The Dude 20,026 Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 Just now, laudrupno1 said: Your paper still posted it tart or up all you like,usual shit stirrers away back to sucking Hugh aff Aye, that's often how such stuff works. Outlet 1 has a story which they run with. Others then re-publish it and link back to the original. Not quite sure what is 'shit stirring' about it though. Did we think he was coming up here for buttons? Hugh who? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basrah Bear 2,981 Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 ive asked to be shot and put down if I ever get upset about the salary of any tarrier player. Totally obsessed with us these bottom feeders. jackunion and BridgeIsBlue 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandyinroyalblue 16,478 Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 130K a week and because of Tory cuts the guy is still having to use food banks. VOTE LABOUR. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKnight87 17,282 Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 Bull story. He was on 65k a week a Bournemouth. No way we are paying his full wage. chris182 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparkle 53,573 Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 40 minutes ago, The Dude said: The original report was in the Times. In fact, the report in the Record even links it back to the Times' story. 🤣 Folk looking to be upset by something. Pyoor big bad Record quoting a story run by an English paper https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/football-notebook-fa-change-of-heart-opens-wembleys-door-to-tyson-fury-2k80vcqlt What’s Tyson Fury got to do with it? Is he paying Defoe’s wages? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 15 minutes ago, BlueKnight87 said: Bull story. He was on 65k a week a Bournemouth. No way we are paying his full wage. Depends who you believe. When he joined Bournemouth his wage was reported at 130k https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/defoe-joins-bournemouth-85vjk9pzc Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 3 minutes ago, Sparkle said: What’s Tyson Fury got to do with it? Is he paying Defoe’s wages? Aye. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFCRobertson 11,778 Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 1 hour ago, Inigo said: Pretty sure I saw someone say his FULL wage at Bournemouth was 65k. Paper has either made an arse of it or is purposely misleading. Wouldn’t put it past them, gutter rags doing anything to sell prints/get clicks chris182 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BridgeIsBlue 66,606 Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 See if this were true, what's the ploblem with it? We made a fortune from the European run. 1690tamRFC and The Dude 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 Just now, BridgeIsBlue said: See if this were true, what's the ploblem with it? We made a fortune from the European run. Cause it'll somehow unsettle our players apparently. No idea how, but we've to be dead angry about it. 😡😂 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BridgeIsBlue 66,606 Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 1 minute ago, The Dude said: Cause it'll somehow unsettle our players apparently. No idea how, but we've to be dead angry about it. 😡😂 I don't believe for a minute that we're paying Defoe £65k a week when we refused to pay Skrtel that in the summer. IIRC we made something like £14-15m from Europe, so the money's there. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeparateEntityMyArse 53,715 Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 Rebel appear to have pulled their online article.. "Sorry...We can't find the page you requested The file could not be found for a number of reasons such as the file being moved or deleted. Please check your spelling and if you still can't get to the right page try heading to the homepage for a look around. If you still have problems, try contacting usand we'll do what we can to help you. Click here to get back to where you came from." Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malvern 11,329 Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 8 minutes ago, BridgeIsBlue said: See if this were true, what's the ploblem with it? We made a fortune from the European run. Plus we will be in the champs league next year. BridgeIsBlue 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 1 minute ago, BridgeIsBlue said: I don't believe for a minute that we're paying Defoe £65k a week when we refused to pay Skrtel that in the summer. IIRC we made something like £14-15m from Europe, so the money's there. I wouldn't think we are either, although I'd be pretty confident in saying we're paying him more than we're paying any other player. I'm not sure there was really ever anything to the Skrtel stuff other than his agent whoring him about. Read something last week that says we were going to sign him this month but have now decided to wait until the summer. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wullyRFC 5,230 Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 We're paying the full £1M per goal bomus hes on Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wullyRFC 5,230 Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 Cash in hand Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 2 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said: Rebel appear to have pulled their online article.. Likely because it's linked to a paywall article. Shouldn't link to something that's behind a paywall in a story. The reader can't then verify the claim in the original article without a subscription. I could claim that an article say anything behind the paywall and unless you're a sub then you'll never know the odds. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottyarf37 963 Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 We are "minted" again Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeparateEntityMyArse 53,715 Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 5 minutes ago, The Dude said: Likely because it's linked to a paywall article. Shouldn't link to something that's behind a paywall in a story. The reader can't then verify the claim in the original article without a subscription. I could claim that an article say anything behind the paywall and unless you're a sub then you'll never know the odds. Perhaps shouldn't have posted the article in the first place then if they can't produce the link to source access. Can't even get lazy journalism right. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 Just now, SeparateEntityMyArse said: Perhaps shouldn't have posted the article in the first place then if they can't produce the link to source access. Can't even get lazy journalism right. The can link to it but the reader accessing it would depend on the subbing to the Times. Personally I'd have screengrabbed the relevant section (like I have earlier in the thread) while also linking directly to it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeparateEntityMyArse 53,715 Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 5 minutes ago, The Dude said: The can link to it but the reader accessing it would depend on the subbing to the Times. Personally I'd have screengrabbed the relevant section (like I have earlier in the thread) while also linking directly to it. The screen grabbed article shows no source. The rebel article appears to have the Times article as the source. Not sure now as it's been pulled. Others are regurgitating the same shite all over the place and it'll soon be taken as fact with.... no apparent source. Shower of pricks masquerading under the banner of journalism the lot of them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
backup 4,724 Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 Times article by Matt Hughes, Deputy Football Correspondent, fluff piece. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoopsLaud 4,186 Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 Worth every penny, nothing to moan about. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted January 19, 2019 Share Posted January 19, 2019 20 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said: The screen grabbed article shows no source. The rebel article appears to have the Times article as the source. Not sure now as it's been pulled. Others are regurgitating the same shite all over the place and it'll soon be taken as fact with.... no apparent source. Shower of pricks masquerading under the banner of journalism the lot of them. It doesn't need to show the source in the image if you're also linking to it. Most stories don't have 'apparent' sources since journalists are under no obligation to publicly disclose their sources and are even protected legally from doing so. I've had rows with people at clubs before over who was the source for a story. 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.