Rumours and Stuff

[oldmancraigy]

I think it was partially opinion, maybe?
Particularly the first line where you claim that it is "hard for people to understand" (are you suggesting posters on here are idiots?).

(Lets leave off that my previous post was a [poor] attempt at humor by saying it was factual with a question mark!)

In the first post being referred to, the first sentence says "I'm not sure why ... (etc)" - I would read that as someone's opinion. But appreciate things can be interpreted differently on an opinion sharing board!!

(?)

 

[Gronk]

Also W before A,N,K,E and of course R.

Don't forget, on Wednesdays you wear pink.

 

[gaffer]

looks like its coming down to an assistant for the coaching job at parra [ryles or hannay ] so how will an assistant coach pick his assistants ,or will the ones we have just come with the team

 

[emjaycee]

(Lets leave off that my previous post was a [poor] attempt at humor by saying it was factual with a question mark!)

In the first post being referred to, the first sentence says "I'm not sure why ... (etc)" - I would read that as someone's opinion. But appreciate things can be interpreted differently on an opinion sharing board!!

(?)

Never can be sure what will be fact checked and called out as fact or opinion on here mate?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

But it is impossible to know if it benefited the club in the first place.
In sports where contracts are more transparent, the part before the option can be triggered doesn't always favour the other party (club/ player or player/ club).

This is the case with absolutely every contract. Even ones where only money is provided, the value depends entirely on the dollar amount. Since we don’t know this we can never say a signing/retention was beneficial or not.

So complaining about the only component we can verify (the PO) assumes the fact that a player with a PO can still be overpaid, but not the alternative, that a player can be overpaid regardless of player/mutual/club options. If we’re going to (unreasonably) assume a player with a PO is overpaid we should assume the rest of them are as well. This is at least a valid assumption when the roster is weak, and invalid when it isn’t.

However, the only reasonable assumption in every case is that a player option reduces the contract value required by the player while a club option increases it. It doesn’t stop a player being over or underpaid in either case, but even Delboy isn’t privy to such information.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Unfortunately Danika would have been about 15 at the time

That’s the age of consent in Europe and Saudi Arabia.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Yes…. And?

I don’t understand why you are now getting away from your point. You were right the first time. And by ‘right’ I mean I agree with you.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Should you include a question mark or two, or are you satisfied that you are stating facts, and not opinions?

Source?!?!

 

[Poupou Escobar]

(Lets leave off that my previous post was a [poor] attempt at humor by saying it was factual with a question mark!)

In the first post being referred to, the first sentence says "I'm not sure why ... (etc)" - I would read that as someone's opinion. But appreciate things can be interpreted differently on an opinion sharing board!!

(?)

Everything posted here is a fact unless stated otherwise or it includes a question mark.

 

[eel01s]

looks like its coming down to an assistant for the coaching job at parra [ryles or hannay ] so how will an assistant coach pick his assistants ,or will the ones we have just come with the team

I read that Ryles already has a team he will bring with him. Nit sure if true.

Usually a new coach will appoint their own assistants.

 

[King-Gutho94]

looks like its coming down to an assistant for the coaching job at parra [ryles or hannay ] so how will an assistant coach pick his assistants ,or will the ones we have just come with the team

Steve Antonelli should be the first to go. His record wherever he goes is average.

I got no idea why we signed him

 

[Legal Eel]

This is the case with absolutely every contract. Even ones where only money is provided, the value depends entirely on the dollar amount. Since we don’t know this we can never say a signing/retention was beneficial or not.

So complaining about the only component we can verify (the PO) assumes the fact that a player with a PO can still be overpaid, but not the alternative, that a player can be overpaid regardless of player/mutual/club options. If we’re going to (unreasonably) assume a player with a PO is overpaid we should assume the rest of them are as well. This is at least a valid assumption when the roster is weak, and invalid when it isn’t.

However, the only reasonable assumption in every case is that a player option reduces the contract value required by the player while a club option increases it. It doesn’t stop a player being over or underpaid in either case, but even Delboy isn’t privy to such information.

Seriously, reading your posts make me feel like I'm reading intractable High Court decisions on Federal constitutional law.

You are very good at arguing for the sake of it, I will grant you that.

 

[gaffer]

Steve Antonelli should be the first to go. His record wherever he goes is average.

I got no idea why we signed him

going by how the banker operates he was probably cheap

 

[hineyrulz]

Steve Antonelli should be the first to go. His record wherever he goes is average.

I got no idea why we signed him

A cheap yes man, just how Bea Arthur likes em.

 

[Avenger]

going by how the banker operates he was probably cheap

He brings his own drink bottle and reusable coffee mug and loves International Roast.

 

[Gazzamatta]

.

A cheap yes man, just how Bea Arthur likes em.

Well at least hes happy to be there.

 

[hindy111]

He brings his own drink bottle and reusable coffee mug and loves International Roast.

I'd love to try International roast again.

 

[oldmancraigy]

Everything posted here is a fact unless stated otherwise or it includes a question mark.

You've mistakenly put a full stop at the end of that sentence, it should be a question mark?

 

[84 Baby]

I don’t understand why you are now getting away from your point. You were right the first time. And by ‘right’ I mean I agree with you.

So you agree with me that player options have an upfront benefit to us offset by a backended benefit to the player? That wasn’t what I said first though. My first point was having given the options out we should have contingency in place for when they come due for whether the player does or does not take up the option.

 

[emjaycee]

So you agree with me that player options have an upfront benefit to us offset by a backended benefit to the player? That wasn’t what I said first though. My first point was having given the options out we should have contingency in place for when they come due for whether the player does or does not take up the option.

Wouldn't the contingency be to offer them a revised contract prior to the option lapsing, and then go to market if they don't sign?

No different than going to market 1st November if they signed elsewhere.

I am just spitballing and could be way off track?