corky morris Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 Don't know whether anyone has noticed but Dyer is **** and has been for the last two years! he is also a highly disruptive influnce. Ryan Smith however has looked keen, pacey and confident in his couple of appearances so far and was by far the best player down at Plymouth. So why did we give him a 3 year contract then?
saintjinksie Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/4015982.Dyer_joins_Swansea_City_on_loan/ Why did we offer him a contract in the summer if we couldn't afford to pay him? So we could sell him rather than let him go for free. if we hadnt offered him a contract he could have gone to any team and we would have received about 250k in compo. seems like a good bit of business to me.
St. Jason Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 I blame Crouch... he gave Dyer that new contract... what do you mean he didn't... who did then...? As long as this means we keep Saga and he is available to play then I don;t give a toss. Please explain how it's Crouch's fault, please???? http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/search/?mode=movenav&page_id=10350 Rupert negotiated Dyer's contract, so one would guess that it was negotiated on our new financial terms and limitations, with this being the case how come we're signing a player Millwall (Div 2) don't want yet loaning out Dyer????
1965onwards Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 To the original poster. Because the club is run by idiots at all levels.
St. Jason Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 So we could sell him rather than let him go for free. if we hadnt offered him a contract he could have gone to any team and we would have received about 250k in compo. seems like a good bit of business to me. seems like good business?? We own a player we don't play, he plays for our opponents while we still pay a % of his wages, i'd also guess we paid him some sort of signing on fee as well as its the norm. I think we'd of been better of taking the 250k!
The Incongruous Monk Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 That seems to contradict Jan's statement when Dyer signed a new contract. This was before Jan had really had a chance to observe Dyer properly and before the alleged incident on the team coach and before the whole "handbag" farce. Where is the proof of incidents at Sheff Utd or at Saints of his disruptive attitude? As I said, it's a rumour, hence no proof. Only the usual hearsay. We all hear things from various people, we can only take our best guess as to it's accuracy. It certainly explains a thing or two though...
Alain Perrin Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 Sorry to bring a bit of logic to you muppets but it is obvious why we gave him a contract. Rupert quite clearly wanted to stop the "Why did we let Dyer go for free" threads that would have been posted by the same morons that see everything as a chance to knock the club. If you can't see that signing Dyer up to retain him as an asset, getting other clubs to pay those wages, possibly getting loan fees AND the chance to sell him at the end of it is good business, then you are naive. Personally I don't think he's good enough for Saints, but if we can get something for him rather than nothing then that has to be a good thing. ... But don't let that stop you exercising your Lowe Obsessed Hate-in.
Scummer Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 This was before the whole "handbag" farce. Dyer was arrested in March, a long time before he signed his new contract.
alpine_saint Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 Sorry to bring a bit of logic to you muppets but it is obvious why we gave him a contract. Rupert quite clearly wanted to stop the "Why did we let Dyer go for free" threads that would have been posted by the same morons that see everything as a chance to knock the club. If you can't see that signing Dyer up to retain him as an asset, getting other clubs to pay those wages, possibly getting loan fees AND the chance to sell him at the end of it is good business, then you are naive. Personally I don't think he's good enough for Saints, but if we can get something for him rather than nothing then that has to be a good thing. ... But don't let that stop you exercising your Lowe Obsessed Hate-in. Only no bugger wants to keep hold of him at the end period because he aint good enough (so why did he get a new contract ?), so we should bring him back here and force him to earn his dream big-money-move with big performances for us.
mprobert Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 Partially makes up for the bad news about Cork leaving
Andy_Porter Posted 2 January, 2009 Author Posted 2 January, 2009 If you can't see that signing Dyer up to retain him as an asset, getting other clubs to pay those wages, possibly getting loan fees AND the chance to sell him at the end of it is good business, then you are naive. Great business IF Swansea are paying 100% of his wages, IF we get and loan fee and IF we find a club stupid enough to sign him. We should have offered him the smallest possible contract in the summer, wait for him to reject it and sign for someone else and took the token amount from the tribunial if the club didn't view him as a first team player.
trousers Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 (edited) Sorry to bring a bit of logic to you muppets but it is obvious why we gave him a contract. Rupert quite clearly wanted to stop the "Why did we let Dyer go for free" threads that would have been posted by the same morons that see everything as a chance to knock the club. If you can't see that signing Dyer up to retain him as an asset, getting other clubs to pay those wages, possibly getting loan fees AND the chance to sell him at the end of it is good business, then you are naive. Personally I don't think he's good enough for Saints, but if we can get something for him rather than nothing then that has to be a good thing. ... But don't let that stop you exercising your Lowe Obsessed Hate-in. People aren't questioning Lowe's logic per se, they are highlighting the two-faced quotes he appears to make on the OS. If the renewal of Dyer's contract was a tactical move, why create an OS article where Lowe bestows bucket loads of praise on Dyer rather than just make a business-like passing reference to it? (much like the OS does with any news it wants to slip in quietly....). How are we suppose to trust anything Lowe and/or the OS writes if it should be taken with the same pinch of salt every time? How are we supposed to tell the difference between elaboration and fact? Edit: ok, so Lowe is probably using the OS as a shop-window and his words were intended for the ears/eyes of potential suitors for Dyer...but I still ask how we're suppose to tell the difference between a genuine Lowe quote and one that is 'spin' to sell on players... Edited 2 January, 2009 by trousers
yorkie Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 Dyer should never have been allowed to wear the SAints shirt again after his antics in Portsmouth/Southsea. Should have got rid straight away...like it or not he did something wrong was found guilty and given a new contract? Double Dutch to reward someone for breaking the law. Just glad he's not part of our current set up...I bet Rupert never left him alone in a room with his mobile phone!
Alain Perrin Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 People aren't questioning Lowe's logic per se, they are highlighting the two-faced quotes he appears to make on the OS. If the renewal of Dyer's contract was a tactical move, why create an OS article where Lowe bestows bucket loads of praise on Dyer rather than just make a business-like passing reference to it? (much like the OS does with any news it wants to slip in quietly....). How are we suppose to trust anything Lowe and/or the OS writes if it should be taken with the same pinch of salt every time? How are we supposed to tell the difference between elaboration and fact? To be honest Dyer isn't going to say anything different and I wouldn't expect the club to either. You don't sign a new contract and say "I'm just doing this to get my next move / I've no better options", just as an employer wouldn't say "I'm just employing you so that I can sell you on for more money".
Dalek2003 Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 Spock would have a fit with all this illogical business going on... or are we preparing for L1? Yes
um pahars Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 (edited) Sorry to bring a bit of logic to you muppets but it is obvious why we gave him a contract. Rupert quite clearly wanted to stop the "Why did we let Dyer go for free" threads that would have been posted by the same morons that see everything as a chance to knock the club. If you can't see that signing Dyer up to retain him as an asset, getting other clubs to pay those wages, possibly getting loan fees AND the chance to sell him at the end of it is good business, then you are naive. Personally I don't think he's good enough for Saints, but if we can get something for him rather than nothing then that has to be a good thing. ... But don't let that stop you exercising your Lowe Obsessed Hate-in. I see it as no more than Lowe viewing Dyer as a commodity who he believes will increase in value. He's purely just taking a gamble and believing he can get more for him being under contract (and requiring a transfer fee) as opposed to being out of contract (and getting compensation). The problem comes when you firstly consider the comments made by Lowe when Dyer signed a new contract, particularly the nauseating bits about the new regime. Secondly, it only works from a financial perspective if we make money out of him. We have probably coughed up a signing on fee and paid some wages whilst he was initially with us & no one is aware of what the net deal is with Sheff Utd/Swansea (i.e. are we still payng some wages etc etc etc). It all depends on what someone is prepared to pay in the future (against what a tribunal would have set) and what the net cost to us of this decision is. At the moment it is a gamble and no one on here knows the true cost either way. I wouldn't have minded it being a purely financial decision had the OS not carrid that nauseating and rather insulting piece back in July, but as we stand at the moment I think we've lost money on him. Edited 2 January, 2009 by um pahars
trousers Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 To be honest Dyer isn't going to say anything different and I wouldn't expect the club to either. You don't sign a new contract and say "I'm just doing this to get my next move / I've no better options", just as an employer wouldn't say "I'm just employing you so that I can sell you on for more money". I was referring to Lowe's quote rather than Dyer's:- Plc chairman Rupert Lowe said: "I am very pleased Nathan has signed for another three years and that he clearly believes in what we are trying to achieve. "He is quick, attack-minded and talented and he fits right in with the way we want to play fast, attacking football with young players coming through.
trousers Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 Saints winger Nathan Dyer has swapped Sheffield for Swansea following the conclusion of his loan at Sheffield United, joining the Swans on loan until the end of the season. The 21-year old made just three starts during his stay at Bramall Lane and will now be hoping to hold down a more regular place at the Liberty Stadium. He will go straight into Roberto Martinez's squad ahead of their weekend FA Cup tie against Histon. http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/articles/article.php?page_id=11165
instinct Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 dyer is poor, smith is poor, our management is poor, our chairman is a ****, our defence is poor, our attack is blunt and ineffective with this squad playing these tactics we would get relagated from league one. the lower down the leagues you go the more physical the football is, and these youngsters would be bullied all over the park. if ryan smith can't even get a game at millwall what is he doing here??
ALWAYS_SFC Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 (edited) dyer is poor, smith is poor, our management is poor, our chairman is a ****, our defence is poor, our attack is blunt and ineffective with this squad playing these tactics we would get relagated from league one. the lower down the leagues you go the more physical the football is, and these youngsters would be bullied all over the park. if ryan smith can't even get a game at millwall what is he doing here?? Because he`s cheap.... We will soon have nothing that is not cheap... Anyway never mind because we are playing some lovely football...well that`s what Rupert told me in the car park before the Reading game and the DOF knows best doesn`t he? Edited 2 January, 2009 by ALWAYS_SFC
The Incongruous Monk Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 Dyer was arrested in March, a long time before he signed his new contract. I stand corrected. It's been a loooooong day. :-)
St. Jason Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 Dyer is ****e and can fook off Thats not the question, the question is why sign him if he's so sh!te? When we signed him he'd of got a signing on fee, we'd of paid his wages up to the point of him joining Shef Utd and probably a % of his wages whilst there. In short would it not of been more cost effective for us just to let him leave at the end of last season, and take any compensation offered from the tribunal??
derry Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 Dyer was on about £5k a week when he was arrested, clearing that out of the way may help to keep Saga. Though I'm not holding my breath.
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 Thats not the question, the question is why sign him if he's so sh!te? When we signed him he'd of got a signing on fee, we'd of paid his wages up to the point of him joining Shef Utd and probably a % of his wages whilst there. In short would it not of been more cost effective for us just to let him leave at the end of last season, and take any compensation offered from the tribunal?? We signed Nathan Dyer not because we truly wanted him but because someone fancied a punt that we could transfer him for a profit at some stage - all/most of the clubs recent signings are based on this principle . In this instance I personally can't see this player ever being worth more than c £250k so it's unlikely we'll ever make any real money on him .
St. Jason Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 We signed Nathan Dyer not because we truly wanted him but because someone fancied a punt that we could transfer him for a profit at some stage - all/most of the clubs recent signings are based on this principle . In this instance I personally can't see this player ever being worth more than c £250k so it's unlikely we'll ever make any real money on him . Exactly my point, why bother signing him in the first place, we've probably lost more than we'll ever get for him already!
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 Exactly my point, why bother signing him in the first place, we've probably lost more than we'll ever get for him already! I quite agree , an ill-advised gamble with the clubs all too limited finances . To put it into perspective however if we list of all the grievous errors made by the current Board this probably ranks as a fairly minor entry .
Arizona Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 It's quite sad really. The club is so messed up at the moment that the whole Dyer situation seems perfectly normal.
NickG Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 sounds like he was told he was going to be 5th choice here http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=11166
Torbay Saint Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 That seems to contradict Jan's statement when Dyer signed a new contract. Where is the proof of incidents at Sheff Utd or at Saints of his disruptive attitude? Well I can tell you that after the Wolves game all three of them were out in a few bars in Bedford Place.
BotleySaint Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 At least Smith can run with the ball. When i've seen him his dribbling has been much better than anyone else at the club.
AndyNorthernSaints Posted 2 January, 2009 Posted 2 January, 2009 Well I can tell you that after the Wolves game all three of them were out in a few bars in Bedford Place. Footballers have a life shock!!!!!!!!!!! Did they go for a kebab later? outragous behaviour :-)
Torbay Saint Posted 3 January, 2009 Posted 3 January, 2009 I think the point was Dyer was meant to be on loan at Sheffield at the time, but still managed to get back in time to go out! Perhaps if he'd have spent more time up there he might have made more of an impression?! Sadly I think he is a classic case of a guy who thinks he has made it and won't put in the hard yards anymore. Maybe if he spent less time having a 'life' and more time developing his career we would not even be discussing this?! One game in the Carling Cup does not equate to a career.
L1Minus10 Posted 3 January, 2009 Posted 3 January, 2009 Please explain how it's Crouch's fault, please???? http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/search/?mode=movenav&page_id=10350 Rupert negotiated Dyer's contract, so one would guess that it was negotiated on our new financial terms and limitations, with this being the case how come we're signing a player Millwall (Div 2) don't want yet loaning out Dyer???? Dear oh ****ing dear.... !!! It's called 'Irony' sonny.
L1Minus10 Posted 3 January, 2009 Posted 3 January, 2009 Dyer has made SFC look stupid. This is not difficult as SFC needs no help to look stupid. It was obvious to anyone that Dyer didn't want to stay for whatever reason. It's also obvious whilst he had the odd moment - he is an ineffective footballer and he has a bad attitude. Regardless of his age, money etc... he should NEVER have been given a new contract, let alone a 3 year one. They should have kept him on monthly deals until they could flog him. If after 6 months then no takers then cut your losses. As it is, we have him on 3 year deal and no one will buy him and we won't play him. Nice one Rupert.
Thedelldays Posted 3 January, 2009 Posted 3 January, 2009 Dyer has made SFC look stupid. This is not difficult as SFC needs no help to look stupid. It was obvious to anyone that Dyer didn't want to stay for whatever reason. It's also obvious whilst he had the odd moment - he is an ineffective footballer and he has a bad attitude. Regardless of his age, money etc... he should NEVER have been given a new contract, let alone a 3 year one. They should have kept him on monthly deals until they could flog him. If after 6 months then no takers then cut your losses. As it is, we have him on 3 year deal and no one will buy him and we won't play him. Nice one Rupert. errm, how do you make money on someone on a monthly contract..?
Colinjb Posted 3 January, 2009 Posted 3 January, 2009 This is f*cking rediculous. He is a player of championship quality, under contract with us and we loan him. I would like to slap whoever made this decision round the head with a frying pan.
sidthesquid Posted 3 January, 2009 Posted 3 January, 2009 A friend of mine met someone who taught Dyer at school and they said he was always a pain in the Rse with a confrontational attitude so it sounds like nothing has changed. Also, don't forget McLaggon's appearance in the team - as somebody said last week, he looked like Dyer with pace and an end product. I agree with the idea that we took a gamble on offering him a contract, hoping at the very least, to get a transfer fee for him, but unless he sets the world on fire at Swansea he's going to be hard to shift, but a fair gamble nonetheless.
Scummer Posted 3 January, 2009 Posted 3 January, 2009 Also, don't forget McLaggon's appearance in the team - as somebody said last week, he looked like Dyer with pace and an end product. Problem is, so far this season you could have said similar things about Thompson, Gobern, Robertson, Pekhart, Holmes, Smith etc etc. They come in, play a good game or two, then get ditched.
sidthesquid Posted 3 January, 2009 Posted 3 January, 2009 That still doesn't make Dyer any good, though
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