CB Fry Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 Better worry Statler and waldorf, as my predictions have uncanny accuracy! Pretty easy when your "predictions" cover every single conceivable outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 So you reckon Burnley will sell their main striker whose goals might keep them in the PL for less than 8m? All Im saying is people seem to think this is a done deal because of a picture of a panda, when it appears not to be the case. Guan hasnt even said what has actually developed today, he just posted a picture of a red panda. red panda = red herring Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 Maybe Guan means that we're signing the Danish left back Ailurus Fulgens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Fan CaM Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 (edited) Maybe Guan means that we're signing the Danish left back Ailurus Fulgens? Errr, why? This one (Ings) is not going to happen this side of ever...too much money for a player that would probably not improve us. Edited 17 July, 2014 by Saint Fan CaM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratio_decidendi Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 Running his contract down to the bitter end is not actually "giving back to their club", is it? It's fu cking them over. Ings won't do that. It's called reality. Really? I think you're working under the assumption that every player has an inherent transfer value (true) and that every club has the automatic and exclusive right to gain from that (false). If Burnley wanted their share of his fee they would do better to sell him now. As it is, however, they're willing to forgo that min order to benefit from his contribution on the pitch for another year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorne Malvo Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 Wouldn't he have been about 8 in '01? Probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 Really? I think you're working under the assumption that every player has an inherent transfer value (true) and that every club has the automatic and exclusive right to gain from that (false). If Burnley wanted their share of his fee they would do better to sell him now. As it is, however, they're willing to forgo that min order to benefit from his contribution on the pitch for another year. Deary me. I think the only assuming going on is from you, boiling down a complex and multi - faceted process into a black/white decision point. There are myriad ways this process could play out over the next six weeks and indeed the next twelve months. Of those outcomes, Ings walking out for free (or a tribunal fee) is way down the list, just above Ings signing for Barcelona. Keep this stuff up and you will soon be one of my favourite pet forum idiots. You don't have a view on the Boston bombing do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 CB, that's a little harsh. He has an opinion. You may consider it right, you may consider it wrong, but surely the least one can do is give him the courtesy to air it without ad homs coming back at him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Charlie Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 Ings may also sign another contract with Burnley, move to another club that isnt Saints, get injured in training today, retire from the game to become a home and away Saints fan or hand in a transfer request to move here. Nobody knows. But if Burnley do sell, it will be after a lot of pressure and negotiations you would think, and putting out that interview with Ings would make them look very stupid if they subsequently cash in. Bs interesting to see how it develops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 If reports are true that we are in for Paulinho, would we want to sign Ings as well? IF (and that may be a big one) we did sign him, then it would be...... Paulinho JRod Pelle Gallagher Mayuka Sharp are the ones on the books, although Sharp seems not to be really a CF any more, not that there is any guarantee that the bottom 3 will be here rather than out on loan, nor for that matter JRod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donatello Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 Pretty easy when your "predictions" cover every single conceivable outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratio_decidendi Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 Deary me. I think the only assuming going on is from you, boiling down a complex and multi - faceted process into a black/white decision point. There are myriad ways this process could play out over the next six weeks and indeed the next twelve months. Of those outcomes, Ings walking out for free (or a tribunal fee) is way down the list, just above Ings signing for Barcelona. Keep this stuff up and you will soon be one of my favourite pet forum idiots. You don't have a view on the Boston bombing do you? If you didn't understand what I was trying to say, I'd recommend you just point that out instead of resorting to personal attacks and attempts to obfuscate. That way, we'd actually be able to have a sane and credible discussion. But, for what it's worth, I'm really not sure that I am boiling down the discussion into something simple (unless it were to enhance our own understanding from a conceptual perspective); of course I understand that the Ings process could play out in many different ways (originally I was merely expressing a desire, not a prediction); and what on earth are you going on about Boston for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 Maybe Guan means that we're signing the Danish left back Ailurus Fulgens? Errr, why? . Ha ha, lol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 But why would Ings, a few months away from being a free agent, tie himself to a long contract at a club in relegation trouble? Fair point, although I was responding to a question re why Burnley might sell,or someone pay decent money 6 months before he was available for free. As for Ings, he might not wish to tie himself down as you suggest, but one reason he might - as with Remy- is £££ , any new contract could of course have a release clause in the event of relegation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazlo78 Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 Maybe Guan means that we're signing the Danish left back Ailurus Fulgens? He comes from Lithuania! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 He comes from Lithuania! That may be so, but his great grandfather was from Aarhus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 That may be so, but his great grandfather was from Aarhus Not one of the latin countries then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 That may be so, but his great grandfather was from Aarhus Is that Aarhus, in the middle of our street? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JxgrSaint Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 Maybe Guan means that we're signing the Danish left back Ailurus Fulgens? Obligatory highlight video... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 Welcome back mate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 Obligatory highlight video... That looked like a blatant dive to me. Don't want players like that coming here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNSUN Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 That looked like a blatant dive to me. Don't want players like that coming here. Violent too he took a good couple of swipes at the other fella. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 If you didn't understand what I was trying to say, I'd recommend you just point that out instead of resorting to personal attacks and attempts to obfuscate. That way, we'd actually be able to have a sane and credible discussion. But, for what it's worth, I'm really not sure that I am boiling down the discussion into something simple (unless it were to enhance our own understanding from a conceptual perspective); of course I understand that the Ings process could play out in many different ways (originally I was merely expressing a desire, not a prediction); and what on earth are you going on about Boston for? Let's go back to the beginning. You started by saying why buy now when he'll be free next year. I pointed out that's highly unlikely to be the case at which point you decided I was not working in the realms of reality. Interestingly, MLG pointed out he wouldn't be free anyway, so one-nil to my version of reality. In the world of reality Burnley are very very unlikely to let Ings run his contract down to zero and in the world of reality Ings is very very unlikely to let his contract run down, and if he does it won't be out of "loyalty". So don't pretend "I don't understand" when your grasp of reality is so feeble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 Let's go back to the beginning. You started by saying why buy now when he'll be free next year. I pointed out that's highly unlikely to be the case at which point you decided I was not working in the realms of reality. Interestingly, MLG pointed out he wouldn't be free anyway, so one-nil to my version of reality. In the world of reality Burnley are very very unlikely to let Ings run his contract down to zero and in the world of reality Ings is very very unlikely to let his contract run down, and if he does it won't be out of "loyalty". So don't pretend "I don't understand" when your grasp of reality is so feeble. Nobody else cares. Why not PM each other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donatello Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 Welcome back mate Thanks, mate (do we know one another?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratio_decidendi Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 Nobody else cares. Why not PM each other? I think this guy generally wants an audience for his *****ing and, as soon as I responded to him on matters which didn't involve Ings, I proved to be just as bad. I regret saying anything at all now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 Nobody else cares. Why not PM each other? I do. It's amusing to see ratio get pwned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 Is that Aarhus, in the middle of our street? No, it's arse treat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 Nobody else cares. Why not PM each other? You could have PM'd us both with that gem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 I do. It's amusing to see ratio get pwned. "Small Fry" has owned Ratio for so long he could rent him out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Fan CaM Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 Ha ha, lol! Stunning intellect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakovnetski Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/danny-ings-insists-hes-committed-3873247? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guan 2.0 Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 Everything is negotiable, When I said Lallana and Liverpool should help negotiate the 25% sell on clause, I was told it couldn't be done be done. When Everton and Schalke came in for Tadic, it was said that we had no chance. And when Pelle dragged on, some said it was a dead move. Now i'm not saying that D-Ings is coming here. But I will say that a lot can happen in a week, with the possibility of clubs moving onto other targets (that old chestnut), improved offers, and yes, further signing making a club seem a more attractive proposition. But who knows? Maybe Ings will be true to his word, after all, a single factor can cause a complete collapse in some cases. Like here: In a book published in 1931, I described a little of what the Navy - particularly the destroyers - did in the Dardanelles, and during the campaign ashore in Gallipoli. Very briefly, I wrote of the naval bombardment of the forts before the Army arrived on the scene, of how the troops were landed on the peninsula, maintained there, and finally carried away. In this book, where I am dealing primarily with the work of the minesweepers, some repetition is inevitable. And here let it be said that it was not entirely the guns in the forts of the Dardanelles that prevented the Fleet from forcing the Straits. If guns alone had provided the defence, the fleet of old but heavily armoured battleships might have forced its way through the Narrows by accepting casualties. The primary defence of the Straits was ten lines containing 373 mines moored in the Narrows between Keplez and Chanak. These were the main obstacles to the success of the naval effort on the Dardanelles - these and a little line of twenty mines laid on the night of March 8-9 by a small Turkish vessel called the Nousret. The trawler minesweepers were not only inadequate in numbers, but wholly unsuitable for the work in hand... ...For five days operations were held up by a gale. On the 25th, however, the bombardment of the outer forts was renewed with the ships gradually coming in to close range. The results were successful, and only the Agamemnon was hit with trifling casualties. The guns in the four outer forts were temporarily silenced, though not put out of action, and the minesweepers, covered by three battleships and destroyers, steamed into the Straits and began their sweeping. By the morning of the 26th they had swept a wide channel four miles up from the entrance and had found no mines. Demolition parties were landed from the Fleet that same day to destroy the guns in the forts at 5edd el Bahr and Kum Kale, and on the night of the 26th-27th the trawlers, covered by destroyers, continued to sweep the Straits. They found and sank several range buoys, but discovered no mines. Meanwhile, some of the older battleships, steaming up into the newly swept area, had bombarded the inner forts at long range. The land guns made no effective reply; but the ships were considerably annoyed by the fire of mobile howitzers from either shore which could not be located. Bad weather, with a strong north-easterly gale, heavy rain and low visibility held up the operations until March 1, when the work inside the Straits was renewed by six battleships engaging the inner defences. They were again annoyed by the fire of well-hidden howitzers. During the night the trawlers continued sweeping up towards Kephez Point, covered by four destroyers and the cruiser Amethyst. By about 11 p.m., when within about 3,000 yards of the Point, and just short of the first lines of mines, they came under the rays of a searchlight. The minefield batteries on either side of the Straits promptly opened fire, and the trawlers were compelled to slip their sweeps and retire. Steaming ahead, the destroyers made all the smoke they could, and fired at the gun flashes and searchlights. The action was kept up for over half an hour, and the trawlers, though the shells pitched thickly among them, retreated undamaged. Though the sweepers had not reached the minefield 'their conduct', says the Official History, 'had excited everyone's admiration, and in the morning Admiral Carden made the following general signal: "Minesweepers are doing fine work. Their perseverance and steadiness are excellent. Much depends on them!" Indeed, almost everything depended on them, but how with their low speed they were to do the work in the strong current till means were found of mastering the minefield defence was far from clear.' Under the protection of destroyers, the sweeping operations on the Kephez minefield continued on the nights of March 2-3 and 3-4, though little or no progress was made in the face of the enemy's fire. 'It was distinctly nasty,' one of the destroyer officers wrote, 'and all calibres of Turkish guns let us have it. Occasionally there would be an enormous splodge quite different to the rest, with an unusual sound unlike that of an ordinary shell striking the water. Some people maintained they were firing their ancient muzzle-loaders with the huge stone shot, samples of which we afterwards found at Sedd el Bahr. As the days went on the Turkish morale improved, and their shooting became more accurate and galling.' If the gunfire was 'distinctly nasty' to the regular naval personnel, it must have been doubly so to the erstwhile civilian crews of the trawlers... ...On the night of March 6-7 the sweepers, escorted by destroyers and with two old battleships and the cruiser Amethyst in support, made another attempt on the Kephez minefield. As before, they were shown up by the searchlights and came under the heavy fire of the minefield batteries. The ships and destroyers fired heavily on the searchlights, and once or twice seemed to have knocked them out. But the beams shone forth again after a few minutes' extinction, and the trawlers were once more compelled to retire. The same thing happened the next night when French minesweepers made the attempt. Another effort made by British sweepers on the night of March 8-9 met with no better success, and resulted in the blowing up of the trawler Okino with the loss of all but five of her crew. Experience seemed to prove that until the mobile minefield batteries could be suppressed, they could effectually prevent minesweeping operations in the Narrows. Moreover, until the minefield was cleared the ships could not close in to decisive range to demolish the forts. Indirect and long-range fire was comparatively useless. Everything now depended on the sweeping of the Kephez minefields, and Commodore Keyes was be coming restive. 'I felt', he writes, 'it was time to get on with the business, and that the minefields must be swept at all costs.' At the Admiralty, too, Mr. Winston Churchill was beginning to doubt if 'there was sufficient determination behind the attack. In one of his telegrams, for instance, the Admiral reported that the minesweepers had been driven back by heavy fire which, he added, had caused no casualties. Considering what was happening on the Western Front and the desperate tasks and fearful losses which were accepted almost daily by the allied troops, I could not but feel disquieted by an observation of this kind.' Up to the present, the trawlers with their sweeps out had been able to make very slow progress against the current, which invariably ran out of the Narrows at speeds of between one and four knots. So for another attempt made on the night of March 10-11, they were ordered to steam up beyond Kephez Point, to turn, pass their sweeps, and sweep down with the current. The force detailed consisted of seven trawlers, with four destroyers for escort, and the battleship Canopus and the cruiser Amethyst in support. Two picket boats with explosive sweeps went with the trawlers. The Canopus was to go in first and to bombard the searchlights from just below the minefield. Commodore Keyes was in the Canopus as a passenger, and describes the operation in his book. Five brilliant searchlights were at work, and on these the old battleship opened fire. They were extinguished now and then, but only for a few minutes. 'For all the good we did towards dowsing the searchlights we might just as well have been firing at the moon,' the Commodore wrote. Meanwhile, the Canopus was fired upon from all directions. There were gun flashes everywhere on both sides of the Straits, and the air was filled with the whine of shell, the bursting of shrapnel, and the roar of heavy projectiles which threw up great fountains of spray as they fell. But the shooting was wild, and the ship was not hit. After a pause of about two hours to give the Turks the impression that operations had ceased for the night, the seven trawlers steamed up in line ahead. By great good luck they managed to get past Kephez Point while a searchlight was temporarily extinguished, and to pass their sweeps. The first pair, says the official history, at once caught two mines, which exploded and sank the Manx Hero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_Abroad Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 Everything is negotiable, When I said Lallana and Liverpool should help negotiate the 25% sell on clause, I was told it couldn't be done be done. When Everton and Schalke came in for Tadic, it was said that we had no chance. And when Pelle dragged on, some said it was a dead move. Now i'm not saying that D-Ings is coming here. But I will say that a lot can happen in a week, with the possibility of clubs moving onto other targets (that old chestnut), improved offers, and yes, further signing making a club seem a more attractive proposition. But who knows? Maybe Ings will be true to his word, after all, a single factor can cause a complete collapse in some cases. Like here: We're signing Churchill!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 We're signing Churchill!?! Ohhhhh yessss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_Abroad Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 Ohhhhh yessss. Or Ings is leading an expedition to cut off the Austro-Hungarians and Ottomans? Kudos to Guan, anytime you can work WWI tidbits into the day, high five from this guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaroid Saint Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 From the highlighted bits I conclude we are either signing all of Fleetwood Town or a young Turkish CB. Or Turkish himself. Or possibly all three. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 No it will be attaturk . A very excellent tactitician Enjoyed reading that bit on Gallipoli Guan Been out there and have seen the terrain . Not the tourist trail . Spent five days on a military expedition walking the same tracks the Anzacs and the Brits took as well as the Turks 5 years ago . You still see bones and bullets etc of the beaten track If there had been better communications available . The Dardanelles was nearly a success . But weather etc conspired against Them including the effects of the cholera jabs the service personnel were given in preparation for the assault . Oh an lack of water . Some of our troops were accidentally killed by the navy I digress . But where does this tie in to guans well . Maintaining Careful planning and sensitive negotiations with a.n other will succeed if you persevere with your target . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 Guan, you are acting very weird this week... is everything OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalek2003 Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 I have a feeling that Burnley may well survive, so why would Ings want to come to Saints ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plastic Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 That post is too long, and I'm quite dull. Somebody please decode the metaphors and provide a concise summary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 That post is too long, and I'm quite dull. Somebody please decode the metaphors and provide a concise summary. He isn't coming, but its football so he might, but no one knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 I have a feeling that Burnley may well survive, so why would Ings want to come to Saints ? Burnley will finish above Saints? Ok then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 Gallipoli = Anzac = Australian = Aussie socceroo = World Cup soccer star signing for us :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guan 2.0 Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 That post is too long, and I'm quite dull. Somebody please decode the metaphors and provide a concise summary. I find the First World war fascinating, not too sure about the IWM refit. I have been told we are in for Ings and it's looking positive, he says he is happy (in public), but like Lallana, maybe he just loves the sweet sweet taste of loyalty bonus and signing on fee. After all, back in the day, i was told Beauchamp, and we ended up with Marsden! To answer DD, yes I am fine, just trying to change it up a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
for_heaven's_Saint Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 I find the First World war fascinating, not too sure about the IWM refit. I have been told we are in for Ings and it's looking positive, he says he is happy (in public), but like Lallana, maybe he just loves the sweet sweet taste of loyalty bonus and signing on fee. After all, back in the day, i was told Beauchamp, and we ended up with Marsden! To answer DD, yes I am fine, just trying to change it up a bit. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plastic Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 I find the First World war fascinating, not too sure about the IWM refit. I have been told we are in for Ings and it's looking positive, he says he is happy (in public), but like Lallana, maybe he just loves the sweet sweet taste of loyalty bonus and signing on fee. After all, back in the day, i was told Beauchamp, and we ended up with Marsden! To answer DD, yes I am fine, just trying to change it up a bit. Aha, plain talking! I can get on board with that I'm very keen to see us sign Ings, and I'm pretty hopeful due to the fact he's being a contract rebel. Cheers Mr. 2.0! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaroid Saint Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 Gallipoli = Anzac = Australian = Aussie socceroo = World Cup soccer star signing for us :) Or perhaps a capped Turkish CB with Australia heritage who can play as a (mine) sweeper and LB? I'm running with this one, even if no one else is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 Guan you should read pat barkers book . Toby's room. Ww1 That has more twists and turns than the Danny ings and other threads I'm not pandering to your every whim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 17 July, 2014 Share Posted 17 July, 2014 Hmmmmm! When a man goes cryptic it usually means he knows not wtf is going on and he is covering his arse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now