|
Post by WindsorShrew on Jul 16, 2009 13:01:47 GMT 1
Does it matter he clearly did not want to stay did he??? Who knows we might get another young, prospect for the same money for all anyone knows, and as a bonus this one might be able to cross.... Regarding your post Glyn Football is like Polictics you only get told by either party what they want you to believe/know. I myself believe he wanted to stay and have reasons for that, however like in all partnerships there must be mutual agreements. At the end of the day hes gone so lets look forward and hope Mr Simpson can bring someone in because one things for sure without Hump last season we struggled with pace thats for sure.
|
|
|
Post by nickjonesey on Jul 16, 2009 13:03:32 GMT 1
I am amazed. Fair play to him. I think we can sign better though. Maybe not the same "potential" [glow=red,2,300]but the same end product[/glow]. Hopefully we will be trying to avoid this
|
|
|
Post by shrewed54 on Jul 16, 2009 13:09:56 GMT 1
Do you honestly think we can sign better for the same amount we were paying Chris, I doubt it. Which was exactly how much ED? Without breaking any confidences I'm sure you'll agree he was the lowest paid of any of the regular first team last season and would have remained that by a considerable distance. Oh by the way Jonah now that the dust has finally settled on players resigning or not as the case may be, do you still think it was right not to discuss new contracts till the end of May.
|
|
|
Post by El Huracán!!!! on Jul 16, 2009 13:13:09 GMT 1
Christ here we go again, people dishing out "facts" when that nobody knows both sides of the story (like Stu has said above)
Lets have some clarity and less of the bullcrap please...
Anyone can make something up and claim its facts on here..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2009 13:21:20 GMT 1
Which was exactly how much ED? Without breaking any confidences I'm sure you'll agree he was the lowest paid of any of the regular first team last season and would have remained that by a considerable distance. If that's true then one might infer from it that Simpson didn't really rate him and the contract on the table was only really there to try to ensure a fee if he moved (which he probably would if it was such a low offer). I have a suspicion that Simpson is more annoyed at having lost 3 or 4 weeks and a fee than he is at having lost Humphrey.
|
|
|
Post by Dan F on Jul 16, 2009 13:23:27 GMT 1
Anyone can make something up and claim its facts on here.. Wahoo, can we? Is that an official Mod ruling? OK then. It is a known FACT that Simpson isn't appointing a proper Assistant Manager as it's Gary Peters or nobody.
|
|
|
Post by shrewed54 on Jul 16, 2009 13:31:34 GMT 1
Without breaking any confidences I'm sure you'll agree he was the lowest paid of any of the regular first team last season and would have remained that by a considerable distance. I have a suspicion that Simpson is more annoyed at having lost 3 or 4 weeks and a fee than he is at having lost Humphrey. What you say could well be true but at the end of the day it was the club that refused to discuss contracts before the end of the season not the players. Old saying "what you sow is what you reap"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2009 13:40:31 GMT 1
Old saying "what you sow is what you reap" Sticking with that metaphor, let's wait and see what the harvest brings.....
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Jul 16, 2009 14:11:15 GMT 1
Anyone can make something up and claim its facts on here.. Wahoo, can we? Is that an official Mod ruling? OK then. It is a known FACT that Simpson isn't appointing a proper Assistant Manager as it's Gary Peters or nobody. ...and Jake King's joining the backroom staff as pasta chef. Fact.
|
|
|
Post by texmexshrew on Jul 16, 2009 16:06:19 GMT 1
I am amazed. Fair play to him. I think we can sign better though. Maybe not the same "potential" but the same end product. As already pointed out Dave, we'd rather sign a player with any end product as opposed to Humps end return.
|
|
|
Post by shrewswolf on Jul 16, 2009 17:31:04 GMT 1
Good luck to humphrey but not gutted to see him go. Have it on good authority that Simmo has been talking to David Worrall and we could see him back on loan in the next week or so. I'm sorry but Worrall had a good 45 minutes for the Town he is not a right midfield player and if played there would reduce our attacking options Cant see how he would reduce our attacking options. He was on the right when he had that fantastic 45 mins when he put several quality crosses into the box, didnt stop running and defended too. He then followed it up with another good performance against Bury in the 2nd leg when he was again on the right. Humphrey was never able to attack AND defend but Worrall has the energy to do just that. If played there often i see no reason why he couldnt be a very handy right sided player plus if we ever needed a centre mid he can also play there. I'd be happy to see him back, especially as he wont cost us much coming here on loan
|
|
|
Post by texmexshrew on Jul 17, 2009 10:03:08 GMT 1
I'm sorry but Worrall had a good 45 minutes for the Town he is not a right midfield player and if played there would reduce our attacking options Cant see how he would reduce our attacking options. He was on the right when he had that fantastic 45 mins when he put several quality crosses into the box, didnt stop running and defended too. He then followed it up with another good performance against Bury in the 2nd leg when he was again on the right. Humphrey was never able to attack AND defend but Worrall has the energy to do just that. If played there often i see no reason why he couldnt be a very handy right sided player plus if we ever needed a centre mid he can also play there. I'd be happy to see him back, especially as he wont cost us much coming here on loan Spot on Mr Wolf Getting shot of Hump, and replacing with Worral on a season long loan would be a great move. Definitley a trade up. I liked his energy, enthusiasm, and footballing intelligence. Knew when to make a pass or take his man on, and in the playoff games showed strong discipline defensivley.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Rickerton on Jul 17, 2009 13:59:45 GMT 1
I'm sorry but Worrall had a good 45 minutes for the Town he is not a right midfield player and if played there would reduce our attacking options Cant see how he would reduce our attacking options. He was on the right when he had that fantastic 45 mins when he put several quality crosses into the box, didnt stop running and defended too. He then followed it up with another good performance against Bury in the 2nd leg when he was again on the right. Humphrey was never able to attack AND defend but Worrall has the energy to do just that. If played there often i see no reason why he couldnt be a very handy right sided player plus if we ever needed a centre mid he can also play there. I'd be happy to see him back, especially as he wont cost us much coming here on loan Spot on. Despite his constant pessimism, Ed does make some good points. However, stating that Worral would reduce our attacking options is a very odd view.
|
|
|
Post by shrewed54 on Jul 17, 2009 14:28:44 GMT 1
Cant see how he would reduce our attacking options. He was on the right when he had that fantastic 45 mins when he put several quality crosses into the box, didnt stop running and defended too. He then followed it up with another good performance against Bury in the 2nd leg when he was again on the right. Humphrey was never able to attack AND defend but Worrall has the energy to do just that. If played there often i see no reason why he couldnt be a very handy right sided player plus if we ever needed a centre mid he can also play there. I'd be happy to see him back, especially as he wont cost us much coming here on loan Spot on. Despite his constant pessimism, Ed does make some good points. However, stating that Worral would reduce our attacking options is a very odd view. The point I was making is that out of 9 appearances for the Town some fans seem to want to remember 45 minutes and ignore the other 8 appearances. He is a player who is very similar to many other players in the division and offers very little that is different. Love him or hate him Hump was different he brought a alternative approach to the play which helped to create around 10% of the goals scored. My view.
|
|
|
Post by Jonah on Jul 17, 2009 14:35:42 GMT 1
Which was exactly how much ED? Without breaking any confidences I'm sure you'll agree he was the lowest paid of any of the regular first team last season and would have remained that by a considerable distance. Oh by the way Jonah now that the dust has finally settled on players resigning or not as the case may be, do you still think it was right not to discuss new contracts till the end of May. Ed b**lox to the 'Without breaking any confidences'why not just say you dont know Someone has to be the lowest paid dont they and it is usually the youngest most inexperienced which Hump was.I dont care if he was £1 or £1k behind the next player because that was his contract which he signed and was happy with at one point. You constantly moan about contracts being withdrawn again without knowing the full facts. Give it a rest until you do please. What have we lost anyway? Davies and Hump both who have gone for money. Players are not irreplaceable and hopefully the side will be more balanced but without seeing them play I really cannot comment and niether can you .
|
|
|
Post by shrewed54 on Jul 17, 2009 15:33:07 GMT 1
Without breaking any confidences I'm sure you'll agree he was the lowest paid of any of the regular first team last season and would have remained that by a considerable distance. Oh by the way Jonah now that the dust has finally settled on players resigning or not as the case may be, do you still think it was right not to discuss new contracts till the end of May. Ed b**lox to the 'Without breaking any confidences'why not just say you dont know [img src="http://www.shropshire.btinternet.co.uk/smiley/ www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/mad/mad0223.gif"].gif [/img] Someone has to be the lowest paid dont they and it is usually the youngest most inexperienced which Hump was.I dont care if he was £1 or £1k behind the next player because that was his contract which he signed and was happy with at one point. You constantly moan about contracts being withdrawn again without knowing the full facts. Give it a rest until you do please. What have we lost anyway? Davies and Hump both who have gone for money. Players are not irreplaceable and hopefully the side will be more balanced but without seeing them play I really cannot comment and niether can you . [/quote] Jonah, if you believe that what the club said about withdrawing the contracts back in January is untrue I suggest you take up with Roland or Rob. Of course no players is irreplaceable but the question is really about the quality and cost of the replacement. The question is will we finish higher than the 9th best team in the league this season.
|
|
|
Post by Jonah on Jul 18, 2009 10:17:35 GMT 1
[/img] Someone has to be the lowest paid dont they and it is usually the youngest most inexperienced which Hump was.I dont care if he was £1 or £1k behind the next player because that was his contract which he signed and was happy with at one point. You constantly moan about contracts being withdrawn again without knowing the full facts. Give it a rest until you do please. What have we lost anyway? Davies and Hump both who have gone for money. Players are not irreplaceable and hopefully the side will be more balanced but without seeing them play I really cannot comment and niether can you . [/quote] Jonah, if you believe that what the club said about withdrawing the contracts back in January is untrue I suggest you take up with Roland or Rob. Of course no players is irreplaceable but the question is really about the quality and cost of the replacement. The question is will we finish higher than the 9th best team in the league this season. [/quote] Ed my information why the contracts were withdrawn came from one of the people you mentioned Now do I believe you or.................... You obviously cant answer the question about how much Hump was on then
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Jul 18, 2009 11:10:59 GMT 1
I am a member of the Worcestershire County Cricket unofficial website.
The team is having a dreadful season, but one of the things most appreciated by everyone on the site is that the Worcester Chief Executive Mark Newton regularly contributes to the discussions online, is quite happy to answer questions put to him on the board and is also prepared to arrange a meeting with everyone in order to respond to concerns raised. This includes being totally open about contract negotiations e.g. the current situation with regard to Steve Davies and a possible move to Surrey where we were informed that Davies was offered a 3 year contract which the club wanted him to sign fairly quickly, but the player wished to keep his options open.
In the meantime we are left completely in the dark about how the Davies/Humphrey proposed contracts were handled. It would indeed be a pleasant surprise if instead of us having to rely on official club statements (and the one on Constable was an all time classic of obfuscation) that someone could come on this board to address some of our concerns.
|
|
soulshrew
Midland League Division One
The only Real Town Badge
Posts: 454
|
Post by soulshrew on Jul 18, 2009 12:04:56 GMT 1
I am a member of the Worcestershire County Cricket unofficial website. The team is having a dreadful season, but one of the things most appreciated by everyone on the site is that the Worcester Chief Executive Mark Newton regularly contributes to the discussions online, is quite happy to answer questions put to him on the board and is also prepared to arrange a meeting with everyone in order to respond to concerns raised. This includes being totally open about contract negotiations e.g. the current situation with regard to Steve Davies and a possible move to Surrey. In the meantime we are left completely in the dark about how the Davies/Humphrey proposed contracts were handled. It seems to me that one set of officials like to conduct their business in an open and aboveboard manner and have nothing to hide.
|
|