Rumour: Pulis To Quit In The Summer

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 14 of 29 < 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 >

Salford eagle 26 Jan 14 3.39pm
I appreciate the board not wanting to overspend. If the rumour of the wage cap being in place for if we go down is true, then this should be reflected in the season ticket prices next year. California sunlight - sweet Calcutta rain - Honolulu starbright - the song remains the same
Alert a moderator to this post

Salford eagle

26 Jan 14 3.39pm

I appreciate the board not wanting to overspend. If the rumour of the wage cap being in place for if we go down is true, then this should be reflected in the season ticket prices next year.

California sunlight - sweet Calcutta rain - Honolulu starbright - the song remains the same

Alert a moderator to this post

braunstoneagle the middle of bumf*** nowhere... 26 Jan 14 3.40pm
Quote Andy_G at 26 Jan 2014 3.25pm Quote Jordan555x at 26 Jan 2014 3.12pm Lets quash this rumour already, here it is on the BBS, read the posts. [Link] Feel better after reading that, hope something good happens in the next few days. I would rather read those comments than that of a load of people who have lost their head due to us not having spunked money left right & centre thusfar this january ‘Football isn’t instant coffee. You have to work at it. You must grow the bean, grind it.’ Ian Holloway
Alert a moderator to this post

braunstoneagle

the middle of bumf*** nowhere... 26 Jan 14 3.40pm

Send a Private Message to braunstoneagle

Quote Andy_G at 26 Jan 2014 3.25pm

Quote Jordan555x at 26 Jan 2014 3.12pm

Lets quash this rumour already, here it is on the BBS, read the posts.

[Link]

Feel better after reading that, hope something good happens in the next few days.

I would rather read those comments than that of a load of people who have lost their head due to us not having spunked money left right & centre thusfar this january

‘Football isn’t instant coffee. You have to work at it. You must grow the bean, grind it.’ Ian Holloway

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 26 Jan 14 3.45pm
Quote sydtheeagle at 26 Jan 2014 3.29pm Perhaps CPFC2010 should openly tell us their long-term plan. Instead of hiding behind "we're being responsible" which a). they're not and b). is neither here nor there at this point, perhaps they'd like to confirm the suspicion above or tell us, if that's not true, what IS going on. If the above is correct, I would not necessarily have a problem with it; I would simply appreciate being told. Then I would understand why they were running the club the way they are, particularly with regard to the present transfer window. But otherwise, if SP wants to behave like an idiot and not explain why he's doing nothing, then I for one and not going to swallow the party line. This whole paragraph has very little credibility tbf. 1. SP isn't being responsible? Hey? How can planning for a few different outcomes not be 'responsible', or irresponsible for English correctness. It's also irrelevant whether they intend to sell or not, the same business will be in the same condition if that foreigner asks some football advisor which club he should invest his money in. 2. 'What is going on?' I'll put you in the picture again. Players on £40k - £50k contracts already want, guess what, that to be matched. We don't want to sign away £5mil on 2 players' wages per season before all the transfer fees and agent fees are included. The main stand is 90 years old. You either borrow all the money and pay it back in 20 years, or you set some aside. Unless some people have gone completely blind or turned incredibly thick since new year, I'd have thought the ground needing doing and survival in the Prem never being certain were completely obvious. There's a balancing act, and Steven Taylor, Peter Crouch, Matthew Etherington, and Tony Pulis couldn't give a shyte about any of that. They want their quick money and out. In the meantime, we'll have a look at who becomes available this week, as is always where most business happens. COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 26 Jan 14 3.45pm

Quote sydtheeagle at 26 Jan 2014 3.29pm

Perhaps CPFC2010 should openly tell us their long-term plan. Instead of hiding behind "we're being responsible" which a). they're not and b). is neither here nor there at this point, perhaps they'd like to confirm the suspicion above or tell us, if that's not true, what IS going on. If the above is correct, I would not necessarily have a problem with it; I would simply appreciate being told. Then I would understand why they were running the club the way they are, particularly with regard to the present transfer window. But otherwise, if SP wants to behave like an idiot and not explain why he's doing nothing, then I for one and not going to swallow the party line.

This whole paragraph has very little credibility tbf.

1. SP isn't being responsible? Hey? How can planning for a few different outcomes not be 'responsible', or irresponsible for English correctness. It's also irrelevant whether they intend to sell or not, the same business will be in the same condition if that foreigner asks some football advisor which club he should invest his money in.

2. 'What is going on?' I'll put you in the picture again. Players on £40k - £50k contracts already want, guess what, that to be matched. We don't want to sign away £5mil on 2 players' wages per season before all the transfer fees and agent fees are included. The main stand is 90 years old. You either borrow all the money and pay it back in 20 years, or you set some aside. Unless some people have gone completely blind or turned incredibly thick since new year, I'd have thought the ground needing doing and survival in the Prem never being certain were completely obvious. There's a balancing act, and Steven Taylor, Peter Crouch, Matthew Etherington, and Tony Pulis couldn't give a shyte about any of that. They want their quick money and out.

In the meantime, we'll have a look at who becomes available this week, as is always where most business happens.

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

est1905 26 Jan 14 3.46pm
Quote Green Bin at 26 Jan 2014 3.32pm Quote sydtheeagle at 26 Jan 2014 2.54pm Quote Green Bin at 26 Jan 2014 2.44pm 2) Parish is a business man, so he is trying to run a tight ship and invest prudently Edited by Green Bin (26 Jan 2014 2.46pm) Aaah, so this fact wins your trust and confidence? Oh dear. Simon Jordan was a businessman. Mark Goldberg was a businessman... It's a good point put like that, however CPFC2010 have managed to buy the club, buy the ground and buy the training ground, have invested in players and started improving the ground, and at the same time have a reasonable approach to ticket prices and the whole matchday experience even if the cost of beer is a bit too much for some I think there's a difference between a group of successful businessmen and two guys who did well on the back of certain trends, but got sucked into the success at all costs mindset of football. The argument appears quite black or white to some fans... surely it makes sense to go for broke because the rewards for success are so high? Which is why Portsmouth, and Coventry are in the state that they are. But I for one don't expect (or want) the owners to 'go for broke'. Just give us a fighting chance which I don't think we have unless we bring in two or preferably three quality players this window. The current squad are doing well but we WILL pick up both injuries and suspensions. It always happens. And when it does we will drop like a stone if no additions have been bought in. I think if we fail to bring in one single player it not only sends out a message that the owners are more interested in keeping the money than staying up (whether true or not) plus nobody could blame Pulis for walking away as it would mean promises made to him on signing for Palace have been broken
Alert a moderator to this post

est1905

26 Jan 14 3.46pm

Quote Green Bin at 26 Jan 2014 3.32pm

Quote sydtheeagle at 26 Jan 2014 2.54pm

Quote Green Bin at 26 Jan 2014 2.44pm

2) Parish is a business man, so he is trying to run a tight ship and invest prudently

Edited by Green Bin (26 Jan 2014 2.46pm)

Aaah, so this fact wins your trust and confidence?

Oh dear. Simon Jordan was a businessman. Mark Goldberg was a businessman...

It's a good point put like that, however CPFC2010 have managed to buy the club, buy the ground and buy the training ground, have invested in players and started improving the ground, and at the same time have a reasonable approach to ticket prices and the whole matchday experience even if the cost of beer is a bit too much for some

I think there's a difference between a group of successful businessmen and two guys who did well on the back of certain trends, but got sucked into the success at all costs mindset of football.

The argument appears quite black or white to some fans... surely it makes sense to go for broke because the rewards for success are so high? Which is why Portsmouth, and Coventry are in the state that they are.

But I for one don't expect (or want) the owners to 'go for broke'.
Just give us a fighting chance which I don't think we have unless we bring in two or preferably three quality players this window.
The current squad are doing well but we WILL pick up both injuries and suspensions. It always happens. And when it does we will drop like a stone if no additions have been bought in. I think if we fail to bring in one single player it not only sends out a message that the owners are more interested in keeping the money than staying up (whether true or not) plus nobody could blame Pulis for walking away as it would mean promises made to him on signing for Palace have been broken

Alert a moderator to this post

est1905 26 Jan 14 3.49pm
Quote sydtheeagle at 26 Jan 2014 3.34pm Quote laddo at 26 Jan 2014 3.29pm Love the fact fans froth at the mouth when somebody doesn't spend their own money. They act like spoilt children who demand a toy from toys r us, but are unwilling or unable to dip their hands into their own pockets. This shows such a lack of understanding of basic commerce, economics, business ownership or simply how enterprises work as to be almost astonishing. It's literally like a five-year-old's analysis of the situation; so impoverished it doesn't even invite a sensible debate. Oi thought that but was just going to ignore the post as it didn't even warrant a response
Alert a moderator to this post

est1905

26 Jan 14 3.49pm

Quote sydtheeagle at 26 Jan 2014 3.34pm

Quote laddo at 26 Jan 2014 3.29pm

Love the fact fans froth at the mouth when somebody doesn't spend their own money. They act like spoilt children who demand a toy from toys r us, but are unwilling or unable to dip their hands into their own pockets.

This shows such a lack of understanding of basic commerce, economics, business ownership or simply how enterprises work as to be almost astonishing. It's literally like a five-year-old's analysis of the situation; so impoverished it doesn't even invite a sensible debate.

Oi thought that but was just going to ignore the post as it didn't even warrant a response

Alert a moderator to this post

gary3a bromley 26 Jan 14 3.49pm
Quote Jordan555x at 26 Jan 2014 2.36pm How would they even know this?! Pulis is never going to tell anybody especially a journalist about this. I doubt even SLP would know until the very last minute. No manager would tell a newspaper like Daily Mirror about something as confidential as this. Of course they do all the time. Puts pressure on club owners by getting fans on the side of the manager and hopefully owner relents, it's called politics and it happens in football just like any other business, probably more often.
Alert a moderator to this post

gary3a

bromley 26 Jan 14 3.49pm

Quote Jordan555x at 26 Jan 2014 2.36pm

How would they even know this?! Pulis is never going to tell anybody especially a journalist about this. I doubt even SLP would know until the very last minute. No manager would tell a newspaper like Daily Mirror about something as confidential as this.

Of course they do all the time. Puts pressure on club owners by getting fans on the side of the manager and hopefully owner relents, it's called politics and it happens in football just like any other business, probably more often.

Alert a moderator to this post

est1905 26 Jan 14 3.57pm
Quote Rudi Hedman at 26 Jan 2014 3.45pm Quote sydtheeagle at 26 Jan 2014 3.29pm Perhaps CPFC2010 should openly tell us their long-term plan. Instead of hiding behind "we're being responsible" which a). they're not and b). is neither here nor there at this point, perhaps they'd like to confirm the suspicion above or tell us, if that's not true, what IS going on. If the above is correct, I would not necessarily have a problem with it; I would simply appreciate being told. Then I would understand why they were running the club the way they are, particularly with regard to the present transfer window. But otherwise, if SP wants to behave like an idiot and not explain why he's doing nothing, then I for one and not going to swallow the party line. This whole paragraph has very little credibility tbf. 1. SP isn't being responsible? Hey? How can planning for a few different outcomes not be 'responsible', or irresponsible for English correctness. It's also irrelevant whether they intend to sell or not, the same business will be in the same condition if that foreigner asks some football advisor which club he should invest his money in. 2. 'What is going on?' I'll put you in the picture again. Players on £40k - £50k contracts already want, guess what, that to be matched. We don't want to sign away £5mil on 2 players' wages per season before all the transfer fees and agent fees are included. The main stand is 90 years old. You either borrow all the money and pay it back in 20 years, or you set some aside. Unless some people have gone completely blind or turned incredibly thick since new year, I'd have thought the ground needing doing and survival in the Prem never being certain were completely obvious. There's a balancing act, and Steven Taylor, Peter Crouch, Matthew Etherington, and Tony Pulis couldn't give a shyte about any of that. They want their quick money and out. In the meantime, we'll have a look at who becomes available this week, as is always where most business happens. You make a fair point about ground improvements and it's not something that hasn't also crossed my mind although talk of anything to do with Selhurst Park is being shelved until the end of the season as the owners want to give us the best possible chance of staying up. Parish said so himself when questioned about the ground redevelopment in the summer. I can only ascertain from this that there is not any money being put asside at this time. Although I hope I am wrong. We need a better stadium probably more than we need Premiership football.
Alert a moderator to this post

est1905

26 Jan 14 3.57pm

Quote Rudi Hedman at 26 Jan 2014 3.45pm

Quote sydtheeagle at 26 Jan 2014 3.29pm

This whole paragraph has very little credibility tbf.

In the meantime, we'll have a look at who becomes available this week, as is always where most business happens.

You make a fair point about ground improvements and it's not something that hasn't also crossed my mind although talk of anything to do with Selhurst Park is being shelved until the end of the season as the owners want to give us the best possible chance of staying up. Parish said so himself when questioned about the ground redevelopment in the summer.
I can only ascertain from this that there is not any money being put asside at this time. Although I hope I am wrong. We need a better stadium probably more than we need Premiership football.

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 26 Jan 14 3.57pm
Quote sydtheeagle at 26 Jan 2014 3.29pm Perhaps CPFC2010 should openly tell us their long-term plan. Instead of hiding behind "we're being responsible" which a). they're not and b). is neither here nor there at this point, perhaps they'd like to confirm the suspicion above or tell us, if that's not true, what IS going on. If the above is correct, I would not necessarily have a problem with it; I would simply appreciate being told. Then I would understand why they were running the club the way they are, particularly with regard to the present transfer window. But otherwise, if SP wants to behave like an idiot and not explain why he's doing nothing, then I for one and not going to swallow the party line. syd, you've gone full circle from 'Parish should shut up' to telling us what is going on and why we haven't signed any players. I think you're getting a state over something you know we either pay big on, only to find we've got it wrong in only 4 months time, or we go for the middle ground this week. Neither doing nothing or spending £50k on wages. Maybe taking a deep breath and waiting a few days for the window to draw closer than getting wound up over an ownership in control of possible eventualities and not spend and pray it might work out. COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 26 Jan 14 3.57pm

Quote sydtheeagle at 26 Jan 2014 3.29pm

Perhaps CPFC2010 should openly tell us their long-term plan. Instead of hiding behind "we're being responsible" which a). they're not and b). is neither here nor there at this point, perhaps they'd like to confirm the suspicion above or tell us, if that's not true, what IS going on. If the above is correct, I would not necessarily have a problem with it; I would simply appreciate being told. Then I would understand why they were running the club the way they are, particularly with regard to the present transfer window. But otherwise, if SP wants to behave like an idiot and not explain why he's doing nothing, then I for one and not going to swallow the party line.

syd, you've gone full circle from 'Parish should shut up' to telling us what is going on and why we haven't signed any players. I think you're getting a state over something you know we either pay big on, only to find we've got it wrong in only 4 months time, or we go for the middle ground this week. Neither doing nothing or spending £50k on wages. Maybe taking a deep breath and waiting a few days for the window to draw closer than getting wound up over an ownership in control of possible eventualities and not spend and pray it might work out.

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

BangholeLee West Wickham 26 Jan 14 3.59pm
Quote sydtheeagle at 26 Jan 2014 3.03pm Quote BangholeLee at 26 Jan 2014 2.58pm Jordan spent wildly? On what, certainly not players, do you mean Hotel bills, a s*** west end play & film, setting up his own magazine, Spanish property, or maybe the yacht. Jordan took more out of Palace, than he ever put. This says it all about how little some people understand about running a business; the assumption that wild spending can only be related to player expenditure. Jordan didn't blow a 50 million pound + fortune by investing it; shrewdly it doesn't matter what he blew his money on; it matters than he blew it. How did Jordan blow £50m, Shakespeare Sydney, he was in a 50/50 partnership & sold his mobile phone business for £73m = £36.5m each. Jordan never lost £50m of his own money at Palace,because he never had £50m. Don`t preach, because you always seem to come up short, with the Facts, Sydney.
Alert a moderator to this post

BangholeLee

West Wickham 26 Jan 14 3.59pm

Quote sydtheeagle at 26 Jan 2014 3.03pm

Quote BangholeLee at 26 Jan 2014 2.58pm

Jordan spent wildly?
On what, certainly not players, do you mean Hotel bills, a s*** west end play & film, setting up his own magazine, Spanish property, or maybe the yacht.
Jordan took more out of Palace, than he ever put.

This says it all about how little some people understand about running a business; the assumption that wild spending can only be related to player expenditure. Jordan didn't blow a 50 million pound + fortune by investing it; shrewdly it doesn't matter what he blew his money on; it matters than he blew it.

How did Jordan blow £50m, Shakespeare Sydney, he was in a 50/50 partnership & sold his mobile phone business for £73m = £36.5m each.
Jordan never lost £50m of his own money at Palace,because he never had £50m.
Don`t preach, because you always seem to come up short, with the Facts, Sydney.

Alert a moderator to this post

Gyro1780 Leatherhead, Surrey 26 Jan 14 4.01pm
Nothing more than the usual bulls**t written in this paper. I'm sure CPFC2010 & Moody etc are working hard to get us the signings we need. I think we'll see 3-4 coming in this week.
Alert a moderator to this post

Gyro1780

Leatherhead, Surrey 26 Jan 14 4.01pm

Nothing more than the usual bulls**t written in this paper. I'm sure CPFC2010 & Moody etc are working hard to get us the signings we need. I think we'll see 3-4 coming in this week.

Alert a moderator to this post

est1905 26 Jan 14 4.06pm
Quote BangholeLee at 26 Jan 2014 3.59pm Quote sydtheeagle at 26 Jan 2014 3.03pm Quote BangholeLee at 26 Jan 2014 2.58pm Jordan spent wildly? On what, certainly not players, do you mean Hotel bills, a s*** west end play & film, setting up his own magazine, Spanish property, or maybe the yacht. Jordan took more out of Palace, than he ever put. This says it all about how little some people understand about running a business; the assumption that wild spending can only be related to player expenditure. Jordan didn't blow a 50 million pound + fortune by investing it; shrewdly it doesn't matter what he blew his money on; it matters than he blew it. How did Jordan blow £50m, Shakespeare Sydney, he was in a 50/50 partnership & sold his mobile phone business for £73m = £36.5m each. Jordan never lost £50m of his own money at Palace,because he never had £50m. Don`t preach, because you always seem to come up short, with the Facts, Sydney. If we are to believe Simon Jordan's book he took a much larger cut from the sale of his mobile phone shop than his partner because he boosted the deal and put far more work into its outcome. According to Jordan this was agreed before the deal was completed. He probably did make around £50m out of that deal if his book claims are true. Saying that I would very much doubt he spent the entire £50m on Palace
Alert a moderator to this post

est1905

26 Jan 14 4.06pm

Quote BangholeLee at 26 Jan 2014 3.59pm

Quote sydtheeagle at 26 Jan 2014 3.03pm

Quote BangholeLee at 26 Jan 2014 2.58pm

If we are to believe Simon Jordan's book he took a much larger cut from the sale of his mobile phone shop than his partner because he boosted the deal and put far more work into its outcome. According to Jordan this was agreed before the deal was completed. He probably did make around £50m out of that deal if his book claims are true.
Saying that I would very much doubt he spent the entire £50m on Palace

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 26 Jan 14 4.13pm
Quote est1905 at 26 Jan 2014 3.32pm Quote Rudi Hedman at 26 Jan 2014 3.22pm Quote est1905 at 26 Jan 2014 3.16pm It's not just the Mirror running this story. At least three other major Sunday tabloids are running exactly the same story. People and the Sunday Sun to name two of them but I suppose people won't believe what they don't want to. Newspapers might exaggerate and sensationalise but it is not in their interests to print lies. Tends to not be good for business when the public stop buying your paper and you keep getting sued You cannot sue on an article like this. papers copy stories. Doesn't make the 1st article true because it's been copied by 2 more. It's an easy article to create on us if you wanted in short. nit picking if you don't mind me saying so. If it was complete lies of course CPFC2010 could take them to court. You cannot say damaging things about someone or their business if those claims are blatant lies. Blimey, this is naive. If you could sue over this article, the sports editors would be in court everyday, all day, that is why they don't hesitate printing a story that COULD be the case, because THERE IS logic in it. To sue in this instance, it must be proven that not only was a false statement published, but that it was done with actual malice. As there is no statement whatsoever, it's just a situation/relationship story and even less likely to go through court. The newspaper had to have known it was false but published it anyway, or should have known it was false. In this case, and plenty of other similar stories, that cannot be proven, and the courts wouldn't waste their time. They need to have shown disregard for the truth, or that that they didn't check, or they didn't care. Stories like this happen all the time, just like they do with transfer speculation. And what about 'xxxx marriage on the rocks', 'x can't stand x's drinking/ angry outbursts.' The red tops are full of gossip and whispers, it's not all factual. COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 26 Jan 14 4.13pm

Quote est1905 at 26 Jan 2014 3.32pm

Quote Rudi Hedman at 26 Jan 2014 3.22pm

Quote est1905 at 26 Jan 2014 3.16pm

It's not just the Mirror running this story. At least three other major Sunday tabloids are running exactly the same story. People and the Sunday Sun to name two of them but I suppose people won't believe what they don't want to. Newspapers might exaggerate and sensationalise but it is not in their interests to print lies. Tends to not be good for business when the public stop buying your paper and you keep getting sued

You cannot sue on an article like this. papers copy stories. Doesn't make the 1st article true because it's been copied by 2 more. It's an easy article to create on us if you wanted in short.

nit picking if you don't mind me saying so.
If it was complete lies of course CPFC2010 could take them to court. You cannot say damaging things about someone or their business if those claims are blatant lies.

Blimey, this is naive. If you could sue over this article, the sports editors would be in court everyday, all day, that is why they don't hesitate printing a story that COULD be the case, because THERE IS logic in it.

To sue in this instance, it must be proven that not only was a false statement published, but that it was done with actual malice. As there is no statement whatsoever, it's just a situation/relationship story and even less likely to go through court.

The newspaper had to have known it was false but published it anyway, or should have known it was false. In this case, and plenty of other similar stories, that cannot be proven, and the courts wouldn't waste their time. They need to have shown disregard for the truth, or that that they didn't check, or they didn't care.

Stories like this happen all the time, just like they do with transfer speculation. And what about 'xxxx marriage on the rocks', 'x can't stand x's drinking/ angry outbursts.' The red tops are full of gossip and whispers, it's not all factual.

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 14 of 29 < 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Rumour: Pulis To Quit In The Summer

Site Map

Sponsors