Vito to reading

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nelson! said:
That's very misleading. He didn't usurp anyone, the club moved Pantillimon on to make a profit and get rid of his wages. Mannone just happened to be next in line.

It took Pickford no time at all to dislodge him because he's shite.
Click to expand...
This...plus the fact that for a keeper he's got no backbone anarl...
 


I've been saying for a long time that Mannone wasn't good enough.

Goalkeepers need to be able to put mistakes out of their mind and move on quickly like Pickford did after the Southampton mistake. Vito seems to be haunted for months after a mistake and usually one bad game is followed by another and another.
 
"We’ve made it clear to Vito it was up to him what he wanted to do, he felt for his long-term security it was probably best to go." Simon Grayson

I think we've got this one wrng on 3 counts:

1. Don't leave it up to players to decide whether they are sold or not. He's the Club's asset. The Club should decide whether it accepts the offer from Reading, not the player.
2. The "long-term security" bit suggests that if we kept Vito, we wouldn't be extending his contract. So we would have foregone the opportunity to sell him for £2m and had to pay his wages for a year. That's at least £3m to have Vito in the squad this season. Why would we pay that? Sell or extend his contract so we can play him and sell him later. Don't keep him (if he wanted to stay) and give him away next summer.
3. Don't announce publicly before a player is sold that the player wants to leave. If the deal doesn't happen and he remains a SAFC player, his team mates and the fans are likely to resent him for it.
 
Sykes The Pop Man said:
"We’ve made it clear to Vito it was up to him what he wanted to do, he felt for his long-term security it was probably best to go." Simon Grayson

I think we've got this one wrng on 3 counts:

1. Don't leave it up to players to decide whether they are sold or not. He's the Club's asset. The Club should decide whether it accepts the offer from Reading, not the player.
2. The "long-term security" bit suggests that if we kept Vito, we wouldn't be extending his contract. So we would have foregone the opportunity to sell him for £2m and had to pay his wages for a year. That's at least £3m to have Vito in the squad this season. Why would we pay that? Sell or extend his contract so we can play him and sell him later. Don't keep him (if he wanted to stay) and give him away next summer.
3. Don't announce publicly before a player is sold that the player wants to leave. If the deal doesn't happen and he remains a SAFC player, his team mates and the fans are likely to resent him for it.
Click to expand...

Player wants to go, club likely want to lose his wages and not commit to longer term contract so taking £2 million is only real option there is imo. It was already public knowledge long before Grayson confirmed it last night.
 
Sykes The Pop Man said:
"We’ve made it clear to Vito it was up to him what he wanted to do, he felt for his long-term security it was probably best to go." Simon Grayson

I think we've got this one wrng on 3 counts:

1. Don't leave it up to players to decide whether they are sold or not. He's the Club's asset. The Club should decide whether it accepts the offer from Reading, not the player.
2. The "long-term security" bit suggests that if we kept Vito, we wouldn't be extending his contract. So we would have foregone the opportunity to sell him for £2m and had to pay his wages for a year. That's at least £3m to have Vito in the squad this season. Why would we pay that? Sell or extend his contract so we can play him and sell him later. Don't keep him (if he wanted to stay) and give him away next summer.
3. Don't announce publicly before a player is sold that the player wants to leave. If the deal doesn't happen and he remains a SAFC player, his team mates and the fans are likely to resent him for it.
Click to expand...

One: Manager speak. Could be a thousand different motives.
Two: Go back to one.
 
Sykes The Pop Man said:
"We’ve made it clear to Vito it was up to him what he wanted to do, he felt for his long-term security it was probably best to go." Simon Grayson

I think we've got this one wrng on 3 counts:

1. Don't leave it up to players to decide whether they are sold or not. He's the Club's asset. The Club should decide whether it accepts the offer from Reading, not the player.
2. The "long-term security" bit suggests that if we kept Vito, we wouldn't be extending his contract. So we would have foregone the opportunity to sell him for £2m and had to pay his wages for a year. That's at least £3m to have Vito in the squad this season. Why would we pay that? Sell or extend his contract so we can play him and sell him later. Don't keep him (if he wanted to stay) and give him away next summer.
3. Don't announce publicly before a player is sold that the player wants to leave. If the deal doesn't happen and he remains a SAFC player, his team mates and the fans are likely to resent him for it.
Click to expand...

Perhaps Grayson is being diplomatic - he can hardly say that he hopes Mannone goes because he's shite (might put off Reading and if it does fall through, Mannone would know what his manager thinks of him).
 
__howdy__ said:
Who is Alan Nixon?
Click to expand...

Brother of former President of the USA Richard. While channel hopping one night, Alan inadvertently stumbled across. CBS Sport channel showing a highlight package of the great escape season. Been a MLF ever since.
 
Gaz said:
Player wants to go, club likely want to lose his wages and not commit to longer term contract so taking £2 million is only real option there is imo. It was already public knowledge long before Grayson confirmed it last night.
Click to expand...

Taking the £2m isn't my gripe, it's leaving the decision to the player - and if he chose not to stay, not extending his contract and potentially allowing him to leave or free in a year.

I agree selling for £2m was te right decision, just made by the wrong person.
 
Sykes The Pop Man said:
Taking the £2m isn't my gripe, it's leaving the decision to the player - and if he chose not to stay, not extending his contract and potentially allowing him to leave or free in a year.

I agree selling for £2m was te right decision, just made by the wrong person.
Click to expand...

Its always up to the player if hes under contract :confused:
 
Rick O Shea said:
Perhaps Grayson is being diplomatic - he can hardly say that he hopes Mannone goes because he's shite (might put off Reading and if it does fall through, Mannone would know what his manager thinks of him).
Click to expand...

He doesn't have to say anything. Accept the offer and leave it to the player to leave or stay.

if he were to stay, I think he's worth a contract extension as he's a perfectly saleable asset who could leave for free next summer.

rentaghost said:
Its always up to the player if hes under contract :confused:
Click to expand...

It's up to the club whether to accept the offer. It's then up to the player whether to stay or go.

If we had no intention of extending his contract (ass perthe long-term security comment), I think we should have accepted the offer to protect our investment in him, then let the player make a decision. If he chose to stay, I think we should have extended his contract. We should do everything we can to prevent £2m players running their contracts down IMO.
 
Last edited:
Sykes The Pop Man said:
"We’ve made it clear to Vito it was up to him what he wanted to do, he felt for his long-term security it was probably best to go." Simon Grayson

I think we've got this one wrng on 3 counts:

1. Don't leave it up to players to decide whether they are sold or not. He's the Club's asset. The Club should decide whether it accepts the offer from Reading, not the player.
2. The "long-term security" bit suggests that if we kept Vito, we wouldn't be extending his contract. So we would have foregone the opportunity to sell him for £2m and had to pay his wages for a year. That's at least £3m to have Vito in the squad this season. Why would we pay that? Sell or extend his contract so we can play him and sell him later. Don't keep him (if he wanted to stay) and give him away next summer.
3. Don't announce publicly before a player is sold that the player wants to leave. If the deal doesn't happen and he remains a SAFC player, his team mates and the fans are likely to resent him for it.
Click to expand...

I think we've got this one wrng on 3 counts:

1. Don't leave it up to players to decide whether they are sold or not. He's the Club's asset. The Club should decide whether it accepts the offer from Reading, not the player.
2. The "long-term security" bit suggests that if we kept Vito, we wouldn't be extending his contract. So we would have foregone the opportunity to sell him for £2m and had to pay his wages for a year. That's at least £3m to have Vito in the squad this season. Why would we pay that? Sell or extend his contract so we can play him and sell him later. Don't keep him (if he wanted to stay) and give him away next summer.
3. Don't announce publicly before a player is sold that the player wants to leave. If the deal doesn't happen and he remains a SAFC player, his team mates and the fans are likely to resent him for it.[/QUOTE]

Just a nice way of saying please fuck off Vito. We can't afford you and need the money.
 
Don't Reading play out from the back? They'll love it when mannone gets the ball
 
Sykes The Pop Man said:
Taking the £2m isn't my gripe, it's leaving the decision to the player - and if he chose not to stay, not extending his contract and potentially allowing him to leave or free in a year.

I agree selling for £2m was te right decision, just made by the wrong person.
Click to expand...

I think the club made the decision, he was always likely to be sold imo. The manager can hardly say he's shite or we want rid of his wages
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top