovine mentality eh. Bovine mentality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gav M Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 the deal should be a done deal tomorrow. Excellent, cheers for that, nice to have some more good news and about an actual proper striker as well! Hopefully you're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Bapswent Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 So you don't see it as hypocritical that after that post (Which was against forum rules), you're now trolling (also against forum rules by the way) the McGlynn haters? The KB clique? Aye, because I'm certainly "in" with the majority on this board. I have no idea who is in or who is not - but i do see the same people responding in the same way very often and most of the time having nothing to do with the questions asked in the post. Might be seen as trolling if you despise McGlynn, but those more open minded might actually decide to discuss the situation. Its certainly an interesting notion, that if he can do such great business, would the perception of him as it currently is change at all. Anything to add to the actual question i asked at the start, or do you only have comments about me as a poster to make? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:shitwine: Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 I have no idea who is in or who is not - but i do see the same people responding in the same way very often and most of the time having nothing to do with the questions asked in the post. Might be seen as trolling if you despise McGlynn, but those more open minded might actually decide to discuss the situation. Its certainly an interesting notion, that if he can do such great business, would the perception of him as it currently is change at all. Anything to add to the actual question i asked at the start, or do you only have comments about me as a poster to make? He hadn't made any transfers, so he was judged on results, which have been poor. If you think that's worth making snippy comments about, then that's swell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory House M.D. Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 I have no idea who is in or who is not - but i do see the same people responding in the same way very often and most of the time having nothing to do with the questions asked in the post. Might be seen as trolling if you despise McGlynn, but those more open minded might actually decide to discuss the situation. Its certainly an interesting notion, that if he can do such great business, would the perception of him as it currently is change at all. Anything to add to the actual question i asked at the start, or do you only have comments about me as a poster to make? Of course McGlynn will get credit. It's an almost rhetorical question that was aimed at trolling and not serious debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 An interesting little additional thought to your comment. Is a new player that Hearts are paying no wage for and no future financial liability for under the terms of our deal captured by the embargo imposed upon us? i.e. are we really bound by one in one out where none of the leaving players wages are being spent on the new player....? I know the answer, but you could have fun debating the principles around it I think it almost certainly will be covered by the one out - one in ruling but... I am not so sure why it should be. The embargo stipulations are supposed to be geared towards ensuring we live within our means financially. The impact of a player who costs us nothing on the club are those of at worst denying other personnel a place in the squad but that should be of no concern to the SPL regarding our finances and ability to pay wages and that is what this whole thing is supposed to be about, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Bapswent Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Of course McGlynn will get credit. It's an almost rhetorical question that was aimed at trolling and not serious debate. Thats all you really needed to say wasn't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amadjambo Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Not joking, nor saying i didn't make the post. The point was in miss reading the title turning it into something else, I don't recall stating a desire for it to happen. But as usual, whatever fits best with the KB clique's bovine mentality eh. I thought (and am assured many others would like) the thread titlw to have read 'McGlynn Euthanised'. Ah well. The use of "many others" and "ah well" implies that you would have liked it to happen. Or should I have paid attention more during school? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gav M Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Yeah of course, what i guess im asking is, If these signings really make an impact and turn the season around for us, will McGlynn go from being woeful, to an inspired choice - his tactics might never be top drawer, but he can wheel and deal and get players in that are class, results would improve and would he be allowed credit for that? As he is roundly unliked on here - Id imagine many would struggle to give him any credit It's an interesting question, I'm sure some would still point to his tactical ineptitude and propensity to play players out of position (not the first or worst hearts manager for this) however, up until now we've been unable to judge him on what he's able to do in the transfer market. So he may become a tactically inept manager with a good eye for a player or a tactically inept manager who can't bring in the players needed. It could also come to pass, that with the players coming in being what we need, his tactics are changed to suit this and becomes tactically astute with a good eye for a player. Not going to say what my money's on though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudiboy Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Wish everyone would get a rip of themselves on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 I was willing to give McGlynn a chance before he signed, I was almost optimistic. I then judged him on results and was left entirely nonplussed. I will consider his progress once again on results using players that he and Murray have identified and probably be more harsh on his performance when he has his 'own players' to choose from. Surely this is what everyone does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Parmesan Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 All you do is pay a fee to Liverpool and they keep picking up his wages. Alas not. Quoting SPL: "Any new under-21 player registered must have an annualised employment cost lower than that of the player leaving the club." So they'll count any fee and work it out as an annual amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Bapswent Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 The use of "many others" and "ah well" implies that you would have liked it to happen. Or should I have paid attention more during school? It means i would have liked the post thread to have read that.... would have been an interesting and entertaining thread to read im sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alwaysinourshadows Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Liverpool will probably pay all of the wages for Wilson and Ngoo if he signs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammy T Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 I think it almost certainly will be covered by the one out - one in ruling but... I am not so sure why it should be. The embargo stipulations are supposed to be geared towards ensuring we live within our means financially. The impact of a player who costs us nothing on the club are those of at worst denying other personnel a place in the squad but that should be of no concern to the SPL regarding our finances and ability to pay wages and that is what this whole thing is supposed to be about, right? You and JamboAl are right of course. But if you actually dug deep into the intent of the embargo and therefore its fairness in application you come up with the following position. The embargo, the SPL would claim, was put in place for a number of reasons, but primarily to protect players from non-payment of wages. I'm sure they would also claim some sort of "sporting integrity" on the grounds of preventing a team from gaining sporting advantage by having players on our books we couldnt afford to pay. Ok, kind of ok thinking on one hand but a bit of pish on the other. So the intent of the combined limbs of the embargo was to ensure that we did not increase our over all wage burden. As long as we decrease our wage obligations, we are complying with the intent of the embargo no matter how many players we sign. Its a non-runner of course because the SPL is a closed shop but vaguely interesting to me. Say for example, we sign this Ngoo lad and then are offered the chance to sign another guy - and no other player has left. This new player will cost less than McGowan. SPL refuse the registration. Can and/or should Hearts appeal? At least it would provide the chance to challenge the true intent of the embargo.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The People's Chimp Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Not joking, nor saying i didn't make the post. The point was in miss reading the title turning it into something else, I don't recall stating a desire for it to happen. But as usual, whatever fits best with the KB clique's bovine mentality eh. Bunter in the clique. Acey (RIP) will be rolling seething in his grave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 You and JamboAl are right of course. But if you actually dug deep into the intent of the embargo and therefore its fairness in application you come up with the following position. The embargo, the SPL would claim, was put in place for a number of reasons, but primarily to protect players from non-payment of wages. I'm sure they would also claim some sort of "sporting integrity" on the grounds of preventing a team from gaining sporting advantage by having players on our books we couldnt afford to pay. Ok, kind of ok thinking on one hand but a bit of pish on the other. So the intent of the combined limbs of the embargo was to ensure that we did not increase our over all wage burden. As long as we decrease our wage obligations, we are complying with the intent of the embargo no matter how many players we sign. Its a non-runner of course because the SPL is a closed shop but vaguely interesting to me. Say for example, we sign this Ngoo lad and then are offered the chance to sign another guy - and no other player has left. This new player will cost less than McGowan. SPL refuse the registration. Can and/or should Hearts appeal? At least it would provide the chance to challenge the true intent of the embargo.... It's a farce. The U21 rule was a churlish attempt to punish with a stipulation which was not appropriate to the crime or relevant to encouraging us to fix our financial position. It is not up to the SPL to attempt to punish us for anything other than our misdemeanor which was late payment of wages. They have no business interfering with other areas that will not impact upon our financial well-being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazo Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Yeah of course, what i guess im asking is, If these signings really make an impact and turn the season around for us, will McGlynn go from being woeful, to an inspired choice - his tactics might never be top drawer, but he can wheel and deal and get players in that are class, results would improve and would he be allowed credit for that? As he is roundly unliked on here - Id imagine many would struggle to give him any credit If he identified the players who go on to turn his season around then he should and will get credit from most I would think. Of course you get the hardcore from either side of the spectrum who will praise or criticise nothing. You also have the ambiguity of whether he did pick these players and would we have went for these players if we didn't have the u21 rule. End of the day if he turns it around I will apply give him the credit due, IMO though the guy is a dud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawick Jambo Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 If he identified the players who go on to turn his season around then he should and will get credit from most I would think. Of course you get the hardcore from either side of the spectrum who will praise or criticise nothing. You also have the ambiguity of whether he did pick these players and would we have went for these players if we didn't have the u21 rule. End of the day if he turns it around I will apply give him the credit due, IMO though the guy is a dud. Spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeithD Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Did that guy saying he was going to Melwood today post if Ngoo was there or not? Or was the taking the piss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pans Jambo Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Is this another Skacel type "will he wont he" or does anyone actually know anything about Ngoo signing for us on loan? The skeptic in me says that someone with nothing else to do looked at Wilson signing and thought...Who else could we get, and then told Banderson! Seeing is believing I suppose but I think he will want paying more than anyone who's left or leaving (unless it's Webster, Driver or Capt Zal). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bighusref Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 If these signings really make an impact and turn the season around for us, will McGlynn go from being woeful, to an inspired choice - his tactics might never be top drawer, but he can wheel and deal and get players in that are class, results would improve and would he be allowed credit for that? Apologies for cutting this down but cannot highlight on my phone. If this happens, yes. However, I really cannot see it. It would be a massive turnaround. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bighusref Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Oh, and on the new lad, if we sign him, I've long since learnt my lesson and won't judge a player on YouTube compilations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougiejt Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Is this another Skacel type "will he wont he" or does anyone actually know anything about Ngoo signing for us on loan. The skeptic in me says that someone with nothing else to do looked at Wilson signing and thought...Who else could we get, and then told Banderson! Seeing is believing I suppose but I think he will want paying more than anyone who's left or leaving (unless it's Webster, Driver or Capt Zal). Sky sports are reporting that we have definitely put a loan bid in for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pans Jambo Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Sky sports are reporting that we have definitely put a loan bid in for him. Well done that man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.