| matt clarke mate 20:57 - May 11 with 6467 views | textbackup |
decent int he....
what a fck up by us |  |
| |  |
| matt clarke mate on 21:07 - May 11 with 5721 views | Melford |
We did get Webster out of it though who is looking like a class act. Flogging him to Bristol City was the first nail in this season's coffin. |  |
| |
| matt clarke mate on 21:13 - May 11 with 5689 views | Keaneish |
His contract is up this summer. I wonder... |  |
| |
| matt clarke mate on 21:15 - May 11 with 5678 views | PrideOfTheEast |
| matt clarke mate on 21:13 - May 11 by Keaneish |
His contract is up this summer. I wonder... |
No it isn’t |  | | |
| matt clarke mate on 21:16 - May 11 with 5667 views | le2blue |
| matt clarke mate on 21:13 - May 11 by Keaneish |
His contract is up this summer. I wonder... |
Another year to run and interesting Leeds by all accounts. Such a shame we let him go. |  | | |
| matt clarke mate on 21:16 - May 11 with 5669 views | textbackup |
| matt clarke mate on 21:07 - May 11 by Melford |
We did get Webster out of it though who is looking like a class act. Flogging him to Bristol City was the first nail in this season's coffin. |
he knew from the off that PH and DD were gonna be a mess | |
| |
| matt clarke mate on 21:17 - May 11 with 5665 views | textbackup |
| matt clarke mate on 21:13 - May 11 by Keaneish |
His contract is up this summer. I wonder... |
if he doesn't go up with pompy he'll get snapped up by a high end champ team, if not lower end prem | |
| |
| matt clarke mate on 21:18 - May 11 with 5656 views | Keaneish |
| matt clarke mate on 21:16 - May 11 by le2blue |
Another year to run and interesting Leeds by all accounts. Such a shame we let him go. |
Ah. Thought they said it was up. | |
| |
| matt clarke mate on 22:16 - May 11 with 5441 views | 3_5_2 |
| matt clarke mate on 21:07 - May 11 by Melford |
We did get Webster out of it though who is looking like a class act. Flogging him to Bristol City was the first nail in this season's coffin. |
so a double feck up by us then? |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| matt clarke mate on 23:13 - May 11 with 5324 views | Terry_Nutkins |
Don't get this sort of post to be honest. Misrepresentation of the truth. Webster is by a country mile the better of the two and we basically got a brilliant deal on him by using Clarke as part of the deal. A million times over it was the right thing to do. more annoying was the selling of Webster. This is actually slating a tough decision but the right decision deal to make. Portsmouth were not for selling without Clarke in the deal who had been on loan! | |
| |
| matt clarke mate on 01:02 - May 12 with 5199 views | pointofblue |
If you want to criticise a sale of a centre back by McCarthy then Smith might be a better starting point than Clarke, considering we got Webster in return for the latter. | |
| |
| matt clarke mate on 01:15 - May 12 with 5184 views | MrTown |
Hard to say that because we got Webster in return.
The true problem was selling Webster for such a minimal fee. |  |
| |
| matt clarke mate on 01:30 - May 12 with 5174 views | catch74 |
| matt clarke mate on 01:15 - May 12 by MrTown |
Hard to say that because we got Webster in return.
The true problem was selling Webster for such a minimal fee. |
Was Pitman included in the deal? Love to know the figures involved. I just wonder if an extra season loan would have been a more sensible option than selling (hindsight and all that. )
With the stance we’re taking now, promoting our youth, it seems a real shame he left. |  |
| |
| matt clarke mate on 07:03 - May 12 with 5051 views | Pendejo |
| matt clarke mate on 01:02 - May 12 by pointofblue |
If you want to criticise a sale of a centre back by McCarthy then Smith might be a better starting point than Clarke, considering we got Webster in return for the latter. |
Especially as Smith was a threat in opposition box. |  |
| |
| matt clarke mate on 08:09 - May 12 with 4942 views | Herbivore |
| matt clarke mate on 01:15 - May 12 by MrTown |
Hard to say that because we got Webster in return.
The true problem was selling Webster for such a minimal fee. |
With add ons the Webster deal is £8m+, I wouldn't call that a small fee.
On the OP, when we let Clarke go he was behind Smith and Berra as a left-sided CB. We needed Webster more. We've got a 20% sell on so there's every chance we'll get upwards of another £1m for him if Pompey don't go up. [Post edited 12 May 2019 12:23]
|  |
| |
| matt clarke mate on 10:26 - May 12 with 4761 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| matt clarke mate on 01:30 - May 12 by catch74 |
Was Pitman included in the deal? Love to know the figures involved. I just wonder if an extra season loan would have been a more sensible option than selling (hindsight and all that. )
With the stance we’re taking now, promoting our youth, it seems a real shame he left. |
Pitman was released on a free by Mick, allegedly to free up wages.
Wrongly in my opinion. |  |
| |
| matt clarke mate on 10:33 - May 12 with 4743 views | cbower |
| matt clarke mate on 10:26 - May 12 by Cheltenham_Blue |
Pitman was released on a free by Mick, allegedly to free up wages.
Wrongly in my opinion. |
Error to sell Clarke then let Webster go so soon for a relatively low fee. As for Pitman, imo he was a bad egg who sulked and played for Brett Pitman. Our problem was, and still is, we let players go and patently fail to replace them with quality. See Toto for Webster. |  |
| |
| matt clarke mate on 12:25 - May 12 with 4643 views | Herbivore |
| matt clarke mate on 10:33 - May 12 by cbower |
Error to sell Clarke then let Webster go so soon for a relatively low fee. As for Pitman, imo he was a bad egg who sulked and played for Brett Pitman. Our problem was, and still is, we let players go and patently fail to replace them with quality. See Toto for Webster. |
Webster was with us for 2 years after Clarke left as part of the deal to sign him. We could well end up with over £8m for Webster, I wouldn't call that a relatively small fee. It could be a lot more too if Brizzle sell him for good money as I'm sure we'll have a sell on too. | |
| |
| matt clarke mate on 13:25 - May 12 with 4586 views | cbower |
| matt clarke mate on 12:25 - May 12 by Herbivore |
Webster was with us for 2 years after Clarke left as part of the deal to sign him. We could well end up with over £8m for Webster, I wouldn't call that a relatively small fee. It could be a lot more too if Brizzle sell him for good money as I'm sure we'll have a sell on too. |
If that fee is fact, then I stand corrected in that regard. However, by the time of the sale, Smith was also long gone and we suddenly became wafer thin at cb. We only limped to the end of that season with the not inconsiderable help of Carter-Vickers. The timing was poor, the replacement took an eternity and is of dubious quality. The prospect of up to 8 million added to Waghorn and Garner sales somehow makes our purchases last summer look even poorer ( if that is possible!!!) Tearing out the spine of a team is simply non-sensical. Especially when you intend to replace it with untried at championship level journeymen. | |
| |
| matt clarke mate on 13:30 - May 12 with 4576 views | Herbivore |
| matt clarke mate on 13:25 - May 12 by cbower |
If that fee is fact, then I stand corrected in that regard. However, by the time of the sale, Smith was also long gone and we suddenly became wafer thin at cb. We only limped to the end of that season with the not inconsiderable help of Carter-Vickers. The timing was poor, the replacement took an eternity and is of dubious quality. The prospect of up to 8 million added to Waghorn and Garner sales somehow makes our purchases last summer look even poorer ( if that is possible!!!) Tearing out the spine of a team is simply non-sensical. Especially when you intend to replace it with untried at championship level journeymen. |
Not getting a decent replacement for Webster in quickly was a big mistake. I'm not sure letting him go was though, both seasons with us he had recurring injury problems that meant he only played about half the time and looked hit and miss when he did play. We got £3.5m up front and have received more, if he continues to progress at Brizzle and we get all the add ons £8m is good value no doubt. If they sell him we'll be due a cut too. I don't think selling him was bad business, not replacing him whilst going on to sell other established players was the issue. | |
| |
| matt clarke mate on 14:11 - May 12 with 4527 views | cbower |
| matt clarke mate on 13:30 - May 12 by Herbivore |
Not getting a decent replacement for Webster in quickly was a big mistake. I'm not sure letting him go was though, both seasons with us he had recurring injury problems that meant he only played about half the time and looked hit and miss when he did play. We got £3.5m up front and have received more, if he continues to progress at Brizzle and we get all the add ons £8m is good value no doubt. If they sell him we'll be due a cut too. I don't think selling him was bad business, not replacing him whilst going on to sell other established players was the issue. |
The fact Webster spent alot of time on the treatment table with us yet seems to have been fine all season at Brizzle also throws open the long-standing questions marks about the quality of our medical team though, doesn't it? | |
| |
| matt clarke mate on 14:17 - May 12 with 4513 views | Herbivore |
| matt clarke mate on 14:11 - May 12 by cbower |
The fact Webster spent alot of time on the treatment table with us yet seems to have been fine all season at Brizzle also throws open the long-standing questions marks about the quality of our medical team though, doesn't it? |
Possibly, or it could just be luck. He had recurring problems with his ankle here, maybe we'd finally got it sorted just as we sold him. | |
| |
| matt clarke mate on 21:37 - May 12 with 4359 views | The_Last_Baron |
Clarke is the best defender in League One. We should never have sold him. Another bad decision. |  |
| |
| matt clarke mate on 21:51 - May 12 with 4334 views | J2BLUE |
| matt clarke mate on 08:09 - May 12 by Herbivore |
With add ons the Webster deal is £8m+, I wouldn't call that a small fee.
On the OP, when we let Clarke go he was behind Smith and Berra as a left-sided CB. We needed Webster more. We've got a 20% sell on so there's every chance we'll get upwards of another £1m for him if Pompey don't go up. [Post edited 12 May 2019 12:23]
|
Where is the 20% figure from? |  |
| |
| matt clarke mate on 22:18 - May 12 with 4298 views | Kieran_Knows |
| matt clarke mate on 21:51 - May 12 by J2BLUE |
Where is the 20% figure from? |
Phil. |  |
| |
| matt clarke mate on 00:57 - May 13 with 4189 views | textbackup |
| matt clarke mate on 23:13 - May 11 by Terry_Nutkins |
Don't get this sort of post to be honest. Misrepresentation of the truth. Webster is by a country mile the better of the two and we basically got a brilliant deal on him by using Clarke as part of the deal. A million times over it was the right thing to do. more annoying was the selling of Webster. This is actually slating a tough decision but the right decision deal to make. Portsmouth were not for selling without Clarke in the deal who had been on loan! |
yeah, I mean Webster played so much. really got the better end of deal.
I take all the other points, but still, berra was on way out, MM ditched TS at any chance he got, MW was the replacement id have rathered.
and as it is we now have neither of them, the money didn't get invested well, so I stand by my fck up point [Post edited 13 May 2019 1:01]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
