Jump to content

The New Raith Rovers Thread


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, JBJ said:

There is a future payment I believe but it’s comfortably accounted for in the Club accounts. This was not a distress sale. 

If you know something, come out with it, rather than asking obtuse questions.

To go back to an earlier point. It's not wild speculation to state a club might be finding money tight and decide to realise an asset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Well I think there’s a narrative out there that’s extremely far fetched. Does it dilute RR’s responsibility in this situation to encourage people to believe the player was offered rather than RR pursuing him?

He was not pursued that was made clear by our CEO to our major sponsor , of course given what you're implying, she may be a bigger liar than we already know

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

If you know something, come out with it, rather than asking obtuse questions.

To go back to an earlier point. It's not wild speculation to state a club might be finding money tight and decide to realise an asset.

It’s a very simplistic and not exactly insightful conclusion to reach. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SirJimmyofNic said:

He was not pursued that was made clear by our CEO to our major sponsor , of course given what you're implying, she may be a bigger liar than we already know

Always that possibility. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Well I think there’s a narrative out there that’s extremely far fetched. Does it dilute RR’s responsibility in this situation to encourage people to believe the player was offered rather than RR pursuing him?

 

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

It’s a very simplistic and not exactly insightful conclusion to reach. 

How does it dilute responsibility and who has suggested it does?

(I'd appreciate a Raith supporter taking this up, as it's getting really old already)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

 

How does it dilute responsibility and who has suggested it does?

(I'd appreciate a Raith supporter taking this up, as it's getting really old already)

I’m trying to establish a reason everyone seems to keen to believe that the player was not actively pursued by RR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SirJimmyofNic said:

I think if he knows anything thats at all concrete about this saga, he should spill the beans 

So are you conceding that what you all know and believe is not concrete? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Maybe Ms McDermid could introduce you to her literary agent. Surely an approach in December to the player or his employers would be illegal given it was out-with the January transfer window?

Well something leaked stating we were interested during that period which caused uproar. Whether we approached said player or Clyde at that point I don't know. Ultimately, if true that DG wanted to move on, Clyde would have found themselves in a similar situation we've found ourselves in in recent years i.e 'can't stand in his way', 'can't keep hold of a player who doesn't want to be here' etc. All we can go on is what one of our former directors have said in that Clyde contacted someone from our club offering us DG towards the end of the January transfer window. If it was the other way around (ie we've approached Clyde at the 11th hour) then no one, either at our end or Clyde's end, appears to be saying that through either not knowing or not wanting to divulge it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JBJ said:

I’m trying to establish a reason everyone seems to keen to believe that the player was not actively pursued by RR.

He was, no-one is saying anything different. Only that the CEO or a Director might have been reticent to admit it. They signed him! It can't have been involuntary.

If Clyde decided to sell, it makes sense to contact a club that might be interested. They probably called a few others. You can't keep track of every Director's conversations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SirJimmyofNic said:

I think if he knows anything thats at all concrete about this saga, he should spill the beans 

Arguing over who phoned who first seems to be a strange thing to get your knickers in a twist.

Club officials who all know each other have conversations shock!

It's not much of a headline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ribzanelli said:

A board member who resigned revealed that Clyde offered him to Raith. Up to you if you believe that but not sure what his motivations to lie would be, given that he resigned in protest at the signing.

 

Mr Clark? Be a right laugh if he expressed interest in the same player when he was Chair. That would be too far fetched..... wouldn’t it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd imagine it's quite common place for clubs to notify other clubs of when players are available. We brought in Sean Mackie on loan from Hibs because they sent out correspondence to every potential club who might be interested saying he was available and not in Maloney's plans. Clyde may well have contacted clubs to say Goodwillie had said he'd wanted a final crack at full time and that they were open to any bids. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

He was, no-one is saying anything different. Only that the CEO or a Director might have been reticent to admit it. They signed him! It can't have been involuntary.

If Clyde decided to sell, it makes sense to contact a club that might be interested. They probably called a few others. You can't keep track of every Director's conversations.

That’s an assumption that Clyde decided to sell their best player, and upset almost every Clyde supporter and that the club was not approached with a formal enquiry for the player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Broken Algorithms said:

I'd imagine it's quite common place for clubs to notify other clubs of when players are available. We brought in Sean Mackie on loan from Hibs because they sent out correspondence to every potential club who might be interested saying he was available and not in Maloney's plans. Clyde may well have contacted clubs to say Goodwillie had said he'd wanted a final crack at full time and that they were open to any bids. 

And they may well and mostly did not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

That’s an assumption that Clyde decided to sell their best player, and upset almost every Clyde supporter and that the club was not approached with a formal enquiry for the player.

I'll go back to my earlier point.

"We should sell Goodwillie...

But the supporters will hate us.

Well we could do with the money, he's injured and a depreciating asset..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sergeant Wilson said:

I'll go back to my earlier point.

"We should sell Goodwillie...

But the supporters will hate us.

Well we could do with the money, he's injured and a depreciating asset..."

It’s not a point, it’s a theory. 
Under the assumption that money is a problem at Clyde currently and that the top scorer in Scotland is depreciating in value so quickly that Clyde decide to offer him for sale to potential buyers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...