Should I stay of should I go

[hgatenasty]

8 only.

[WTF11]

8 only.

"8 only"? sounds like a film title (bit like 12 Strong, or 6 Underground (both v good films, both very different!)

[whitestomper45]

You say you haven't suggested Phil Hay is to be taken seriously when conjecturing, who am I to argue with you. Fact is, many others did when I questioned the veracity of some of the things he has reported on in the past, but no matter

The article isn't vague at all, it states quite categorically that;

"The excerpt from the article in The Athletic reads:

“The better news is that Leeds are protected by significant clauses inserted into every player’s contract, which will see wages fall by a minimum of 50 per cent and maximum of 60 per cent in the event of relegation. This would mitigate the financial damage.”

Now that could be correct, or not, but if it is, I suspect very few of those playing in the 1st team would be happy to stay and take such a cut (would you take a 50% pay cut, just to stay where you were (and not at the wages they get!))?)

You're absolutely right, all this is conjecture and debate, but as we don't yet know our fate, it fills the time (a bit), although my comments about the returning loanees do have some substance. Shackletons agent as I mentioned in another post has said he thinks a move away from LUFC would benefit the player, Drameh has made no secret of his disastisfaction with his current situation, Hjelde and Gelhardt have both been "mentioned in dispatches" by the clubs they were loaned to regarding their desire to get both players back.

Not saying all the young players would go, but what trust would you put in the current basket case that is LUFC, and how much faith that any new owner can fix it, presuming a new owner emerges (and how long would it take)?

Just paying attention that chap everyone (you included) said I should pay attention to.

https://www.theleedspress.com/leeds-...legated-35460/

Of course, he could be wrong (given our dear departed DoFs head for negotiations, who knows) but it would have been sensible, wouldn't it?

And anyway, those who have played 1st team football and done any good (and I include Meslier, Wober and Gnonto in that number), it's not that that will lead them to decide to go, its what the club will be like and the uncertainty about that that I believe will turn their heads, the salary reduction (if true) would be further disincentive.

Btw, promotion, with what we have left, and with a whole new club structure to accommodate whilst playing in the hardest league to get out of, you been taking the same stuff Hopey has.

I read the article link you put up in the opening paragraph it says … most…which is vague in describing exactly which players are affected…meaning that those it doesn’t apply to are the few = our best or higher paid…

[WTF11]

I read the article link you put up in the opening paragraph it says … most…which is vague in describing exactly which players are affected…meaning that those it doesn’t apply to are the few = our best or higher paid…

You should be a politician. Select the bits from an article and it's preamble that suits your argument, and keep quoting/referring to them ad nauseam. The article, as opposed to the preamble, is perfectly clear and explicit, but hey, don't you let that distract you from arguing black is white if it relates to a post from me, knock yourself out.

For sake or certainty, the ARTICLE says;

"The excerpt from the article in The Athletic reads:

“The better news is that Leeds are protected by significant clauses inserted into every player’s contract, which will see wages fall by a minimum of 50 per cent and maximum of 60 per cent in the event of relegation. This would mitigate the financial damage.”

Every player, got that pumpkin? I have absolutely no need to insult you.

[hopelesslyoptimistic]

You should be a politician. Select the bits from an article and it's preamble that suits your argument, and keep quoting/referring to them ad nauseam. The article, as opposed to the preamble, is perfectly clear and explicit, but hey, don't you let that distract you from arguing black is white if it relates to a post from me, knock yourself out.

For sake or certainty, the ARTICLE says;

"The excerpt from the article in The Athletic reads:

“The better news is that Leeds are protected by significant clauses inserted into every player’s contract, which will see wages fall by a minimum of 50 per cent and maximum of 60 per cent in the event of relegation. This would mitigate the financial damage.”

Every player, got that pumpkin? I have absolutely no need to insult you.

Having protested about Bambi taking flak why do you then insult other posters if they disagree with you?

Seems a tad unnecessary if only a little too predictable - hey ho.

[WTF11]

Having protested about Bambi taking flak why do you then insult other posters if they disagree with you?

Seems a tad unnecessary if only a little too predictable - hey ho.

Not quite sure what the reference to Bamford relates to, so Ill leave that alone, but......

What amongst my responses to WS could be regarded as an insult? I have pointed out the pertinent parts of the article that I provided a link to, which were comprehensive, specific and in no way lacking is specificity, whereas WS has consistently sought to select a single word from a single sentence, not from the Phil Hay article in the Athletic, but in the web post, in order to justify his reference to "vagueness", and to do so based not on any rational argument regarding the subject matter, but simply because, not for the first time, he seeks to take issue with any post I provide, no matter what the basis nor the subject. That isn't an insult on my part, it's fact, look back over the last decade for his responses to my posts should you doubt that.

And as for the assertion that I would insult anyone because they disagree with me, would you care to point out from the WS responses where he "disagrees with me" on the points regarding salary reduction, which was the pertinent point in my post? His beef appears to be regarding to whom the salary reduction would apply, which was never a matter of debate in my original post, as I quoted the Phil Hay Article quite deliberately in regard to the scope who any player salary reduction would apply to, and its degree, and have continued to stand by that definition.

And as for being predictable, maybe you should have a look in the mirror occasionally.

[hopelesslyoptimistic]

Post factual cognitive dissonance at work again ….

[whitestomper45]

You should be a politician. Select the bits from an article and it's preamble that suits your argument, and keep quoting/referring to them ad nauseam. The article, as opposed to the preamble, is perfectly clear and explicit, but hey, don't you let that distract you from arguing black is white if it relates to a post from me, knock yourself out.

For sake or certainty, the ARTICLE says;

"The excerpt from the article in The Athletic reads:

“The better news is that Leeds are protected by significant clauses inserted into every player’s contract, which will see wages fall by a minimum of 50 per cent and maximum of 60 per cent in the event of relegation. This would mitigate the financial damage.”

Every player, got that pumpkin? I have absolutely no need to insult you.

Thanks Hopey, but his insults always come quickly in any "discussion" of different views, at the same time he posts stuff about how right he is on everything and lately feels the need to comment on other social commentators re players/club... he'll probably threaten to sulk off again ... hmmm anyway WTF, I'm being pedantic with you.... The link you posted up... was to the Leedspress.com summation on an Athletic piece. The Leedspress guy mentions "some".
If you wanted me to comment on the actual Athletic piece (waits for some deflection) then you should have posted a direct link to the actual piece in The Athletic, no need for 3rd party references...
If I want to reference the Phil Hay piece its:

https://theathletic.com/4495811/2023...-inside-story/

I've also read the Athletic write up... have you?