Dyched wrote:How would he be screwing them over? I read this a lot about players. A footballer has every right to whatever he wants. If he signs a contract and stays for the duration and chooses to leave that’s his right. He owes the football club nothing.

That’s spot on. We’ve moved on from the days when players had no say.

Quite glad we didn’t spunk 20 mill on a yorkie muppet

Dyched wrote:How would he be screwing them over? I read this a lot about players. A footballer has every right to whatever he wants. If he signs a contract and stays for the duration and chooses to leave that’s his right. He owes the football club nothing.

Okay then I'll reword to as he has an underlying affection for the club I doubt he will see them get nothing for him.

ClaretTony wrote:No it doesn't work like that, does on occasions with some players but generally not. The point I'm making is you can't wait to have a go at the club for not signing a player but make no comment at all when the club have kept players that others have wanted to sign from us.

I have said before that I was pleased that we kept Tarks and that is massive. However we could do nothing if Leicester had met his release clause. Well done to the club for getting a high threshold. I had no idea we had
had bids for Dwight so well done again to the club.

excellent interview imho

summitclaret wrote:I have said before that I was pleased that we kept Tarks and that is massive. However we could do nothing if Leicester had met his release clause. Well done to the club for getting a high threshold. I had no idea we had
had bids for Dwight so well done again to the club.

What release clause?

Spiral wrote:F'k sake. Right, going to need to watch this now. Yo can't go trivialising a horrible political system that trampled over people, reducing its overbearing and oppressive manifestation to a mere component of 'market dynamics'. FWIW, I'm a fan of Garlick and like how he's running the club.

To be fair to Garlick, perhaps he didn't know that the "rules of language" have changed as it is (apparently) no longer appropriate to use "apartheid" in the same terms as it was, say, 10 years ago. 10 years ago terms such as "cultural apartheid" could be used, for example in describing the situation where richer children are listening to more classical music etc. than poorer children. This was said by Sir Richard Eyre (National Theatre) and reported (without criticism of the choice of language) in the Guardian. It wasn't controversial.

It's a bit like the game of statues. Someone says "cultural apartheid is an evil term and must not be used", and the one who doesn't hear the message and says it again, is out of the game.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec ... cs.artnews" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

MACCA wrote:Leeds must be crackers ( and loaded ) if they received a bid for 20m for a player out of contract in 10 months and didn't sell.

Also BFC equally may have been called crackers bidding 20m for a player out of contract in 10 months time.

I think theres a few porkies being told, and also a few "the one that got away tales" to keep people happy/content.

I think it's quite obvious what the plan was/is, and I'd say it's been another success in terms of business for the excellent business man that is Mr Garlick.
Well done.

Long may he reign.

Probably because he has two years left on his contract.

agreenwood wrote:The best bit is when he likens very wealthy Premier League clubs like ourselves to the repression of black Africans.

Ooooooh, only Mike Garlic can truly clear up his intent but I think you're suffering from a metaphor failure here.

For example, if I describe Dwight McNeil as being "like lightning" would you imagine that I am trying to imply that he is:
a) very fast
or
b) is potentially fatal to come into contact with because he contains a very large electrical voltage

Perhaps, if we consider Mike Garlic's metaphor in a better context and consider it with a full quote we could better decide whether he was trying to imply that:
a) there are different options available for the "haves" and "have nots" of football teams and that, just like in the/an apartheid system, it doesn't matter so much as what you do but rather it unfortunately it matters who you are
or
b) he wanted to compare our "plight" to the repression of black Africans?

For sure, perhaps it's a clumsy choice of metaphor and wording but I know what I think he intended it to mean.

love the fact he only gives the window 6.5 out of 10 !! I thought it was better than that personally but I'm glad he doesn't agree. Also interesting that wages are no longer an issue

At least hes not blaming ITV Digital collapse for our signing issues.It took Barry 15urs to get over that.

Cleveleys_claret wrote:This is why I dont like the guy. Yes he has done great for Burnley but I doubt any other manager would have stuck at it. Silence all the way through the window then does things like this. Havent watched it yet but usually throws in a bit of hope for the next window but after hearing it more than 10 times you just know he is lying

I heard that he doesn’t like you more though.

Rowls wrote:For sure, perhaps it's a clumsy choice of metaphor and wording but I know what I think he intended it to mean.

Welcome to 2019. Twitter outrage to follow....

ClaretTony wrote:What release clause?

So there is not one then? It was widely reported in the press that there was. For Tarks. I would be surprised and delighted if we got him to sign a 4 year deal without one . If we did why the hell would we contemplate selling him?

Like every other claret I just want what's best for BFC going forwards. Someone like Philips ( young strong good on the ball) remains essential. We have bought some time wirh a loan but the bullet will have to be bitten soon.

Is there a link to this interview?

The board and manager have my full support.
You can pick holes in anything anyone says. I’ve come out with some right garbage over the years.

Some folk need to give their head a wobble and stop being so critical and negative!

Everything isn’t rosy , it never will be at a small club, but come on guys

Bin Ont Turf wrote:
He didn't say 'the apartheid system', he said like 'an apartheid system'. The word means separation.

Can you just confirm in which language apartheid means 'separation'?

Bin Ont Turf wrote:I'll just clear a few things up for the absolute dummies we get on here.

He didn't say wages aren't an issue, he was talking about in this window about the targets we had that they weren't the issue.

He didn't say 'the apartheid system', he said like 'an apartheid system'. The word means separation.

No Chairman talks about specific transfer dealings whilst a transfer window is open.

Look at those on this thread being daft, there is a pattern. Remember we won last week, you have to give the balloons a chance to whine at something, maybe by 2.30pm Saturday they can revert to standard form

summitclaret wrote:Well there won't be if we remain so cautious. Phillips should have been signed. We had the movey surely.

Should Tarkowski have been sold ?

Nonayforever wrote:Why didn't he offer £21m ?

They wanted 30M.

wilks_bfc wrote:Bi-annual

I used to get the Rupert Annual

Not sure an actual bid went in. Phillips were on his way to Villa for £20M which was accepted. He actually went down to Villa to look at houses but he pulled out last minute. Bielsa offered him captaincy to stay, turned it down but said he would resign a new contract in September. Doesn’t get his signing on fee from his last contract till September.

FACT

Garnerssoap wrote:Quite glad we didn’t spunk 20 mill on a yorkie muppet

Really? Assuming you're referring to Phillips, all I've seen is an outstanding talent wich I suspect will only get better.

claretonthecoast1882 wrote:Look at those on this thread being daft, there is a pattern. Remember we won last week, you have to give the balloons a chance to whine at something, maybe by 2.30pm Saturday they can revert to standard form

Saturday if we get beat will allow them to have a good weekend I’m going for Drinkwater not being fit and on the bench being up there in the moan chart. If we avoid defeat they’ll have to be pretty inventive.

We didn't actually bid 20m, it was Vydra plus money.

Richardsbfc wrote:Not sure an actual bid went in. Phillips were on his way to Villa for £20M which was accepted. He actually went down to Villa to look at houses but he pulled out last minute. Bielsa offered him captaincy to stay, turned it down but said he would resign a new contract in September. Doesn’t get his signing on fee from his last contract till September.

Lots of info there Richardsbfc , are you his agent ? Or just in the "know" or perhaps read too many gossip columns.

[img][/img]

Steve-Harpers-perm wrote:Saturday if we get beat will allow them to have a good weekend I’m going for Drinkwater not being fit and on the bench being up there in the moan chart. If we avoid defeat they’ll have to be pretty inventive.

I honestly have no idea when they even bother following the clubs results, everything seems to upset them from the board. the managers comments and methods, the lack of ambition, the age of players and probably more things.

Walton wrote:Can you just confirm in which language apartheid means 'separation'?

Afrikaans?

claretonthecoast1882 wrote:I honestly have no idea when they even bother following the clubs results, everything seems to upset them from the board. the managers comments and methods, the lack of ambition, the age of players and probably more things.

Stop moaning fgs. ☺

Bin Ont Turf wrote:I'll just clear a few things up for the absolute dummies we get on here.

He didn't say wages aren't an issue, he was talking about in this window about the targets we had that they weren't the issue.

He didn't say 'the apartheid system', he said like 'an apartheid system'. The word means separation.

No Chairman talks about specific transfer dealings whilst a transfer window is open.

Spot on. People should get a grip of semantics - apartheid became synonymous with the system in South Africa but the meaning is simply, as you say, separation and as such there was no problem with him using it. It's like using the word 'phobic' after terms like homo or Islam, the term means FEAR not HATRED, i don't know how these terms ever became accepted in everyday usage.

Dyched wrote:How would he be screwing them over? I read this a lot about players. A footballer has every right to whatever he wants. If he signs a contract and stays for the duration and chooses to leave that’s his right. He owes the football club nothing.

100% with you, the 'loyalty' card I always find bizarre.

If I'm honest I'd like to think I'd do right by my boyhood club but most footballers I know that say they support a certain club is all a bit fake, its a job at the end of the day and they didn't travel home and away watching them as they were usually playing themselves with their parents watching so they just don't understand the fixation with loyalty like a die hard fan does.


reading that back, doesn't sound the way it did in my head

Nixon reckons the player involved was Phillips

Vegas Claret wrote:excellent interview imho

I agree having watched it this morning....

I heard from a well known source that the 20million bid was for Lionel Messi. We were shocked when it was turned down.

claretonthecoast1882 wrote:I honestly have no idea when they even bother following the clubs results, everything seems to upset them from the board. the managers comments and methods, the lack of ambition, the age of players and probably more things.

Don’t forget the poor ‘matchday experience.’

Steve-Harpers-perm wrote:Don’t forget the poor ‘matchday experience.’

True but for a good majority of them that involves their furniture, I know they would like to blame the club for their choice of armchair but think that is a little harsh for even them to do.

Cleveleys_claret wrote:I heard from a well known source that the 20million bid was for Lionel Messi. We were shocked when it was turned down.

And if we had been successful there are those on here who would have moaned about us signing an over-the-hill, tax-dodging Argie.

Rowls wrote:Ooooooh, only Mike Garlic can truly clear up his intent but I think you're suffering from a metaphor failure here.

For example, if I describe Dwight McNeil as being "like lightning" would you imagine that I am trying to imply that he is:
a) very fast
or
b) is potentially fatal to come into contact with because he contains a very large electrical voltage

Perhaps, if we consider Mike Garlic's metaphor in a better context and consider it with a full quote we could better decide whether he was trying to imply that:
a) there are different options available for the "haves" and "have nots" of football teams and that, just like in the/an apartheid system, it doesn't matter so much as what you do but rather it unfortunately it matters who you are
or
b) he wanted to compare our "plight" to the repression of black Africans?

For sure, perhaps it's a clumsy choice of metaphor and wording but I know what I think he intended it to mean.

There is also the fact that we do not know what it is like in the Premier League meetings with the big six, those that pushed for a greater share of the overseas money because they are the ones that earn it, and use dirty tricks like the threat of a Super League to get their own way.

We do know they have their own exclusive club that get together often, we also know that Susan Dinnage met with them after it was announced she would replace Richard Scudamore, we also know that she very quickly decided that she could not work with them and resigned before she started at the Premier League. A minority that seeks to control money, decision making and policy while restricting access to their elite - sure sounds like an apartheid type system to most people - without any need to say it is the same as that we saw in South Africa and it's environs

MACCA wrote:Leeds must be crackers ( and loaded ) if they received a bid for 20m for a player out of contract in 10 months and didn't sell.

Also BFC equally may have been called crackers bidding 20m for a player out of contract in 10 months time.

I think theres a few porkies being told, and also a few "the one that got away tales" to keep people happy/content.

I think it's quite obvious what the plan was/is, and I'd say it's been another success in terms of business for the excellent business man that is Mr Garlick.
Well done.

Long may he reign.

And equally we might be daft to turn down Tarks bid as his value will go down nearer to the end of his contract - players hold all the aces these days

NRC wrote:Mike Garlick, football’s answer to USA’s Steve Kings

You don't have to like him or his comments in this interview, but it would be extremely harsh to align him with a white nationalist, racist and bigot like Steve King.

Aclaret wrote:Lots of info there Richardsbfc , are you his agent ? Or just in the "know" or perhaps read too many gossip columns.

I actually know about this one.

You're his agent then ?

I think it's pretty clear that the guy in question was Phillips from Leeds and although he appears to be an excellent prospect and something of rising star, even £20 million is an absolute shed load in our position for someone with PL "potential" and imo it was quite right to draw the line where we did. I genuinely hoped we'd get him and believed he'd be a great addition to our midfield, but if for whatever reason he didn't make the necessary strides and step up as people THINK he can then we'd have chucked an awful lot of dry powder at it. Too much tbh.

ClaretTony wrote:It’s become an annual event

Even if we'd made lots of signings there's still bound to be ones we made offers for but didn't get, no?

Burnley1989 wrote:100% with you, the 'loyalty' card I always find bizarre.

If I'm honest I'd like to think I'd do right by my boyhood club but most footballers I know that say they support a certain club is all a bit fake, its a job at the end of the day and they didn't travel home and away watching them as they were usually playing themselves with their parents watching so they just don't understand the fixation with loyalty like a die hard fan does.


reading that back, doesn't sound the way it did in my head

What I find funny is if a player is really good but leaves for free he screws them over. But if he’s crap and leaves it’s ok. What’s the bloody the difference?

Everyone seems so certain it is Philips he was talking about when it could just as easily have been Drinkwater that we made the bid for and Chelsea knocking us back because of their transfer embargo and there being a new manager in place.

Richardsbfc wrote:

I actually know about this one.

You don't have any credibility left after your BS on deadline day

CharlieinNewMexico wrote:You don't have any credibility left after your BS on deadline day

Not sure I know what you mean?

Neuhaus