Remind me, we turned this guy down because of...?

Large gambling DEBTS !!!

gricey44 wrote:Large gambling DEBTS !!!

Because someone welched on the deal to sign him.

One with a gambling problem is just about enough but two...don't even think about it.

South West Claret. wrote:One with a gambling problem is just about enough but two...don't even think about it.

They could spend all day betting with each other. Which guarantee (a) that one of them would make a profit, and (b ) that their bookie wouldn't run to the FA!

Did we not turn him down because he wanted us to settle his debt?
Not the fact he likes a bet.

Papabendi wrote:Remind me, we turned this guy down because of...?

..... us having Scott Arfield.

South West Claret. wrote:One with a gambling problem is just about enough but two...don't even think about it.

What about 10? Or 12? Or...

Papabendi wrote:Remind me, we turned this guy down because of...?

Someone using a flight tracker managed to divert the plane at the last minute

In fairness, gambling debts arising as a consequence of gambling are a bit difference to gambling per se. Loads of footballers gamble, not all want their club to do a deal with them to get them out of their gambling debts. I suspect that that distinction is why we pursued Grosicki as long as we did - dyche didn't care about the fact he was a gambler per se, it was only when the financial angle was added to it that it became a problem

That said, I think the Grosicki saga is the big regret of this season. There's no doubt for me that had we signed him, the 4-5-1 option would have been altogether more viable because he has the sort of pacey, direct threat that can be key to making that system work, particularly away from home.

Mike Garlick said the following about the Groscicki saga:

"Sean, Dave Baldwin and I decided not to sign a winger from Poland right at the death, due to circumstances that we felt could have been potentially detrimental to the overall team spirit of our playing squad."

That sounds like they were worried word would have got out about Grosciki's gambling debts (which it did) or that his personality isn't favourable.

We turned him down because he obviously wasn't going to fit. He has/had some sort of issue. May just be a moral one.

I'm ok with that.

Good player? Yeah, I'm sure he is. But let's be sure he's not the world beater people think he is just because he doesn't play for us.

claretspice wrote:In fairness, gambling debts arising as a consequence of gambling are a bit difference to gambling per se. Loads of footballers gamble, not all want their club to do a deal with them to get them out of their gambling debts. I suspect that that distinction is why we pursued Grosicki as long as we did - dyche didn't care about the fact he was a gambler per se, it was only when the financial angle was added to it that it became a problem

That said, I think the Grosicki saga is the big regret of this season. There's no doubt for me that had we signed him, the 4-5-1 option would have been altogether more viable because he has the sort of pacey, direct threat that can be key to making that system work, particularly away from home.

Whose regretting?

bobinho wrote:We turned him down because he obviously wasn't going to fit. He has/had some sort of issue. May just be a moral one.

I'm ok with that.

Good player? Yeah, I'm sure he is. But let's be sure he's not the world beater people think he is just because he doesn't play for us.

He totally refused to track back!