Guest Flying Hippo Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 (edited) Maybe Smith thinks that Lee offered more to the team on a regular basis than Novo (and he would be on the money)? Maybe at the time of Novo going we were FAR worse off than we are now, and now that the purse strings are a little less tight we can start looking at better deals for guys? Does Tommy Smith at �£900,000 offer more value than Novo though? Whatever the reason, Bain has totally contradicted himself and any respect i had for his "honesty" when he spoke out about Novo and Thomson's departures is now firmly gone "can't offer contracts" - why is McCulloch getting one? "fans don't want to see Novo in 2 years time" - do they want to see McCulloch? Unless this is followed by swift new deals for Papac and Miller, it strikes as nothing more than a publicity stunt Edited August 12, 2010 by Flying Hippo 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stimpy 0 Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 So, has he taken a pay-cut then? He'd be the type to play on less money knowing he's already a millionaire! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Northampton_loyalist Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Does Tommy Smith at �£900,000 offer more value than Novo though? Whatever the reason, Bain has totally contradicted himself and any respect i had for his "honesty" when he spoke out about Novo and Thomson's departures is now firmly gone "can't offer contracts" - why is McCulloch getting one? "fans don't want to see Novo in 2 years time" - do they want to see McCulloch? Unless this is followed by swift new deals for Papac and Miller, it strikes as nothing more than a publicity stunt Firstly, read the article (bit in bold has a clue somewhere in it) the 'cant offer contracts' comments came on the 8th July. Since then we have sold Thommo for �£2 million, sold Wilson for �£5 million, of which half or more is up front and recieved �£3 million from CL scum results. We are significantly better off. Were you expecting us to never offer anyone a new deal? Things have improved significantly on the financial front since that statement so it stands to reason we can do things now that we couldnt before the extra money came in. Novo scored a rake of important goals but his contribution was best described as patchy, and at worst poor. We have plenty of cover up front and not so much in the middle of the park. tommy Smith? I dont know. My hunch is that he would offer more over a season than Novo, but as I have only seen 10 or so games he has played in, I cant say that with any authority. This all comes from a guy that named this wee bugger 'Nacho' 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flying Hippo Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 McCulloch claiming that we're in the process of sorting out new deals isn't what i want to hear. Actions speak louder. Only a fortnight ago Kenny Miller was saying he might have to leave for the sake of his career and now we have an older and less important player being signed up til he's 35? As for Novo; last season was his second worst in six seasons and it was in some senses the right time for him to move on. But we attempted to keep him and offered him a one year deal. Why couldn't it have been two? He's a year younger than McCulloch and a lot more agile a player so surely age can't be the reason? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Northampton_loyalist Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 McCulloch claiming that we're in the process of sorting out new deals isn't what i want to hear. Actions speak louder. Only a fortnight ago Kenny Miller was saying he might have to leave for the sake of his career and now we have an older and less important player being signed up til he's 35? As for Novo; last season was his second worst in six seasons and it was in some senses the right time for him to move on. But we attempted to keep him and offered him a one year deal. Why couldn't it have been two? He's a year younger than McCulloch and a lot more agile a player so surely age can't be the reason? What do you want? It is said publically that we are offering guys deals. It is nobody bar the players 'fault' if they have not been signed yet. McCulloch would not have said the club was working on the deals because the players (not the clubs) would contradict it the next time a journo is near. Word is, and no idea how true.that Miller has been offered and turned down a deal within the last fortnight. How is it Lee's fault that he bot the hand off the club? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,511 Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Davy Weir has been signed until he is 42. As long as you are fit and in a defensive roll that is possible. For Lee to be signed as an attacking player would be like signing James Beattie. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flying Hippo Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 What do you want? It is said publically that we are offering guys deals. It is nobody bar the players 'fault' if they have not been signed yet. McCulloch would not have said the club was working on the deals because the players (not the clubs) would contradict it the next time a journo is near. Word is, and no idea how true.that Miller has been offered and turned down a deal within the last fortnight. How is it Lee's fault that he bot the hand off the club? I'm not blaming McCulloch for signing it. He must think all his Christmases have come at once, playing (at least) six seasons for Rangers. My main gripe is why Thomson "couldn't afford to be offered a new contract" but McCulloch could? And if it was all down to selling someone then why didn't we sell the 32 year old (who has attracted all these offers over the summer, allegedly) and keep the 25 year old? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Northampton_loyalist Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 I'm not blaming McCulloch for signing it. He must think all his Christmases have come at once, playing (at least) six seasons for Rangers. My main gripe is why Thomson "couldn't afford to be offered a new contract" but McCulloch could? And if it was all down to selling someone then why didn't we sell the 32 year old (who has attracted all these offers over the summer, allegedly) and keep the 25 year old? again, since thommo has gone we have brought in about 10 million quid. Things change. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flying Hippo Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 again, since thommo has gone we have brought in about 10 million quid. Things change. I'm sure we could've picked up �£2 million for Jigsaw given how in demand he allegedly was.... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Northampton_loyalist Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 I'm sure we could've picked up �£2 million for Jigsaw given how in demand he allegedly was.... He didnt want to go, indications are Thommo did. All that has happened is we have signed a good contributer on a longer deal. It wont be costing us any more money. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.