The Merse Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 But he didn't want to sign a new deal with Hearts Vic. He was well within his rights to turn down any contract offer. How are you not understanding that ? That's the crux. The final year of his contract all but came null and void the moment he rejected the extension as he was never likely to be selected anymore. So, waste a year rotting or get out through a legitimate clause in the contract. We all know what Vlad is like with honouring contracts, he got done at his own game. I didn't like the way the whole thing came about but I never quite got the seethe over the situation. Hence why I'm pleased he is back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 But he didn't want to sign a new deal with Hearts Vic. He was well within his rights to turn down any contract offer. How are you not understanding that ? but i do understand that DH. he is obviously quite entitled to want to move on. equally the club (romanov) are quite entitled to attempt to maximise it's asset. all involved had choices. webster exercised his choice by not signing... romanov exercised his choice by excluding webster. in essence romanov merely gives players options when he does that. why should romanov simply capitulate? he isn't the first owner to employ those policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 That's the crux. The final year of his contract all but came null and void the moment he rejected the extension as he was never likely to be selected anymore. So, waste a year rotting or get out through a legitimate clause in the contract. We all know what Vlad is like with honouring contracts, he got done at his own game. I didn't like the way the whole thing came about but I never quite got the seethe over the situation. Hence why I'm pleased he is back. Absolutely. but i do understand that DH. he is obviously quite entitled to want to move on. equally the club (romanov) are quite entitled to attempt to maximise it's asset. all involved had choices. webster exercised his choice by not signing... romanov exercised his choice by excluding webster. in essence romanov merely gives players options when he does that. why should romanov simply capitulate? he isn't the first owner to employ those policies. Why should Webster capitulate ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Brightside Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 The loan deal. Ranger paid the same amount for McCulloch we offered Motherwell several years prior. ?1 million for an EPL is chicken-shit. Just checked soccerbase Webster initial loan to rangers was in jan 07 for 6 months then a further loan for season 07-08 and purchased in summer 08 undisclosed fee. McCulloch joined rangers in summer 07 for ?2.25million not a huge ammount but more than I think his market value was. You also have the whole Dave Whelan, Wigan, JJB and Rangers link. I might be putting 2&2 and getting 5, but to me something about the whole thing didn't add up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Wiseau Posted February 4, 2011 Author Share Posted February 4, 2011 So... it turned into another Webster thread then, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leginten Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 That's the crux. The final year of his contract all but came null and void the moment he rejected the extension as he was never likely to be selected anymore. So, waste a year rotting or get out through a legitimate clause in the contract. We all know what Vlad is like with honouring contracts, he got done at his own game. I didn't like the way the whole thing came about but I never quite got the seethe over the situation. Hence why I'm pleased he is back. You and me both. The conduct of Andy Webster might just have scraped into my Top 100 things that were completely rotten about the state of Hearts at that time. Then again, it might not. I always find it curious that people who found themselves unable to muster so much as a peep against the truly outrageous shite that was going on at the club back then have contrived to get their knickers in such a terrible twist about Webster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beverley Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 So... it turned into another Webster thread then, eh? to be fair, it was always gonna head that way dontcha think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Merse Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 You and me both. The conduct of Andy Webster might just have scraped into my Top 100 things that were completely rotten about the state of Hearts at that time. Then again, it might not. I always find it curious that people who found themselves unable to muster so much as a peep against the truly outrageous shite that was going on at the club back then have contrived to get their knickers in such a terrible twist about Webster. That's because nothing was wrong at the time. Do keep up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Absolutely. Why should Webster capitulate ? he doesn't have to capitulate either. the choice was put before him though. he chose to opt out of romanov's game. the trouble starts because you see his opt out as some sort of honourable heroic act, others see it as a devious cheats way out. anyway, that was all a debate to be consigned to history after he came back. now that he is back it has become less important to me. it's set aside because he's currently a hearts player. you'll no doubt be pleased about that. i'm off for a long kip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Wiseau Posted February 4, 2011 Author Share Posted February 4, 2011 to be fair, it was always gonna head that way dontcha think I know, but was hoping there might be some kind of attempt at least to discuss it on a wider level. Should've known better tbf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 You and me both. The conduct of Andy Webster might just have scraped into my Top 100 things that were completely rotten about the state of Hearts at that time. Then again, it might not. I always find it curious that people who found themselves unable to muster so much as a peep against the truly outrageous shite that was going on at the club back then have contrived to get their knickers in such a terrible twist about Webster. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigAlim Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guess The Crowd Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Craig Gordon signed his contract pre-really crazy times. It was before the revelation that VR was picking the team over Rix. Maybe if the offer had come after this things would have been different ?!?! He was part of the R3 afterall. I don't think that's correct, is it? VR picking team over Rix = December 2005 (the same time as Webster / Dundee Utd game incident) CG new contract I'm sure was March / April 2006. (Riccarton 3 - Oct 2006). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leginten Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Exactly. If I were a psychologist, I might feel tempted to go with the displaced anger theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 You and me both. The conduct of Andy Webster might just have scraped into my Top 100 things that were completely rotten about the state of Hearts at that time. Then again, it might not. I always find it curious that people who found themselves unable to muster so much as a peep against the truly outrageous shite that was going on at the club back then have contrived to get their knickers in such a terrible twist about Webster. Which people? It is possible to have been concerned about goings-on at the club and unhappy at Webster's machinations. But then, revisionist theory has since proven that The Riccarton Three shot JFK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dynamic Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 I just hope that other youngsters throughout Scottish football take heed of what has gone on with Webster and in a round about way skacel (and a lot of others out with us) They move too early in their footballing development having shown they have something with the agents clearly chasing the green dollar, only to be shot down and forgotten about months later by being unable to continue their potentially talented careers for lack of first team game time. It's interesting to hear/read that it is only after the penny drops how good they had it they decide to come back and try rekindle those promising times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 If I were a psychologist, I might feel tempted to go with the displaced anger theory. I'm not a psychologist, and went with that theory years ago about all manner of things. Fortunately, in these new days of milk and honey, everyone's happy and we can all get along just fine. Hopefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leginten Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Which people? It is possible to have been concerned about goings-on at the club and unhappy at Webster's machinations. But then, revisionist theory has since proven that The Riccarton Three shot JFK. Of course it is, and it obviously is in your case. But my impression is that there's a considerable degree of overlap between the "move along, nothing to see here (2005-8)" view and the Webster-as-Antichrist position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Merse Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Which people? It is possible to have been concerned about goings-on at the club and unhappy at Webster's machinations. But then, revisionist theory has since proven that The Riccarton Three shot JFK. Possibly the "we don't need a manager brigade." and that nothing out of the ordinary was happening at Hearts brigade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leginten Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 I'm not a psychologist, and went with that theory years ago about all manner of things. Fortunately, in these new days of milk and honey, everyone's happy and we can all get along just fine. Hopefully. It has been nice to see the old fault-lines exposed again, though, hasn't it? Things were getting far too fuzzy round the edges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Merse Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Of couse it is, and it obviously is in your case. But my impression is that there's a considerable degree of overlap between the "move along, nothing to see here (2005-8)" view and the Webster-as-Antichrist position. Better known as the forgotten years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Of course it is, and it obviously is in your case. But my impression is that there's a considerable degree of overlap between the "move along, nothing to see here (2005-8)" view and the Webster-as-Antichrist position. Fair enough. I do have a concern about the overlap between the "Riccarton Three were all snakes (except Big Craigy)" and the "Welcome Back Big Andy (Badly Advised)" crowd and what it says about "our" mentality, but I'll save that for a rainy day, considering our lofty heights, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Wiseau Posted February 5, 2011 Author Share Posted February 5, 2011 Better known as the forgotten golden years. Fixed. Precious memories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leginten Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Fair enough. I do have a concern about the overlap between the "Riccarton Three were all snakes (except Big Craigy)" and the "Welcome Back Big Andy (Badly Advised)" crowd and what it says about "our" mentality, but I'll save that for a rainy day, considering our lofty heights, etc. I hadn't picked up on that particular constellation. Can someone please do a Venn diagram to clarify all this stuff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Fixed. Precious memories. Not forgetting... And the crowning glory... Great days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beverley Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 ah feck i'd only just managed to forget about malofeev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Wiseau Posted February 5, 2011 Author Share Posted February 5, 2011 Not forgetting... And the crowning glory... Great days. I'm going to be buzzing in training with all this nostalgia. PS. In fairness the monkeys stuff was ABSALUTE gold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 I'm going to be buzzing in training with all this nostalgia. PS. In fairness the monkeys stuff was ABSALUTE gold. It was indeed. Here it is again in all its thundering splendour: http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/articles/20070222/monkeys-go-home_2241384_986323 The following statement was issued tonight by Vladimir Romanov: Dear Monkeys, Today I will not be showing your portrait to you. It is pointless. You are one step away from becoming human beings. Go and carefully have a look at yourself in the mirror. Don't you see a human in it? Stop fighting for the values which the ex-captain of Hearts was fighting for. Education and truthful information - that should be your input to humankind. Your leader Mowgli is not taking bananas any more, now he is taking money for lies and untruthful interpretation. However he is greedy and makes you collect rotten information from cesspits and poisons readers with it. This is unworthy even of a monkey. Today I will express my opinion in English about refereeing in order that your Mowgli will not make you tell lies. To discuss whether referees take money or not is the same as discussing a woman who gives herself with no love. Isn't it better to concentrate on the standard of their work instead of looking for reasons for their poor performance? A woman cheats herself and nature if she gives herself without love. If a referee officiates a game based on his personal love, he commits a cynical crime, especially when the public has trusted him. I respect those referees who take money from two stupid teams and then honestly officiates a game. They do not harm football in any way. Though it is bad, still everybody is equal for them. Perhaps that is the reason why football in Italy will never die despite all the scandals that continuously shake it. I think that is much better than being the champions for 40 years while building up the same system for further 40 years. Now it has become obvious to me why you, the Monkeys, were trying to ruin Hearts not only in the Championship, but in European competitions as well. I think it was not without your help that the 'frozen' referee from Russia was selected to officiate our match and that in the games against the Greek side we got three red cards. It is not without your help that traitors were presented as heroes thus showing the road to children for betrayal. You will always call teachers silly because unlike you they lead children along the correct path. Protecting your values in that way just spoils not only football, but also a Scotsman's proud name. I beg you Mowgli, take the monkeys back to the Safari Park! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Wiseau Posted February 5, 2011 Author Share Posted February 5, 2011 On a million levels... I love Mr Romanov. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Dover Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Just checked soccerbase Webster initial loan to rangers was in jan 07 for 6 months then a further loan for season 07-08 and purchased in summer 08 undisclosed fee. McCulloch joined rangers in summer 07 for ?2.25million not a huge ammount but more than I think his market value was. You also have the whole Dave Whelan, Wigan, JJB and Rangers link. I might be putting 2&2 and getting 5, but to me something about the whole thing didn't add up. Didn't add up ?..................your right mate, it stank worse than a kipper stashed in your glove compartment! I cant recall the whole seedy deal but I'm pretty sure the legality of AW's use of the escape clause was begining to attract scrutiny. I also remember thinking that the SFA had rubber stamped it a bit quickly too ! Anyway for some reason a compensation figure hinted at being up to ?1.25 sticks in my mind and I also reckon that was basically factored into the McCulloch fee ( way over the top IMO for a guy not in great demand ? ) Another example of the Scottish press being 'reluctant' to delve when it's RFC under the microscope ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Vic.... Firstly... Webster wasn't on ?15k per week. Secondly.... And I don't understand why you don't get this..... The guy was issued with a threat and had the balls to deal with it. Goncalves was dealt with the same threat but they wasn't in a position to do anything about it. He just sat in the stand and wasted 6 months of his career. And what happened next ? AW to Agent - so , I can make my fortune then by feckin off from HMFc ? Agent - (rubbing hands furiously at the thought of 15% commission - or whatever) - oh, yeah. AW- you sure about this ? Agent - naw , you're the global guinea pig. But it's a sure fire winner. trust me. AW - let's do it !! Webster is a feckin mercenary first & last. The poster who used the word 'legend' in relation to AW needs to see a psychiatrist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Didn't add up ?..................your right mate, it stank worse than a kipper stashed in your glove compartment! I cant recall the whole seedy deal but I'm pretty sure the legality of AW's use of the escape clause was begining to attract scrutiny. I also remember thinking that the SFA had rubber stamped it a bit quickly too ! Anyway for some reason a compensation figure hinted at being up to ?1.25 sticks in my mind and I also reckon that was basically factored into the McCulloch fee ( way over the top IMO for a guy not in great demand ? ) Another example of the Scottish press being 'reluctant' to delve when it's RFC under the microscope ! It did , but not because he did anything that broke any rules but because a lot of very big clubs told UEFA in no uncertain terms that it wasn't going to happen to them. The Guardian did a great article on some very prominent clubs & players who were watching the AW situation with a mixture of trepidation & joy. Guess who won out. UEFA backtracked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambali Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Hmmm "Badly advised" Agents make their money by brokering transfers for their clients. The more money involved the more they get. Players need to realise that the agent won't necessarily get the best move for the player - only the best move for the agent... Players choose their agent, so if they are "badly advised" it's because they chose the wrong agent! Simples! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanes de Silentio Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Given that he wanted to maximise his income, in what way was Webster badly advised - he and his agent wanted the same thing - loads of cash - are they alone on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bighusref Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 You and me both. The conduct of Andy Webster might just have scraped into my Top 100 things that were completely rotten about the state of Hearts at that time. Then again, it might not. I always find it curious that people who found themselves unable to muster so much as a peep against the truly outrageous shite that was going on at the club back then have contrived to get their knickers in such a terrible twist about Webster. Which people? It is possible to have been concerned about goings-on at the club and unhappy at Webster's machinations. But then, revisionist theory has since proven that The Riccarton Three shot JFK. I have tried so hard not to be serious about this subject. It's such a mad situation. I never, ever thought in a million years that I would be subjected to Webster in a Hearts jersey again. After everything that happened with his departure then his entirely unsurprising move from JJB North England to JJB West Glasgow, I felt that we would never see him again. However, on Thursday it happened, he came back. I am faced with a strange situation. I felt that I had said my piece years ago and that nothing had changed to eradicate this but I have never booed any Hearts player or given any Hearts player (irrespective of personal thoughts on him) less than 100%. The bottom line for me is that I love Hearts more than I hate Andrew Webster, my overriding love for the club will negate my feelings. I honestly and truthfully believe that very, very few will directly oppose this on a match day. Many in the stands will feel similarly to me, but most if not all will recognise the negative issues it could cause our team. I guess what I am trying to say, and the reason I have quoted two generally excellent posters; This isn't one of those situations where the sensible guys say one thing and the dafties say another. Suggestions that you are less of a fan/more of a fan if you didn't like the actions of Webster should be put to bed. No one will convince me to change my mind, no matter how often people draw comparisons to Robertson and Skacel, I have my opinion. I cannot wait until the Hamilton game comes and/or Webster plays. Until then, this "debate" will rage on, with posters having a pop at each other left, right and centre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spellczech Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Hartley was sold to Celtic over a year before Velicka was sold to Viking. That kinda fecks up your theory. er,No. The mention of Velicka was merely to enforce what lengths Murray had to go to to get Webster. Selling Hartley to Celtic was well after Webster left and about the same time as it became clear what Murray had done via Wiagan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.