• 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.

Jack Clarke

Tumbles76 said:
Trust me if it had have been acceptable it would have been signed…he genuinely wants to stay but like any player in his position they would expect a pay rise.
Click to expand...
Fine but "deemed a joke" and "acceptable" are quite a way apart. Even if it's not quite at the level he wants, that doesn't make it a "joke".

Just because something isn't signed immediately doesn't make the offer a "joke".
 

woodlebert said:
Fine but "deemed a joke" and "acceptable" are quite a way apart. Even if it's not quite at the level he wants, that doesn't make it a "joke".

Just because something isn't signed immediately doesn't make the offer a "joke".
Click to expand...
I agree but the “joke offer” isn’t my words it was something I was just relaying.
 
essex boy said:
Ala Luke Shaw who is treated differently due to the dearth of quality left backs. Clarke is a very good Championship player but some would argue is quite one dimensional at a higher level.

25m is good business. Plenty of wide forwards/wingers in the game atm
Click to expand...
But none anyone can mention of the quality of JC who would be willing to play at the Championship level.
 
jaraarrow said:
What’s the point of our current model if we are going to sell our star player for a measly 15 million ffs,coz that’s what it would be after spurs take their cut 🤨
Click to expand...
If it’s £15m plus add-ons then we’ll end up with less than what we paid for N’Dong and a couple of million more than we got for a 28 year old striker who had been injured for 9 months.
 
Father Jack Hackett said:
How is it weird? He’s proved nothing and yes, I agree Ipswich are a level above us and were last season. Getting 4 goals in 14 for a side finishing second isn’t anything whatsoever to be excited about.
Click to expand...
If we get money + a striker who is better than what we have, or at the very least gives us two options, why would we scoff at that?

For what it’s worth, my friend is a Wimbledon fan and reckons Al-Hamadi is a great player, leagues above them and was shocked we weren’t busting a gut to sign him as he was exactly what we needed last season, with the added bonus of he’s still developing.
 
PeteFTM said:
If we get money + a striker who is better than what we have, or at the very least gives us two options, why would we scoff at that?

For what it’s worth, my friend is a Wimbledon fan and reckons Al-Hamadi is a great player, leagues above them and was shocked we weren’t busting a gut to sign him as he was exactly what we needed last season, with the added bonus of he’s still developing.
Click to expand...
He may be better than what we have but has proved nothing to suggest he should be a loan makeweight in a cut-price deal for Clarke imo. I’d rather have the money
 
Father Jack Hackett said:
He may be better than what we have but has proved nothing to suggest he should be a loan makeweight in a cut-price deal for Clarke imo. I’d rather have the money
Click to expand...
That’s not how it works though, they will have a limit to what they can pay, the player is an extra incentive as he’s surplus to their requirements. Win win for both teams.
 
Father Jack Hackett said:
How is it weird? He’s proved nothing and yes, I agree Ipswich are a level above us and were last season. Getting 4 goals in 14 for a side finishing second isn’t anything whatsoever to be excited about.
Chris Rigg got 2 from 21, mainly from the bench, from midfield and in a shite side.
Click to expand...
He got 1.21 per 90
 
poisson said:
Nah. He got the parachute payments. He kept some land and the hotel. He wasn't as burnt as we're led to believe
Click to expand...

He didn't keep the parachute payments. Donald and co were just skint and used the parachute payments to purchase the club.

Do you honestly think he was just going to give it away?

Donald could've easily used his own money, but chose not to.
 
woodlebert said:
He got 1.21 per 90
Click to expand...
But that’s not what happened mate. He didn’t play 90 minutes because we wasn’t deemed good enough.
He was brought on to score goals towards the end of games and scored 4 goals in a very good side.
I know you don’t like the simple games to goals ratio.l but similarly, I don’t the goals to minutes as when he came on in games against Rotherham etc when the game was won, would be easier than starting a game against a team set-up to defend.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top