enzo gambaro Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 I???m the first one to jump on Bog-boned Sam???s back, but Hamann is a good player, better than we already have at the club so it is a step forward. He's not a bad un. However, he's hardly one for the future (I seem to recall some big talk about bringing down the average age of the squad), he isn't so much better than what we've got to make a noticeable difference, and he seems to have spent a long time doing his upmost not to sign for us. And what the hell is Bog-boned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosh66 Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 Err, check official site now. He's firkin changed his mind, AFTER signing a contract. Wasn't that fussed about him but this makes us out to look a right bunch of tits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no balls Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 And what the hell is Bog-boned? I had a pop at it for saying Fat Sam as that's just rude and unpleasant so it's now calling him Big Boned. A spelling mistake or poor attempt at humour maybe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enzo gambaro Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 And what the hell is Bog-boned? I had a pop at it for saying Fat Sam as that's just rude and unpleasant so it's now calling him Big Boned. A spelling mistake or poor attempt at humour maybe! Thanks for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever white Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 http://www.teamtalk.com/football/story/0,1...1327288,00.html It does all seem to stem from the deal talked about some weeks ago . Im left a little confused as if this is true does it really mean we are entitled to some sort of fee. Not that i expect this club to do anything useful with it . (it will probably just about cover the air miles and lunches to attempt to lure the prick in the first place) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 HAVE WE SIGNED THE FCUKER OR NOT? Everybody is saying that we have, but the Bolton Website is saying that we haven't. I know how sh1t are website is so I don't no who to believe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exiledwhite2 Posted July 11, 2006 Author Share Posted July 11, 2006 HAVE WE SIGNED THE FCUKER OR NOT? Everybody is saying that we have, but the Bolton Website is saying that we haven't. I know how sh1t are website is so I don't no who to believe? I suspect we haven't. My guess, and it is a guess, is that Liverpool released a duff story today on their site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Casino Posted July 11, 2006 Moderators Share Posted July 11, 2006 my guess is that liverpool released the right story just they didn't have all the information Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white noise Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 It said on SSN that he signed a 1year deal with Bolton, City are offering a 2year deal. Plus when we were in the process of signing him, he kept saying that Bolton were the only club interested. As soon as an alternative became available, off he went. Anyone but Bolton ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mounts Kipper Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 It said on SSN that he signed a 1year deal with Bolton, City are offering a 2year deal. Plus when we were in the process of signing him, he kept saying that Bolton were the only club interested. As soon as an alternative became available, off he went. Anyone but Bolton ? was hamman an option only if campodid not sign? if not why was he not brought to the club and sold the club, if his wife was having doubts why was she not also asked to come along and also sold the club, after all we have good tradition, fantastic facilities, i feel the powers that be are not working there backsides off to project the club in a favourable light, little details can make all the difference in a competitive market, this is happening to often we lost benayoun the same way, it is time people in the club woke from there slumbers and came into the real world. p.s. getting really hacked off to the back teeth with how our club operates, unproffesional is putting it lightly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ani Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 It said on SSN that he signed a 1year deal with Bolton, City are offering a 2year deal. Plus when we were in the process of signing him, he kept saying that Bolton were the only club interested. As soon as an alternative became available, off he went. Anyone but Bolton ? was hamman an option only if campo signed? if not why was he not brought to the club and sold the club, if his wife was having doubts why was she not also asked to come along and also sold the club, after all we have good tradition, fantastic facilities, i feel the powers that be are not working there backsides off to project the club in a favourable light, little details can make all the difference in a competitive market, this is happening to often we lost benayoun the same way, it is time people in the club woke from there slumbers and came into the real world. p.s. getting really hacked off to the back teeth with how our club operates, unproffesional is putting it lightly. fcuk the kraut. nothing else to add other than if he had signed a contract and then backe dout it is him the sunbed stealing pussy that is unproffesional not Bolton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mounts Kipper Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 It said on SSN that he signed a 1year deal with Bolton, City are offering a 2year deal. Plus when we were in the process of signing him, he kept saying that Bolton were the only club interested. As soon as an alternative became available, off he went. Anyone but Bolton ? was hamman an option only if campo signed? if not why was he not brought to the club and sold the club, if his wife was having doubts why was she not also asked to come along and also sold the club, after all we have good tradition, fantastic facilities, i feel the powers that be are not working there backsides off to project the club in a favourable light, little details can make all the difference in a competitive market, this is happening to often we lost benayoun the same way, it is time people in the club woke from there slumbers and came into the real world. p.s. getting really hacked off to the back teeth with how our club operates, unproffesional is putting it lightly. fcuk the kraut. nothing else to add other than if he had signed a contract and then backe dout it is him the sunbed stealing pussy that is unproffesional not Bolton. if he did sign a contract and then backed out i expect bolton to force the F.A. into stop him from playing for any other club until a transfer fee is negotiated, if we dont do this a dangerous precedent for football is being set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitbat69 Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 Surely if he has signed a contract we can sue him. If BWFC reneged on a deal,they would be sued. I don't want any player that doesn't want to play for BWFC but he can't just change his mind wants he signs a contract. It smacks of David Unsworth when he signed and then changed his mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Zico Posted July 11, 2006 Moderators Share Posted July 11, 2006 It said on SSN that he signed a 1year deal with Bolton, City are offering a 2year deal. Plus when we were in the process of signing him, he kept saying that Bolton were the only club interested. As soon as an alternative became available, off he went. Anyone but Bolton ? was hamman an option only if campodid not sign? if not why was he not brought to the club and sold the club, if his wife was having doubts why was she not also asked to come along and also sold the club, after all we have good tradition, fantastic facilities, i feel the powers that be are not working there backsides off to project the club in a favourable light, little details can make all the difference in a competitive market, this is happening to often we lost benayoun the same way, it is time people in the club woke from there slumbers and came into the real world. p.s. getting really hacked off to the back teeth with how our club operates, unproffesional is putting it lightly. far too many nergative assumptions there he clearly never wanted to sign from day one, and one of the reasons I believe is because he doesn't like Diouf the club made him an offer and his first reaction was to go and think about it for a week - if he doesn't want to sign then he doesn't want to and no amount of selling that is made or not will change his mind - fcuk him, city are shite and will struggle next season, his loss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traf Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 I agree with MK. If has actually signed a contract, he's our player. If City want him, they buy him at a price we want. At least the money we've wasted persuing the big nosed Nazi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mounts Kipper Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 I agree with MK. If has actually signed a contract, he's our player. If City want him, they buy him at a price we want. At least the money we've wasted persuing the big nosed Nazi. reading the papers this morning it intimates we have recieved something for hamman, thats in the kitty with the gudjohnsen money, we will never know what we recieved for both these players and the way we are shaping we probably wont spend it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyldesley_white Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 From the Telegraph http://wc2006.telegraph.co.uk/Document.asp...27-A67D029F6BD8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWFCOLINH58 Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 he signed when he thought sam was staying, sam going = hamman going.......... bwfcolinh58 i t k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exiledwhite2 Posted July 12, 2006 Author Share Posted July 12, 2006 From the Telegraphhttp://wc2006.telegraph.co.uk/Document.asp...27-A67D029F6BD8 We are total mugs if that's the way it's panned out. We should ask City for at least a nominal fee to cover the hassle it's caused us. All that said, perhaps Campo re-signing made Sam think it was mutually beneficial if the Hamann deal was cancelled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Casino Posted July 12, 2006 Moderators Share Posted July 12, 2006 from BEN Cash, but no Hamman for WanderersBy Gordon Sharrock BOLTON Wanderers look set to pocket a ??300,000 compensation payment after losing Dietmar Hamann to Manchester City. The 32-year-old German joined Wanderers yesterday but will never kick a ball for the club. Instead, he will join City today in a farcical twist at the end of an on-off transfer tale that has been embroiled in technicalities. Hamann, who publicly snubbed Sam Allardyce last month after originally agreeing to join Wanderers, appeared to have had another dramatic change of heart yesterday afternoon, when Liverpool announced he was leaving Anfield for the Reebok. continued... Media outlets carried the shock news that Big Sam had scored a dramatic transfer coup by getting his man at the 11th hour. But it soon became clear that it was merely a technicality with the Whites effectively being used as a flag of convenience. Hamann had, in fact, stuck by his deal with City but, because he had already signed an agreement with Wanderers, he had to go through the formality of becoming a Bolton player for 24 hours before he could join the Blues. Wanderers had threatened to sue the player for breach of contract but are believed to have agreed a compensation settlement with City, although they are refusing to make any comment other than the brief statement they issued at the height of yesterday's confusion. That statement read: "Bolton Wanderers wishes to clarify that, although Didi Hamann signed a contract with the club, he has since had a change of heart and will sign for another football club in the next 24 hours. Bolton Wanderers will not be making any further comment on this matter." Despite the lack of clarification, yesterday's bizarre events thought to be the shortest transfer in football history confirmed that Hamann reneged on a written agreement with Wanderers. But that will come as little consolation to Allardyce, who first tried to sign the German international on loan 18 months ago. He almost succeeded in May last year until Hamann figured in Liverpool's dramatic Champions League triumph over AC Milan and re-signed for the Reds on a new two-year deal. He could not have come closer this time than having the deal signed and sealed but was ultimately left frustrated when he failed to deliver. Commenting on the Hamann affair at the weekend, Allardyce said: "As manager of Bolton you get far more disappointments than successes. "I would have liked Hamann but we haven't got him. I don't know why he's changed his mind, I haven't had an explanation. It's a big disappointment, but we haven't got him, so we move on." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xxxxxx Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Sam and Phil are stupid. 300,000 pound? That's fcuk all.....we should have got a couple of million of Man City for the deal, he was legally our player, so why shouldn't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Casino Posted July 12, 2006 Moderators Share Posted July 12, 2006 Sam and Phil are stupid. 300,000 pound? That's fcuk all.....we should have got a couple of million of Man City for the deal, he was legally our player, so why shouldn't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweep Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Sam and Phil are stupid. 300,000 pound? That's fcuk all.....we should have got a couple of million of Man City for the deal, he was legally our player, so why shouldn't we? Don't talk tripe, if we get ??300K then that's a great deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stinkythefrog Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 If Hamann was up for sale I couldn't imagine him going for more than a million so I don't think ??300K is bad compensation for the time and effort our negotiating team put into the deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xxxxxx Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Sam and Phil are stupid. 300,000 pound? That's fcuk all.....we should have got a couple of million of Man City for the deal, he was legally our player, so why shouldn't we? Don't talk tripe, if we get ??300K then that's a great deal It's not just the 300,000 pound that's bothering me, it's the fact we've been messed about by the big-nosed bastard. And to Man Shitty of all places, which are the team we've finished ahead of for the last 3 years. If he wants to mess us about, why shouldn't we mess him about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts