Hard to see any progress for the forseeable future

[Riseley]

Schards is so fed up with the current state of the club that he left before the end of play yesterday. I feel for the man.

[Schards#2]

The "old argument" of people not reading what I write is no less valid for being old. Off the top of my head, on this thread alone, Spacey said I had said we won't win an away game this season and Wycombe Royal has said I called Doyle a liar. Both comments are completely untrue.

You forgot to include the most obvious example of people posting without reading what you have said.

That would be yourself....

I'm surprised you don't realise how lack of knowledge of the contract is important, although not surprised that you adopt the usual approach of simply taking two positions and assuming there are no others possible.

The new contract could be structured in any number of ways that differ from his old one. There could be a release clause of £20 million that applies to Jan 31st with a doubling of wages on Feb 1st and a drop in the release clause to £1 million. If there was no release clause in the old deal and no wage rise then the new deal would make it much more likely that he stays.

If there was a release clause in the new contract but not in the old contract, why would that make him more likely to stay? Theoretically, we could turn down £20m on the old contract but not on the new. Therefore, that would actually make him less likely to stay.

[Wycombe Royal]

When Spacey starts majoring on spelling and Wycombe Royal suggests that basically saying someone is not lying is not the same as calling them a liar you have to conclude that they've basically lost the argument.

Wycombe, why not just admit you overstated things a bit instead of trying to wriggle out of it otherwise you look a bit daft frankly.

Oh, and Londinium, go and lie down mate.

Saying someone "basically said" something is not the same as saying they "actually said" it.

By putting the word basically in changes the context of what I was saying and thus to most people would mean that I "implied" that you said it.

Is it really that hard to understand? Even Spacey understood it (sorry Spacey I couldn't resist )

[SpaceCruiser]

What does "imply" mean, Schards?

[Wycombe Royal]

The "old argument" of people not reading what I write is no less valid for being old. Off the top of my head, on this thread alone, Spacey said I had said we won't win an away game this season and Wycombe Royal has said I called Doyle a liar. Both comments are completely untrue.

You forgot to include the most obvious example of people posting without reading what you have said.

That would be yourself....

I'm surprised you don't realise how lack of knowledge of the contract is important, although not surprised that you adopt the usual approach of simply taking two positions and assuming there are no others possible.

The new contract could be structured in any number of ways that differ from his old one. There could be a release clause of £20 million that applies to Jan 31st with a doubling of wages on Feb 1st and a drop in the release clause to £1 million. If there was no release clause in the old deal and no wage rise then the new deal would make it much more likely that he stays.

If there was a release clause in the new contract but not in the old contract, why would that make him more likely to stay? Theoretically, we could turn down £20m on the old contract but not on the new. Therefore, that would actually make him less likely to stay.

It's all about commitment and Doyle has said that in his interviews (obviously he welcomed the increase in his pay as well) - he WANTS to stay to see this season through and is now encouraging Hunt to do the same. I just don't get how you can't see that.

[Schards#2]

What does "imply" mean, Schards?

Something very different from "basically".

IIRC you eventually accepted that I hadn't said we wouldn't win an away game this season. Maybe Wycombe Royal will follow your example and accept that I didn't call Doyle a liar, basically or otherwise.

Somehow I doubt it though.

[Sun Tzu]

CAN'T YOU READ??? I said he would APOLOGISE at the END OF THE SEASON if he was proved wrong.

I can read.

I'm not sure why I'd need an apology, Schards is the one who is for ever demanding apologies.

I'm also not sure what the end of the season has to do with it. The comments were never made in the context of the end of the season.

If Schards has got himself in trouble as a result of not writing what he thought he wrote that is his fault, not those who have responded to what was actually written.

[SpaceCruiser]

What does "imply" mean, Schards?

Something very different from "basically".

IIRC you eventually accepted that I hadn't said we wouldn't win an away game this season. Maybe Wycombe Royal will follow your example and accept that I didn't call Doyle a liar, basically or otherwise.

Somehow I doubt it though.

I still think you implied that we wouldn't win away.

[Schards#2]

You forgot to include the most obvious example of people posting without reading what you have said.

That would be yourself....

I'm surprised you don't realise how lack of knowledge of the contract is important, although not surprised that you adopt the usual approach of simply taking two positions and assuming there are no others possible.

The new contract could be structured in any number of ways that differ from his old one. There could be a release clause of £20 million that applies to Jan 31st with a doubling of wages on Feb 1st and a drop in the release clause to £1 million. If there was no release clause in the old deal and no wage rise then the new deal would make it much more likely that he stays.

If there was a release clause in the new contract but not in the old contract, why would that make him more likely to stay? Theoretically, we could turn down £20m on the old contract but not on the new. Therefore, that would actually make him less likely to stay.

It's all about commitment and Doyle has said that in his interviews (obviously he welcomed the increase in his pay as well) - he WANTS to stay to see this season through and is now encouraging Hunt to do the same. I just don't get how you can't see that.

I do get it. What I don't get is why you think he thought any differently before signing the new contract or why you think I someone wants to treble his salary he won't be interested.

[Wycombe Royal]

Maybe Wycombe Royal will follow your example and accept that I didn't call Doyle a liar, basically or otherwise.

Somehow I doubt it though.

No I won't because it was implied in your comments, and I have provided numerous quotes and articles that suggest it HAS and WILL make more than "litlle or no" effect on him leaving.

Will you accept that?

Somehow I doubt it.

[Sun Tzu]

If there was a release clause in the new contract but not in the old contract, why would that make him more likely to stay? Theoretically, we could turn down £20m on the old contract but not on the new. Therefore, that would actually make him less likely to stay.

Becasue £20 million is well over what anyone would offer.

Therefore we go from a position of having clubs test our intentions (and Doyle's) with offers of 8,9 or 10 million to one where (realistically) no offers would be made. The new contract is a statement of intent, and unless you are of a pathologically argumentative nature it either reduces the chances that Doyle will leave or makes Doyle and the club look like idiots.

[sheshnu]

Schards, do you still think, with hindsight, that we should have got rid of Coppell in the summer and started afresh?

[Royal Lady]

CAN'T YOU READ??? I said he would APOLOGISE at the END OF THE SEASON if he was proved wrong.

I can read.

I'm not sure why I'd need an apology, Schards is the one who is for ever demanding apologies.

I'm also not sure what the end of the season has to do with it. The comments were never made in the context of the end of the season.

If Schards has got himself in trouble as a result of not writing what he thought he wrote that is his fault, not those who have responded to what was actually written.

I MEANT he would hold his hands up and admit he was wrong - maybe apologise was the wrong word! Quite clearly to me and I suspect some of the others who originally agreed with him, Schards was looking at the season as a whole - unless you can show me where he unequivocally stated that he only meant the first 3 months of the season or something!

[Schards#2]

Maybe Wycombe Royal will follow your example and accept that I didn't call Doyle a liar, basically or otherwise.

Somehow I doubt it though.

No I won't because it was implied in your comments, and I have provided numerous quotes and articles that suggest it HAS and WILL make more than "litlle or no" effect on him leaving.

Will you accept that?

Somehow I doubt it.

You clearly haven't, but if you don't have it in you to accept you got it wrong, it's a shame but there's nothing I can do to change that.

Oh and at Spacey

[Royal Lady]

And please see my post above the one you quoted Sun Tzu or whatever you're calling yourself these days, as I have tried to explain exactly what I believe Schards was getting at. As an aside, why DO you change your name every few months?

[Riseley]

I am certain a man brimful of integrity such as Schards will apologize in the fullness of time (if his brave forecast proves to be wildly off the mark). This will probably be early in the new year when he discovers who Coppell buys to replace Hunt the elder and Doyle.

[Royal Lady]

I am certain a man brimful of integrity such as Schards will apologize in the fullness of time (if his brave forecast proves to be wildly off the mark). This will probably be early in the new year when he discovers who Coppell buys to replace Hunt the elder and Doyle.

[SpaceCruiser]

I get the feeling that Schards doesn't understand the meaning of the word "imply".

[londinium]

I am certain a man brimful of integrity such as Schards will apologize in the fullness of time (if his brave forecast proves to be wildly off the mark). This will probably be early in the new year when he discovers who Coppell buys to replace Hunt the elder and Doyle.

Unlikely... he will probably change his timescale yet again from 'before a sea of change' to 'end of season' to '10 years down the line'

[Schards#2]

Schards, do you still think, with hindsight, that we should have got rid of Coppell in the summer and started afresh?

If he's going to leave in the summer, then possibly yes, in the long term that may have been better.

I don't know if he's going to leave in the summer but I believe he will.