I don't think it should be allowed! It's out of order, we put most of the money into our clubs and we should where that money goes, i agree with you completely.
Palace fan in peace.
'Undisclosed fees' absolutely wind me up too. It is the fans money so the fans deserve to know.
P.S. My history teacher back in the 80's, Mr Priestley, was from Huddersfield. Double History on Friday afternoon always ended with 'Have a good w'end lads......... and c'moooooooon Huddersfield !'.
All the best for the new season
I reckon its to do with how little we want our opponents to know, if you go round saying how much you paid for a car people would know how affluent you are. Thats business. Town in my opinion have nothing to gain for telling joe public the costs of deals etc.
Totally agree 38, i don't have the same gripes as many with the current regime but from day one this cloak and dagger rubbish has wound me up.
As you suggest after only days earlier saying this player would not be sold for less than 7 figures and not low 7 figures, this probably saves some egg on the face.
I agree with u on this 38
Every club has the same problem, actually agree with you on this...
This Posh twerp must not have any friends or he has been bitten by the Town bug ?
Undisclosed transfer fees are usually to protect the selling club as to how little the player was actually sold for.The club selling usually stipulate that the fee be undisclosed to save face.Hope this doesn't mean Town have been shafted!!
Undisclosed could also mask how much is going to be used for replacements...that's how I've looked upon it anyway.
we talk the talk..
but!!!!
fed up with all the big talk anyway, its just led to big money fees and wages which have led us back to where we started..
i dont know if peltier has gone for much less than quoted but i dont have the best feeling about it...
in fact i havent had many good feelings about town for some time..
we do need dean to keep straight talking because lee clark and the others have been in football all their lives and they firmly believe all the bullsh-t that managers and players come out with to excuse being paid far too much for so little..
we also have executives who will hide behind any cover they can if things go t-ts up..
i dont think we wanted to sell,but once a player and his agent gets wind of a bit more money..they push for the move! no point in keeping him if he wants to go...and i agree too the fee must be very small for us to hide the fact!! the rumour has come to fruition and i suspect the others will go too!!
We must be embarrassed to not announce the selling fee.
Where is the imposter?
Fair enough to take the name but to blatantly pass himself off as me is downright fraud, especially ax he only posted humorless drivel
comment by ARTERRIER (U6175)
posted 35 minutes ago
Undisclosed transfer fees are usually to protect the selling club as to how little the player was actually sold for.
======================
Not necessarily, a selling club may not want the World and their dogs to know exactly what kind of money that they have in the kitty to spend.
At the end of the day Leicester aren't exactly rolling in it are they. After being in Admin once, they have only recently just avoided a second dose of it.
They are considerably richer than us, They also have Svens pulling power and the worldwide exposure he strangely seems to have, Peltier will have made it clear he wanted to go, 750 with add ons aint bad.
"Leicester aren't exactly rolling in it are they"
We're owned by a consortium who are rumoured, combined, to be worth a few billion, although we only know who a handful of the members are so it's difficult to really substantiate; one of them is a billionare in his own right though. We're not Chelsea for sure, but we're hardly Pompey either.
As for the undisclosed fee, it annoys me too but is probably sensible for both sides. The rumours are that it consisted of an upfront payment of 750k - a million, rising to around 1.5 million with add-ons. They may well just be guesswork, but that sounds like about the right sort of figure. Either way, we're glad to have Lee on board and your fans have been pretty gracious about the transfer - I thought you were extremely unlucky not to get promoted last year so good luck for next season!
Don't make me laugh.
QPR are owned by one of the richest consortiums and they haven't exactly splashed the cash have they.
I suppose that by signing Lee Peltier, then they've put their cards on the table. Wehey!
Not really up-to-date with the football world, are you cryer(sic)?
Good player at our level and can now test himself at a higher level. He's gone, so now we move on! We have Hunt and Woods who can play in that position, so clubs wont be bulking their price up for a Full Back if we are not looking for one.
posted 40 minutes ago
Not really up-to-date with the football world, are you cryer(sic)?
============================
Another 'little clever Richard'.
Yep, I suppose I know absolutely f**k-all about football but the Ecclestone/Briatore/Mittal consortium rolls sweetly off the tongue.
Mmmm, the spit-roast is smelling good.
You took your time looking it up,
I have just seen that L**ds have agreed a fee with an unknown club for a goal-keeper ! It couldnt be could it ???
They're buying Joe Lewis....mugs
posted 15 minutes ago
You took your time looking it up,
==================
Even my effing Labrador knows who owns QPR and she's only 6 months old.
But hey, what do you know........ you follow Peterborough.
Get your dog an account, we might get more sense out of it...
posted 21 minutes ago
I have just seen that L**ds have agreed a fee with an unknown club for a goal-keeper ! It couldnt be could it ???
=====================
It's an ex-Town keeper I think
Sign in if you want to comment
undisclosed fee????
Page 1 of 2
posted on 21/6/11
I don't think it should be allowed! It's out of order, we put most of the money into our clubs and we should where that money goes, i agree with you completely.
posted on 21/6/11
Palace fan in peace.
'Undisclosed fees' absolutely wind me up too. It is the fans money so the fans deserve to know.
P.S. My history teacher back in the 80's, Mr Priestley, was from Huddersfield. Double History on Friday afternoon always ended with 'Have a good w'end lads......... and c'moooooooon Huddersfield !'.
All the best for the new season
posted on 21/6/11
I reckon its to do with how little we want our opponents to know, if you go round saying how much you paid for a car people would know how affluent you are. Thats business. Town in my opinion have nothing to gain for telling joe public the costs of deals etc.
posted on 21/6/11
Totally agree 38, i don't have the same gripes as many with the current regime but from day one this cloak and dagger rubbish has wound me up.
As you suggest after only days earlier saying this player would not be sold for less than 7 figures and not low 7 figures, this probably saves some egg on the face.
posted on 21/6/11
I agree with u on this 38
posted on 21/6/11
Every club has the same problem, actually agree with you on this...
posted on 21/6/11
This Posh twerp must not have any friends or he has been bitten by the Town bug ?
posted on 21/6/11
Undisclosed transfer fees are usually to protect the selling club as to how little the player was actually sold for.The club selling usually stipulate that the fee be undisclosed to save face.Hope this doesn't mean Town have been shafted!!
posted on 21/6/11
Undisclosed could also mask how much is going to be used for replacements...that's how I've looked upon it anyway.
posted on 21/6/11
we talk the talk..
but!!!!
fed up with all the big talk anyway, its just led to big money fees and wages which have led us back to where we started..
i dont know if peltier has gone for much less than quoted but i dont have the best feeling about it...
in fact i havent had many good feelings about town for some time..
we do need dean to keep straight talking because lee clark and the others have been in football all their lives and they firmly believe all the bullsh-t that managers and players come out with to excuse being paid far too much for so little..
we also have executives who will hide behind any cover they can if things go t-ts up..
posted on 21/6/11
i dont think we wanted to sell,but once a player and his agent gets wind of a bit more money..they push for the move! no point in keeping him if he wants to go...and i agree too the fee must be very small for us to hide the fact!! the rumour has come to fruition and i suspect the others will go too!!
posted on 21/6/11
We must be embarrassed to not announce the selling fee.
Where is the imposter?
Fair enough to take the name but to blatantly pass himself off as me is downright fraud, especially ax he only posted humorless drivel
posted on 21/6/11
comment by ARTERRIER (U6175)
posted 35 minutes ago
Undisclosed transfer fees are usually to protect the selling club as to how little the player was actually sold for.
======================
Not necessarily, a selling club may not want the World and their dogs to know exactly what kind of money that they have in the kitty to spend.
At the end of the day Leicester aren't exactly rolling in it are they. After being in Admin once, they have only recently just avoided a second dose of it.
posted on 21/6/11
They are considerably richer than us, They also have Svens pulling power and the worldwide exposure he strangely seems to have, Peltier will have made it clear he wanted to go, 750 with add ons aint bad.
posted on 21/6/11
"Leicester aren't exactly rolling in it are they"
We're owned by a consortium who are rumoured, combined, to be worth a few billion, although we only know who a handful of the members are so it's difficult to really substantiate; one of them is a billionare in his own right though. We're not Chelsea for sure, but we're hardly Pompey either.
As for the undisclosed fee, it annoys me too but is probably sensible for both sides. The rumours are that it consisted of an upfront payment of 750k - a million, rising to around 1.5 million with add-ons. They may well just be guesswork, but that sounds like about the right sort of figure. Either way, we're glad to have Lee on board and your fans have been pretty gracious about the transfer - I thought you were extremely unlucky not to get promoted last year so good luck for next season!
posted on 21/6/11
Don't make me laugh.
QPR are owned by one of the richest consortiums and they haven't exactly splashed the cash have they.
I suppose that by signing Lee Peltier, then they've put their cards on the table. Wehey!
posted on 21/6/11
Not really up-to-date with the football world, are you cryer(sic)?
posted on 21/6/11
Good player at our level and can now test himself at a higher level. He's gone, so now we move on! We have Hunt and Woods who can play in that position, so clubs wont be bulking their price up for a Full Back if we are not looking for one.
posted on 21/6/11
posted 40 minutes ago
Not really up-to-date with the football world, are you cryer(sic)?
============================
Another 'little clever Richard'.
Yep, I suppose I know absolutely f**k-all about football but the Ecclestone/Briatore/Mittal consortium rolls sweetly off the tongue.
Mmmm, the spit-roast is smelling good.
posted on 21/6/11
You took your time looking it up,
posted on 21/6/11
I have just seen that L**ds have agreed a fee with an unknown club for a goal-keeper ! It couldnt be could it ???
posted on 21/6/11
They're buying Joe Lewis....mugs
posted on 21/6/11
posted 15 minutes ago
You took your time looking it up,
==================
Even my effing Labrador knows who owns QPR and she's only 6 months old.
But hey, what do you know........ you follow Peterborough.
posted on 21/6/11
Get your dog an account, we might get more sense out of it...
posted on 21/6/11
posted 21 minutes ago
I have just seen that L**ds have agreed a fee with an unknown club for a goal-keeper ! It couldnt be could it ???
=====================
It's an ex-Town keeper I think
Page 1 of 2