• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Gordon

  • Thread starter Deleted member 4054
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Quillips said:
There have been rumours of 1m owed.

Yet just a few weeks back safc.com published an article saying he'd played 94 games (I think it was, maybe 93, sorry can't remember the exact figure, but it was a few below 100).

If there was such a clause it would be likely to be triggered by the 100th game, so he would have a small handful of games he could play. Some evidence to corroborate this theory would be his inclusion on the bench.
Click to expand...

Sounds about right to me...
 

We owe Hearts a six figure sum when he plays 100 games for us.

It was in the papers when Hearts were in a bit of financial trouble because they had accounted for receiving that sum by this point. Of course quite a few people on here saw 'six figure sum' and deduced we owe £1million :lol:
 
Quillips said:
There have been rumours of 1m owed.

Yet just a few weeks back safc.com published an article saying he'd played 94 games (I think it was, maybe 93, sorry can't remember the exact figure, but it was a few below 100).

If there was such a clause it would be likely to be triggered by the 100th game, so he would have a small handful of games he could play. Some evidence to corroborate this theory would be his inclusion on the bench.
Click to expand...

These rumours were doing the rounds a couple of yeras ago if I remember rightly.

Quinn was quick to dispel them by writing in the programme that no such clauses were in place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top