BluPanther Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 It's interesting - for a Swindon thread, it seems Crump99 has posted nearly as many times as me. Does this mean I've got a stalker? Its probably more a case of Crump99 trying to pull your head out of the sand, as you look but you dont see Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posh Red Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 Of course it is. How many years do you think he'd have to be loaned out (as a heat leader) to get in his current heat leader value? Four? Five? Six, even? Are Swindon going to have him on loan the next however many years? But at the end of those years of making loan payments you have no asset to show for those payments, whereas the loaning club still do have an asset, so surely they are in the better position having the money and the asset, (especially if they have no plans to use that asset themselves). Unless of course you happen to agree that the asset system has run it's course and that assets are virtually worthless to their clubs, in which case I am sure you can see why a club (say Swindon) might not want to be forced into investing in a system that has no value 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratton Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 March 1st after that we can get Batch on loan? hope so if not look at other options.Would the fans want us to be pushed to pay a fee in a climate which is very tough.Also not knowing what the new longterm rules are going to be why would the Swindon management do so.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 Of course it is. How many years do you think he'd have to be loaned out (as a heat leader) to get in his current heat leader value? Four? Five? Six, even? Are Swindon going to have him on loan the next however many years? They don't seem too bothered that Dryml is on loan continuously to Eastbourne, so can't see the difference. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 But at the end of those years of making loan payments you have no asset to show for those payments, whereas the loaning club still do have an asset, so surely they are in the better position having the money and the asset, (especially if they have no plans to use that asset themselves). Unless of course you happen to agree that the asset system has run it's course and that assets are virtually worthless to their clubs, in which case I am sure you can see why a club (say Swindon) might not want to be forced into investing in a system that has no value Depends who the assett is really. If they are quiet and no trouble then you may have a point. However, if they are a pile of grief then the borrowing club gets what they want and can get rid when it suits whereas the owners have to clear the mess up every time. Who does a loan agreement suit best in such circumstances? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 (edited) They don't seem too bothered that Dryml is on loan continuously to Eastbourne, so can't see the difference. See Crump99's post #2385. There's your answer. Edited February 11, 2013 by Vincent Blackshadow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigcatdiary Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 They don't seem too bothered that Dryml is on loan continuously to Eastbourne, so can't see the difference. Of course you don't, Dryml has never ridden for your team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontforgetthefueltapsbruv Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 Depends who the assett is really. If they are quiet and no trouble then you may have a point. However, if they are a pile of grief then the borrowing club gets what they want and can get rid when it suits whereas the owners have to clear the mess up every time. Who does a loan agreement suit best in such circumstances? Id say that means sake price for Troy should be around £5k.If he is such a problem his market value diminishes dramatically. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A ORLOV Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 (edited) Do not forget there is a Supporters Club Quiz night this tues Feb 12th, 8pm at the Moonrakers. Eddie Kennett and Nick Morris are on the guest list.. Edited February 11, 2013 by A ORLOV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnglishRoundabout Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 How refreshing ORLOVSKI....a different topic!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 (edited) And Peterborough fully intended to use Batch last year too, remember? He went missing until Peterborough gave up trying to contact him and built a team without him. He then resurfaced and signed for Swindon. So this current situation, taking last year into account, is exactly the same. Did they ? they sure gave up pretty quick as there team was the of the first to given out to the public if i remember,.hardly a massive effort to include him in the side . Glad to see that you see the Boro side of the story as gospel . Edited February 11, 2013 by orion 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney Rabbit Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 Did they ? they sure gave us pretty quick as there team was the of the first to given out to the public if i remember,.hardly a massive effort to include him in the side . Glad to see that you see the Boro side of the story as gospel . Maybe they were quick in working out why Batch wasn't answering his phone and changed tack before it was too late. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 (edited) Maybe they were quick in working out why Batch wasn't answering his phone and changed tack before it was too late. They were quick getting there team out that's for sure, what makes it even more amazeing is how they got it out so quick seeing that Batch was so say in the side The bottom line is that Boro were more than happy not to have him in there side . Edited February 11, 2013 by orion 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney Rabbit Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 They were quick getting there team out that's for sure, what makes it even more amazeing is how they got it out so quick seeing that Batch was so say in the side The bottom line is that Boro were more than happy not have to him in there side . The team they declared after Batch ruled himself out contained six Panthers' assets (including a pair of double-uppers). Maybe it's quicker declaring a team with so many of your own assets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YerRopes Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 How refreshing ORLOVSKI....a different topic!! Good to see Jason and Zengi added to the Bob Kilby meeting alongside the 2013 Robins too 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 . Maybe it's quicker declaring a team with so many of your own assets. Well judgeing by your efforts this year maybe not ? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 Of course you don't, Dryml has never ridden for your team. Nor would want him too. But i guess the message is clear - it is ok for an asset you don't want in the side to go out on loan season after season, but not allow another asset the same luxury. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 Id say that means sake price for Troy should be around £5k. If he is such a problem his market value diminishes dramatically. Well you can't really value Australia's no1 more than Andersen can you, although Batch'll think he's worth 7k at least. I'm sure the Panthers pair will be impressed that your valuation of them both would get you half a Linus Sundstrom, well it would have two years ago! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney Rabbit Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 Well judgeing by your efforts this year maybe not ? No, the hold-up was a non-asset. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverblue Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 Well you can't really value Australia's no1 more than Andersen can you, although Batch'll think he's worth 7k at least. I'm sure the Panthers pair will be impressed that your valuation of them both would get you half a Linus Sundstrom, well it would have two years ago! Batchelor aussie no.1? Are you mad he's not even in the top two Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.