jambretta Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 sfa block week to week deal hearts wanted to give him sfa say month to month deal hearts say no deal no money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bighusref Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 sfa block week to week deal hearts wanted to give himsfa say month to month deal hearts say no deal no money I don't want to suggest that you are not telling the truth, but if that is true then that is an alarming situation. We want a player on a week to week basis but not monthly? Other than the obvious financial concern, what can we read into that? Again, if it is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.J Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 Pretty sure if Maybs was going to get a deal it would have been sorted by now. He started training with us what - 3 months ago?!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 The post doesn't make any sense because if he played for 4 or 5 weeks he'd get paid a months wage whether it was paid into his bank account weekly or monthly indeed if he was paid monthly they'd have to pay him less often and probably in arrears.....Jambretta are you sure you didn't get this the wrong way round - Hearts offered monthly payment but SFA said weekly payments? Unless Hearts only wanted him for a couple of weeks but then that wouldn't make any sense either as they just offer him a temporary deal........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bighusref Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 The post doesn't make any sense because if he played for 4 or 5 weeks he'd get paid a months wage whether it was paid into his bank account weekly or monthly indeed if he was paid monthly they'd have to pay him less often and probably in arrears.....Jambretta are you sure you didn't get this the wrong way round - Hearts offered monthly payment but SFA said weekly payments? Unless Hearts only wanted him for a couple of weeks but then that wouldn't make any sense either as they just offer him a temporary deal........ OR Hearts' money worries are that bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stirlingshirejambo Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 or the OP might be on the wind up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 OR Hearts' money worries are that bad. Then why offer him a deal at all ? The OP doesn't really make much sense except for 'notice' period ie Hearts would prefer a week instead of a month but even then such short term deals would probably be reviewed by either party when the transfer windows opened in january & summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 Do we really need a 4th Right Back ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 Do we really need a 4th Right Back ? He played left back a number of times for the Dons last season as well as previously for`us of course - we could do with some cover & competition for Wallace and his experience would also be useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericb Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 Do we really need a 4th Right Back ? We only have two, ones not good enough, and the others just coming back from injury. The current kepper of the jersey is playing out of position, as is Csabas way, just ask Kari, Neilson, Bruno, Ruben & Driver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 Do we really need a 4th Right Back ? We need cover at left back. It is to Lee Wallace's credit that his form has lifted after that bad period, but we have no cover at all. Maybury would give us cover there, provide backup for Neilson at right back and finally allow Jonsson to move back into the midfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 He played left back a number of times for the Dons last season as well as previously for`us of course - we could do with some cover & competition for Wallace and his experience would also be useful. Why wait until 6 weeks before the Transfer Window to sign a Left Back ? Would it not have been a better idea to sign a 'real' Left Back in August instead of signing 2 Goalies and No.16 from FBK ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pupstersajambo Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 Sorry, but I don't believe a word of this. As if Hearts would approach the SFA and say we can't afford to pay someone as we've no money. Another poster at the lash, then again not had anybody rattling the financial post for a while.....Move along, nothing to see here.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazo Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 No idea if this is true but I believe the minimum you can sign a player is a month. If true I have no idea on what to make of the situation of trying to sign a player on weekly deals. I am sure someone will be along shortly to tell us it happens at every club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 No idea if this is true but I believe the minimum you can sign a player is a month. If true I have no idea on what to make of the situation of trying to sign a player on weekly deals. I am sure someone will be along shortly to tell us it happens at every club. The OP simply doesn't make any sense Dazo - if Hearts didn't have enough money to pay Maybury on monthly deals then how could they afford to pay him weekly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Don Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 Sounds a bit strange to want a player on a week to week basis, however IF this was true then the only reasoning i can see for it could be the fact the players are paid weekly not monthly. Would have at least been cover for both full back positions IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazo Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 The OP simply doesn't make any sense Dazo - if Hearts didn't have enough money to pay Maybury on monthly deals then how could they afford to pay him weekly? Maybe the cash flow allows him to paid one week but not the next ? As I said I have no idea if the OP is true but when have hearts done anything that makes sense ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 Maybe the cash flow allows him to paid one week but not the next ? As I said I have no idea if the OP is true but when have hearts done anything that makes sense ? That is exactly why weekly deals would be less ideal than monthly deal which are generally paid in arrears and would allow the club more time to find the money.....I think players are entitled to be paid weekly under SFA contracts so that is why I think the OP has got it the wrong way round? assuming he's not telling porkies...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazo Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 That is exactly why weekly deals would be less ideal than monthly deal which are generally paid in arrears and would allow the club more time to find the money.....I think players are entitled to be paid weekly under SFA contracts so that is why I think the OP has got it the wrong way round? assuming he's not telling porkies...... It does not matter if they are paid weekly monthly or annually it is the length of contract that determines how much money the player is due. Maybe hearts do not want to commit to paying the player any more than on a weekly basis. All ifs and buts anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboAl Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 Assuming money is a problem, if we really wanted Maybury and he truly wanted to play for us, he would sign/play as an amateur until the window, at least keeping himself match fit. Come the window, he'd then be able to sign for anyone and as a match fit player would be a better proposition for anyone. In short I believe the OP is talking shecht:hobofish: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Don Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 Assuming money is a problem, if we really wanted Maybury and he truly wanted to play for us, he would sign/play as an amateur until the window, at least keeping himself match fit. Come the window, he'd then be able to sign for anyone and as a match fit player would be a better proposition for anyone.In short I believe the OP is talking shecht:hobofish: Or even a pay per game deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Spackler Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 What's the SFA got to do with a players remuneration anyway? They might have some sort of powers to ensure players are being paid, I don't know, but how much, how frequently, whether its performance related, the actual details of any contract I would very much doubt has anything to do with them. OP either explain yourself or stop talking p^%h! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spellczech Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 sfa block week to week deal hearts wanted to give himsfa say month to month deal hearts say no deal no money LOL why are Hearts always rumoured to be trying to do totally random things? We never turn down players, we apparently try to give them terms that either they or the SFA won't accept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Quagmire Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 sfa block week to week deal hearts wanted to give himsfa say month to month deal hearts say no deal no money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanes de Silentio Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 Hasn't anybody asked for a source yet? Allow me - ahem... Source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamdub Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 Who feckin cares, Maybury is pesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawrrrrrrr Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 The only way this would happen is if the weekly contract was against SFA registration rules. They wont care about the player being paid etc, simply that the terms are legal within governing body rules. The only thing I cant think of is that they argued that at the end of each week he was freed and therefore unable to sign again but this would be the same for month to month. Clubs in england use these non contract type deals all the time too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bighusref Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 The OP simply doesn't make any sense Dazo - if Hearts didn't have enough money to pay Maybury on monthly deals then how could they afford to pay him weekly? You missed it earlier, could it not be simply due to Hearts' having financial concerns? "We can pay you this week, and probably the next but if you were looking for guarantees beyond that we could not do a deal". That sounds plausible to me. Unfortunately, continually rabbiting on about the op not making sense does not deflect from that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jam Tarts 1874 Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 You missed it earlier, could it not be simply due to Hearts' having financial concerns? "We can pay you this week, and probably the next but if you were looking for guarantees beyond that we could not do a deal". That sounds plausible to me. Unfortunately, continually rabbiting on about the op not making sense does not deflect from that. You are just falling into the OP's trap! He is clearly a hobo trying to get Hearts fans commenting on Hearts financial situation. The sad fact is that the vast majority of posters have no knowledge of Hearts financial situation, but no doubt that won't stop this or any number of threads every day becoming filled with jibberish from the ill-informed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winston churchill Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 Hasn't anybody asked for a source yet? Allow me - ahem... Source? his mates mate,has a mate,who's brothers mates mother, is a cleaner at riccarton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Bill Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 No offence to the OP, but should this not be in the Gullit lounge along with anything else that has no credible source attached? I have no reason to doubt the OP, but he's up against everyone else who comes on here claiming to know things. Regards, Angry Bros fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groot Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 You are just falling into the OP's trap! He is clearly a hobo trying to get Hearts fans commenting on Hearts financial situation. The sad fact is that the vast majority of posters have no knowledge of Hearts financial situation, but no doubt that won't stop this or any number of threads every day becoming filled with jibberish from the ill-informed. I think people need to step back, take a deep breath and those of you wailing about the impending doom remove your head from your erse. IF there was such a worry about paying Maybury, we would sign him as an amateur that way we would only have to pay expenses and could punt him whenever. We wouldn't be paying him much but Maybury would be in a better position than he is now and would be able to get match time until January to either get a deal or move elsewhere. It's interesting to note that the OP posted the bombshell then hasn't been active since then, smells of a Hobo on the wind up. Also, why are people so quick to take this as gospel, does the guy have history of having useful information or are some people more inclined to believe the negative stuff ahead of positive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamboRobbo Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 You are just falling into the OP's trap! He is clearly a hobo Feel free to show your evidence that he is clearly a Hobo. If you bother to check the OP's previous posts, he's been registered quite a while, has hardly posted, and when he has posted it has been about Maybury. I look forward to hearing how he is "clearly a Hobo" though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H.A.N.S Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 sfa block week to week deal hearts wanted to give himsfa say month to month deal hearts say no deal no money Must be lies, Vlad is loaded and ploughing in all his own money into us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboAl Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 Feel free to show your evidence that he is clearly a Hobo. If you bother to check the OP's previous posts, he's been registered quite a while, has hardly posted, and when he has posted it has been about Maybury. I look forward to hearing how he is "clearly a Hobo" though. Very few people are strapped to their computer like you. If the OP had given any hint of a credible source, then we might accept what he says. However it beats me why we would want to sign someone whose ability would not enhance our performance plus no one else has been killed in the rush to sign him. I look forward to your evidence that he is NOT a Hobo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambretta Posted November 15, 2008 Author Share Posted November 15, 2008 Feel free to show your evidence that he is clearly a Hobo. If you bother to check the OP's previous posts, he's been registered quite a while, has hardly posted, and when he has posted it has been about Maybury. I look forward to hearing how he is "clearly a Hobo" though. jamboRobbo you are a wise man maybury was offered a short term deal in oz but knocked it back he would love to play for hearts again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winston churchill Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 Must be lies, Vlad is loaded and ploughing in all his own money into us HOOF:hobofish: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammy T Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 couldnt we just play him as an amateur? Puts him in the shop window, gives us cover. He gets "expenses" Everyone is a winner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambonian Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 Sounds a bit strange to want a player on a week to week basis, however IF this was true then the only reasoning i can see for it could be the fact the players are paid weekly not monthly. Would have at least been cover for both full back positions IMO. Strange!? 'course it's strange, wouldn't be Hearts if it wasn't! Personally, Maybury should be offered a short term contract, at least to the January transfer window but preferably 'til the end of the season, can't understand why, when we're short on fullbacks, we have an ex-player who knows what playing for Hearts is all about, the reason he came back to Scotland was because he wanted to play for Hearts again and he was disappointed he wasn't offered a contract. Aberdeen was never going to be a long-term thing, wasn't he offered a contract by them but turned it down? I would sign him as soon as possible on a long contract...and hand him the captaincy too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stupid Sexy Flanders Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 Why wait until 6 weeks before the Transfer Window to sign a Left Back ? Would it not have been a better idea to sign a 'real' Left Back in August instead of signing 2 Goalies and No.16 from FBK ? At least be consistent in your childishness DH. What you should have said was "instead of signing a goalie, and numbers 1 and 16 from FBK". Or you could just use their names like a grown-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Only a Game Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 If anyone has knocked back a weekly deal surely it could only be Maybury himself. WTF has it got to do with the SFA as long as we are complying with the player registration rules. i.e he can play for us but couldnt play for anyone else until January if he did so. I dont believe the SFA have any jurisdiction over a players private financial deal with his club. Apart from which I dont believe we need Maybury now or in the future. We've got loads of players who play the positions he plays. None of them any great shakes, but then Maybury (these days) is no great shakes either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.