Heard that Hutton is a really bad peehead. But he was highly regarded untill he went to the cesspit that is Spurs.
They paid £9m? for him tho, lot of money.
They paid £9m? for him tho, lot of money.
- Status
kenada_blue
Welcome to Barcelonaton FC
IF we were interested, and he's surplus to requirements, I'm pretty sure we could nab him for around £6mill.
The 606 lids mention arle 'Arry Mc****Fact likes to flog and buy all the time, so its either Hutton or Chimbonda on the way out they say....
Personally, I dont think he'll flog any of them after getting rid of Gunter and that Naughton will be bench bound till season 2010/2011 when he'll get sent out on loan.
manxtoffee
******
Spending £6M of our not so big kitty on a defender who's lost all confidence is not sound investment imho, next one...
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
Regarding locking the thread with everyone's approval, I think it's important we understand what WikiLawForFootyForums says on this for guidance:
"The essential requirement is that there must be evidence that the parties had each from an objective perspective engaged in conduct manifesting their assent. This manifestation of assent theory of contract formation may be contrasted with older theories, in which it was sometimes argued that a contract required the parties to have a true meeting of the minds between the parties. Under the "meeting of the minds" theory of contract, a party could resist a claim of breach by proving that although it may have appeared objectively that he intended to be bound by the agreement, he had never truly intended to be bound. This is unsatisfactory, as the other parties have no means of knowing their counterparts'"undisclosed intentions or understandings.
I must point out to lordy, this isnt a witch hunt. Its just banter mate, I enjoyed the jousting, as im sure Dave and Neb did. Chin up lerd.
To be honest, I'm very bored. Bored of getting lectured on not providing sources by somebody who has not provided a single source on anything. Bored of being expected to be the one to provide the evidence, while the other wide just throws out a stream of unproven, unfounded theories. Bored of people not even attempting to follow an argument, as shown by anybody who thinks that Naughton signing for Spurs disproves anything I've said.
Yes, I'm reasonably confident on my position, even though I'm not a lawyer. In many countries, such as America and France, my job is done by lawyers. In the UK, by tradition, my job is done by accountants with extra training in law. Same job.
Football is an exception, you say. No links. No citations. Just a mention of the Bosman case, as evidence that football is different with real explanation. In which, by the way, the defendents argued that football was a special case and deserved an exception from parts of employment law. They lost.
My original point, which appear to have been lost, was this situation was plausible - not that it happened, but that it is possible. Your position was that it isn't possible. YOU should be the one falsifying my falsifiable statement. That means you should be the one providing evidence. See your definition of science.
Yet somehow the roles are reversed. To show that it's plausible, I have to know exactly what the agreement between Everton and SU was. To show that it is impossible, you don't need to know that. I have to show that the FA have never issued fines, you can say "you never know". I have to show the exact legal position, with fully backed up primary sources (not an online encyclopedia with citations that would allow you to look further should you be interested/bothered to make the effort, but the primary sources themselves). You are allowed to claim that gazumping might apply to footballers.
As you can all tell, I've got more and more fed up with this forum recently. I know I have this reputation for arguments here, but it's only because they've come across areas where I know what I'm talking about. Contract law, financial statements, corporate takeover methods, investing stratagies - these are things I deal with every day at work. I don't tend to get involved in arguments where from the outset I don't know the answer, which probably gives the impression that I won't admit I'm wrong, but the truth is that if I'm not sure I don't get involved and if the other person agrees with me then there's no argument.
I know I shouldn't carry on arguing with people, but it's in my nature. Partly because I like discussion, partly because I'm argumentative, and partly because I'm helpful and I don't like leaving observers with the idea that falsehoods are correct, even if they aren't relevent to the point in hand. I like spreading truth.
However, I've annoyed myself into the ground, so I'm leaving the forum for a while. I might come back if I feel the need (this place is still way better than any other Everton forum I've seen). Take care folks, and don't believe everything you read.
Yes, I'm reasonably confident on my position, even though I'm not a lawyer. In many countries, such as America and France, my job is done by lawyers. In the UK, by tradition, my job is done by accountants with extra training in law. Same job.
Football is an exception, you say. No links. No citations. Just a mention of the Bosman case, as evidence that football is different with real explanation. In which, by the way, the defendents argued that football was a special case and deserved an exception from parts of employment law. They lost.
My original point, which appear to have been lost, was this situation was plausible - not that it happened, but that it is possible. Your position was that it isn't possible. YOU should be the one falsifying my falsifiable statement. That means you should be the one providing evidence. See your definition of science.
Yet somehow the roles are reversed. To show that it's plausible, I have to know exactly what the agreement between Everton and SU was. To show that it is impossible, you don't need to know that. I have to show that the FA have never issued fines, you can say "you never know". I have to show the exact legal position, with fully backed up primary sources (not an online encyclopedia with citations that would allow you to look further should you be interested/bothered to make the effort, but the primary sources themselves). You are allowed to claim that gazumping might apply to footballers.
As you can all tell, I've got more and more fed up with this forum recently. I know I have this reputation for arguments here, but it's only because they've come across areas where I know what I'm talking about. Contract law, financial statements, corporate takeover methods, investing stratagies - these are things I deal with every day at work. I don't tend to get involved in arguments where from the outset I don't know the answer, which probably gives the impression that I won't admit I'm wrong, but the truth is that if I'm not sure I don't get involved and if the other person agrees with me then there's no argument.
I know I shouldn't carry on arguing with people, but it's in my nature. Partly because I like discussion, partly because I'm argumentative, and partly because I'm helpful and I don't like leaving observers with the idea that falsehoods are correct, even if they aren't relevent to the point in hand. I like spreading truth.
However, I've annoyed myself into the ground, so I'm leaving the forum for a while. I might come back if I feel the need (this place is still way better than any other Everton forum I've seen). Take care folks, and don't believe everything you read.
teppic
Player Valuation: £50m
ok dude. see you on tomorrow then?
btw... it was a good fight u put up. a good 12 rounder. no disgrace in that~!
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
Flounce.
[media]http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/687/gemmill.png[/media]
Its the Everton Way.
Its the Everton Way.
ToffeeMark
Player Valuation: £30m
to be honest, never heard of naughton before a couple of weeks ago and this is the only thing I've found on youtube of him, so no great loss!
YouTube - Hull v Sheffield United 2-1 - Kyle Naughton own goal
YouTube - Hull v Sheffield United 2-1 - Kyle Naughton own goal
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
Nebbiolo
Valuation: £108 million
I think you need to get over yourself. I'm also argumentative but there comes a point where you just leave it at that and have a little laugh together. You clearly don't want to do that. It's a football forum, not a platform to for you to reinterpret the world to your design.
Oh, and one more thing. You've misrepresented me again in your post. I made no assertions. I merely pondered on a couple of scenarios. The onus was on you to prove your position, since I actually didn't have a position to prove. Now that's science.
Last edited:
BBC says the figure Spurs have paid is reported to be £10m.
The same article says we had a £5m bid accepted for Naughton.
So effectively, as expected, Spurs have paid £5m for Kyle Walker, a player who has played just 2 times for Sheffield Utd.
Clearly we had no chance. Even if we had Man Citys money, I doubt Moyes would have paid that. Clearly Spurs recognised they would have to gazump us financially otherwise on a level playing field, Naughton would have come to us everytime.
The same article says we had a £5m bid accepted for Naughton.
So effectively, as expected, Spurs have paid £5m for Kyle Walker, a player who has played just 2 times for Sheffield Utd.
Clearly we had no chance. Even if we had Man Citys money, I doubt Moyes would have paid that. Clearly Spurs recognised they would have to gazump us financially otherwise on a level playing field, Naughton would have come to us everytime.
£5m for Kyle Walker. Can't get over that. Most ridiculous, pathetic signing in football history. Even if he goes on to be a really good player - theres absolutely no justification in paying £5m for a 19-year-old who has played twice in the Championship.
That signing epitomises everything that is wrong with football. A transfer cap may seem far-fetched, but something has to be done.
That signing epitomises everything that is wrong with football. A transfer cap may seem far-fetched, but something has to be done.
- Status
Welcome
Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.
Shop
