Marvin Signs for Blackpool

[Millennial Snowflake]

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1235&p=31382&hilit= ... ham#p31382

Looks like the same people going apeshit at him leaving for free were going apeshit when they thought we were about to sell him

I suspect we didn’t sell him last summer or in Jan as the owners decided we’d be dragged into a relegation scrap and the cost of returning to the NL would be greater than the money we’ve missed out on by him running down his contract

[Disoriented]

Interesting read.

What has happened to Eagwgw? Probably the most sensible footballing comments on this board came from him.

Another one hounded off by the shrill brigade I suspect.

[BiggsyMalone]

The club website says they offered Ekpiteta " numerous terms across the season", but he turned them all down
This statement gives me the impression, the club knew his contract would expire this summer, & tried to get him to commit himself, from the off, but he wasnt going to.
If that was the case, why didnt the club put him on the transfer list, and sell him in January. what ever fee they got, was obviously going to be more than what they'd get for him, if he just ran down his contract & left for free in July
This strikes me as incompetence, from Ling ( as DOF).
When it became obvious, Ekpiteta wasnt interested in re signing for us....the club should have looked at what was best..FOR THE CLUB.....and that would have been to sell him in the January window.
Just to let a players contract run out so he goes for free, seems criminal

A slight flaw in your argument is of course that other clubs may not have been sufficiently interested in paying a fee to get Ekpiteta during the January transfer window and instead preferred to sit things out and wait until his contract expired and then pay nothing. Just a thought.

Another flaw in the argument is that IF a number of clubs were in for
Marvin all the clubs wouldn’t have been able to sign him so it would
been a case of what club blinked first...
IF Rotherham alledgely did offer 200k why wasn’t he allowed to go if
the club KNEW he had no intention of signing it’s a lose lose situation
the club could be a few quick richer and Marvin would now be a
Championship player with Rotherham..

Just a thought...

Cause the DoF is dining out on Lee Steele’s goal which makes him untouchable

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1235&p=31382&hilit= ... ham#p31382

Looks like the same people going apeshit at him leaving for free were going apeshit when they thought we were about to sell him

I suspect we didn’t sell him last summer or in Jan as the owners decided we’d be dragged into a relegation scrap and the cost of returning to the NL would be greater than the money we’ve missed out on by him running down his contract

Great find

I don't buy your reasoning, though. Why did we sell Koroma, if that was their logic? Of the two, he is the one you would keep to bolster the team. Solid centre halves are a lot more common, and cheaper, than match winning goal scorers. Plus we were stronger in Marv's position (Happe, Coulson, Turley) than Koroma's (Harold, Alabi, some Greek kid from the youth team).

It just doesn't stack up.

[HeyO]

Turley is fit?

[DuvB]

Turley is fit?

Well, I dont fancy him.

[The Big Shot]

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1235&p=31382&hilit= ... ham#p31382

Looks like the same people going apeshit at him leaving for free were going apeshit when they thought we were about to sell him

I suspect we didn’t sell him last summer or in Jan as the owners decided we’d be dragged into a relegation scrap and the cost of returning to the NL would be greater than the money we’ve missed out on by him running down his contract

This just proves that ultimately, the club is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

-If Marvin was sold last summer - Certain people on here would've moaned and complained that the club has no ambition and that its a disgrace he's been sold along with Bonne and Koroma, even if Marvin says he wanted to move on and play higher, it would still be a disgrace to these certain people who then would've started saying things like "We should've kept him here and offered him multiple contract offers to try and keep him and risk losing him for nothing in the summer."

-If Marvin is sold in January - Same thing, the same people that would've been complaining about him being sold in the summer, would've now complained that we should've held onto him until the end of the season and let him go for nothing because we wouldn't have got anyone better and that its a disgrace that we've once again showed no ambition by selling another talented player midway through the season where we are struggling a bit.

-Marvin lets his contract run down, so no transfer fee is involved which enables him to move easier at the end of the season on a free transfer - The same people that would've been complaining in the summer/January about him being sold for a transfer fee, would now start complaining about why didn't we sell him earlier in the previous two windows and now we've made no money from him - Even though these same certain people would've complained anyway if we'd sold him in the previous two transfer windows.

It didn't matter which of the above happened, certain people already had their agenda's prepared and ready.

Even if Marvin had signed a new contract and stayed, certain people would've complained about that and twisted it.

Can anyone actually confirm what the correct opinion is to have on this situation please?

[HeyO]

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1235&p=31382&hilit= ... ham#p31382

Looks like the same people going apeshit at him leaving for free were going apeshit when they thought we were about to sell him

I suspect we didn’t sell him last summer or in Jan as the owners decided we’d be dragged into a relegation scrap and the cost of returning to the NL would be greater than the money we’ve missed out on by him running down his contract

This just proves that ultimately, the club is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

-If Marvin was sold last summer - Certain people on here would've moaned and complained that the club has no ambition and that its a disgrace he's been sold along with Bonne and Koroma, even if Marvin says he wanted to move on and play higher, it would still be a disgrace to these certain people who then would've started saying things like "We should've kept him here and offered him multiple contract offers to try and keep him and risk losing him for nothing in the summer."

-If Marvin is sold in January - Same thing, the same people that would've been complaining about him being sold in the summer, would've now complained that we should've held onto him until the end of the season and let him go for nothing because we wouldn't have got anyone better and that its a disgrace that we've once again showed no ambition by selling another talented player midway through the season where we are struggling a bit.

-Marvin lets his contract run down, so no transfer fee is involved which enables him to move easier at the end of the season on a free transfer - The same people that would've been complaining in the summer/January about him being sold for a transfer fee, would now start complaining about why didn't we sell him earlier in the previous two windows and now we've made no money from him - Even though these same certain people would've complained anyway if we'd sold him in the previous two transfer windows.

It didn't matter which of the above happened, certain people already had their agenda's prepared and ready.

Even if Marvin had signed a new contract and stayed, certain people would've complained about that and twisted it.

Can anyone actually confirm what the correct opinion is to have on this situation please?

All very worrying.

[Smendrick Feaselberg]

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1235&p=31382&hilit= ... ham#p31382

Looks like the same people going apeshit at him leaving for free were going apeshit when they thought we were about to sell him

I suspect we didn’t sell him last summer or in Jan as the owners decided we’d be dragged into a relegation scrap and the cost of returning to the NL would be greater than the money we’ve missed out on by him running down his contract

This just proves that ultimately, the club is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

-If Marvin was sold last summer - Certain people on here would've moaned and complained that the club has no ambition and that its a disgrace he's been sold along with Bonne and Koroma, even if Marvin says he wanted to move on and play higher, it would still be a disgrace to these certain people who then would've started saying things like "We should've kept him here and offered him multiple contract offers to try and keep him and risk losing him for nothing in the summer."

-If Marvin is sold in January - Same thing, the same people that would've been complaining about him being sold in the summer, would've now complained that we should've held onto him until the end of the season and let him go for nothing because we wouldn't have got anyone better and that its a disgrace that we've once again showed no ambition by selling another talented player midway through the season where we are struggling a bit.

-Marvin lets his contract run down, so no transfer fee is involved which enables him to move easier at the end of the season on a free transfer - The same people that would've been complaining in the summer/January about him being sold for a transfer fee, would now start complaining about why didn't we sell him earlier in the previous two windows and now we've made no money from him - Even though these same certain people would've complained anyway if we'd sold him in the previous two transfer windows.

It didn't matter which of the above happened, certain people already had their agenda's prepared and ready.

Even if Marvin had signed a new contract and stayed, certain people would've complained about that and twisted it.

Can anyone actually confirm what the correct opinion is to have on this situation please?

All very worrying.

Why is that?

[HeyO]

This just proves that ultimately, the club is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

-If Marvin was sold last summer - Certain people on here would've moaned and complained that the club has no ambition and that its a disgrace he's been sold along with Bonne and Koroma, even if Marvin says he wanted to move on and play higher, it would still be a disgrace to these certain people who then would've started saying things like "We should've kept him here and offered him multiple contract offers to try and keep him and risk losing him for nothing in the summer."

-If Marvin is sold in January - Same thing, the same people that would've been complaining about him being sold in the summer, would've now complained that we should've held onto him until the end of the season and let him go for nothing because we wouldn't have got anyone better and that its a disgrace that we've once again showed no ambition by selling another talented player midway through the season where we are struggling a bit.

-Marvin lets his contract run down, so no transfer fee is involved which enables him to move easier at the end of the season on a free transfer - The same people that would've been complaining in the summer/January about him being sold for a transfer fee, would now start complaining about why didn't we sell him earlier in the previous two windows and now we've made no money from him - Even though these same certain people would've complained anyway if we'd sold him in the previous two transfer windows.

It didn't matter which of the above happened, certain people already had their agenda's prepared and ready.

Even if Marvin had signed a new contract and stayed, certain people would've complained about that and twisted it.

Can anyone actually confirm what the correct opinion is to have on this situation please?

All very worrying.

Why is that?

So much pontificating.

[BiggsyMalone]

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1235&p=31382&hilit= ... ham#p31382

Looks like the same people going apeshit at him leaving for free were going apeshit when they thought we were about to sell him

I suspect we didn’t sell him last summer or in Jan as the owners decided we’d be dragged into a relegation scrap and the cost of returning to the NL would be greater than the money we’ve missed out on by him running down his contract

This just proves that ultimately, the club is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

-If Marvin was sold last summer - Certain people on here would've moaned and complained that the club has no ambition and that its a disgrace he's been sold along with Bonne and Koroma, even if Marvin says he wanted to move on and play higher, it would still be a disgrace to these certain people who then would've started saying things like "We should've kept him here and offered him multiple contract offers to try and keep him and risk losing him for nothing in the summer."

-If Marvin is sold in January - Same thing, the same people that would've been complaining about him being sold in the summer, would've now complained that we should've held onto him until the end of the season and let him go for nothing because we wouldn't have got anyone better and that its a disgrace that we've once again showed no ambition by selling another talented player midway through the season where we are struggling a bit.

-Marvin lets his contract run down, so no transfer fee is involved which enables him to move easier at the end of the season on a free transfer - The same people that would've been complaining in the summer/January about him being sold for a transfer fee, would now start complaining about why didn't we sell him earlier in the previous two windows and now we've made no money from him - Even though these same certain people would've complained anyway if we'd sold him in the previous two transfer windows.

It didn't matter which of the above happened, certain people already had their agenda's prepared and ready.

Even if Marvin had signed a new contract and stayed, certain people would've complained about that and twisted it.

Can anyone actually confirm what the correct opinion is to have on this situation please?

The Bonne and Koroma thing was down to Ling not putting higher division release clauses in their contracts that served to help Orient as well. This is what happens when you give your best players 2 year deals, they're only 1 year away from leaving for a pittance.

1. If he would have left last summer, the club would have got up to £300k for him. That's more than they got for both Bonne and Koroma. There would be some people who would be annoyed but that money could have gone on strengthening areas in desperate need of strengthening and it could have also gone on giving the likes of Happe a longer term deal.

2. I can't see how anyone would have an issue in getting some money for a player in January when he'd leave on a free a few months later. The club could have just got a loanee in for cover.

3. The question is whether he wanted to sign or didn't. If his agent gave some terms to the club which they wouldn't negotiate then that's different to him refusing to talk to the club and seeing his contract out. This is all about transparency from the club. Whatever happens, people will be annoyed by a decsion the club makes but it isn't 'the same people'.

In my opinion, if Rotherham really did offer £300k last summer then I would have snapped their hands off for it. I would have used the money to invest in the squad, in contracts and in staff.

[Ornchurch]

Have you not considered that the club did want release clauses inserted in the contracts of Bonne and Koroma but that the players refused to sign a contract containing any such clause?

[OyinbO]

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1235&p=31382&hilit= ... ham#p31382

Looks like the same people going apeshit at him leaving for free were going apeshit when they thought we were about to sell him

I suspect we didn’t sell him last summer or in Jan as the owners decided we’d be dragged into a relegation scrap and the cost of returning to the NL would be greater than the money we’ve missed out on by him running down his contract

This is also further evidence (of which there is plenty) that clubs at L1 level have been interested in him for a while. Which makes those bitterly claiming "he'll struggle", "we won't miss him", "he was crap this season", "Ross Embleton Ross Embleton Ross Embleton" "Turley is better anyway" "struggled at this level" look even more foolish and bitter.

[The Big Shot]

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1235&p=31382&hilit= ... ham#p31382

Looks like the same people going apeshit at him leaving for free were going apeshit when they thought we were about to sell him

I suspect we didn’t sell him last summer or in Jan as the owners decided we’d be dragged into a relegation scrap and the cost of returning to the NL would be greater than the money we’ve missed out on by him running down his contract

This just proves that ultimately, the club is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

-If Marvin was sold last summer - Certain people on here would've moaned and complained that the club has no ambition and that its a disgrace he's been sold along with Bonne and Koroma, even if Marvin says he wanted to move on and play higher, it would still be a disgrace to these certain people who then would've started saying things like "We should've kept him here and offered him multiple contract offers to try and keep him and risk losing him for nothing in the summer."

-If Marvin is sold in January - Same thing, the same people that would've been complaining about him being sold in the summer, would've now complained that we should've held onto him until the end of the season and let him go for nothing because we wouldn't have got anyone better and that its a disgrace that we've once again showed no ambition by selling another talented player midway through the season where we are struggling a bit.

-Marvin lets his contract run down, so no transfer fee is involved which enables him to move easier at the end of the season on a free transfer - The same people that would've been complaining in the summer/January about him being sold for a transfer fee, would now start complaining about why didn't we sell him earlier in the previous two windows and now we've made no money from him - Even though these same certain people would've complained anyway if we'd sold him in the previous two transfer windows.

It didn't matter which of the above happened, certain people already had their agenda's prepared and ready.

Even if Marvin had signed a new contract and stayed, certain people would've complained about that and twisted it.

Can anyone actually confirm what the correct opinion is to have on this situation please?

In my opinion, if Rotherham really did offer £300k last summer then I would have snapped their hands off for it. I would have used the money to invest in the squad, in contracts and in staff.

No you wouldn't, you'd have twisted the situation and complained that the club had no ambition by selling one of its better players.

[BiggsyMalone]

Have you not considered that the club did want release clauses inserted in the contracts of Bonne and Koroma but that the players refused to sign a contract containing any such clause?

No, because only an idiot wouldn’t have good release clauses in when offering their best players 2 year deals only

[BiggsyMalone]

This just proves that ultimately, the club is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

-If Marvin was sold last summer - Certain people on here would've moaned and complained that the club has no ambition and that its a disgrace he's been sold along with Bonne and Koroma, even if Marvin says he wanted to move on and play higher, it would still be a disgrace to these certain people who then would've started saying things like "We should've kept him here and offered him multiple contract offers to try and keep him and risk losing him for nothing in the summer."

-If Marvin is sold in January - Same thing, the same people that would've been complaining about him being sold in the summer, would've now complained that we should've held onto him until the end of the season and let him go for nothing because we wouldn't have got anyone better and that its a disgrace that we've once again showed no ambition by selling another talented player midway through the season where we are struggling a bit.

-Marvin lets his contract run down, so no transfer fee is involved which enables him to move easier at the end of the season on a free transfer - The same people that would've been complaining in the summer/January about him being sold for a transfer fee, would now start complaining about why didn't we sell him earlier in the previous two windows and now we've made no money from him - Even though these same certain people would've complained anyway if we'd sold him in the previous two transfer windows.

It didn't matter which of the above happened, certain people already had their agenda's prepared and ready.

Even if Marvin had signed a new contract and stayed, certain people would've complained about that and twisted it.

Can anyone actually confirm what the correct opinion is to have on this situation please?

In my opinion, if Rotherham really did offer £300k last summer then I would have snapped their hands off for it. I would have used the money to invest in the squad, in contracts and in staff.

No you wouldn't, you'd have twisted the situation and complained that the club had no ambition by selling one of its better players.

No, I’m telling you what I would have done. If it was Happe, I wouldn’t accept anything under half a mil at the very least.

[gshaw]

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1235&p=31382&hilit= ... ham#p31382

Looks like the same people going apeshit at him leaving for free were going apeshit when they thought we were about to sell him

I suspect we didn’t sell him last summer or in Jan as the owners decided we’d be dragged into a relegation scrap and the cost of returning to the NL would be greater than the money we’ve missed out on by him running down his contract

This just proves that ultimately, the club is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

-If Marvin was sold last summer - Certain people on here would've moaned and complained that the club has no ambition and that its a disgrace he's been sold along with Bonne and Koroma, even if Marvin says he wanted to move on and play higher, it would still be a disgrace to these certain people who then would've started saying things like "We should've kept him here and offered him multiple contract offers to try and keep him and risk losing him for nothing in the summer."

-If Marvin is sold in January - Same thing, the same people that would've been complaining about him being sold in the summer, would've now complained that we should've held onto him until the end of the season and let him go for nothing because we wouldn't have got anyone better and that its a disgrace that we've once again showed no ambition by selling another talented player midway through the season where we are struggling a bit.

-Marvin lets his contract run down, so no transfer fee is involved which enables him to move easier at the end of the season on a free transfer - The same people that would've been complaining in the summer/January about him being sold for a transfer fee, would now start complaining about why didn't we sell him earlier in the previous two windows and now we've made no money from him - Even though these same certain people would've complained anyway if we'd sold him in the previous two transfer windows.

It didn't matter which of the above happened, certain people already had their agenda's prepared and ready.

Even if Marvin had signed a new contract and stayed, certain people would've complained about that and twisted it.

Can anyone actually confirm what the correct opinion is to have on this situation please?

Problem with Orient is we sell but then don't strengthen the squad with the funds. Case in point, strikers.

We sold Bonne & Koroma, released Simpson. Instead of going out and improving we signed two players who can't play together (Angol and Wilkinson) then kept Alabi on when it was blatantly obvious he'd be no use in L2. We then wonder why goals were hard to come by and Wright ended our top scorer with under 10 goals.

Meantime we never got the CM we needed either and it took until January to solve that problem area and only short term via loan. Just lucky Cissé hit the ground running but it looks like Adams situation unfolding all over again.

It's one thing selling players then using funds to build the squad up. Another one selling and ending up with a thinner squad than we had at NL level. That's when the frustration comes out.

In the Ekpiteta case we had 2 years out of him for a nominal fee so overall a good use of funds. Compare that to the cost of developing academy players who then leave on the cheap. Makes you wonder why we put so much into the latter compared to the former.

[Thor]

Have you not considered that the club did want release clauses inserted in the contracts of Bonne and Koroma but that the players refused to sign a contract containing any such clause?

No way would koroma have such a clause in his contract, just can't see it myself.

[Ornchurch]

Have you not considered that the club did want release clauses inserted in the contracts of Bonne and Koroma but that the players refused to sign a contract containing any such clause?

No, because only an idiot wouldn’t have good release clauses in when offering their best players 2 year deals only

So what would you do if the players wouldn't sign a contract containing the release clause you wanted?

[BiggsyMalone]

Have you not considered that the club did want release clauses inserted in the contracts of Bonne and Koroma but that the players refused to sign a contract containing any such clause?

No, because only an idiot wouldn’t have good release clauses in when offering their best players 2 year deals only

So what would you do if the players wouldn't sign a contract containing the release clause you wanted?

That’s no different to the situation we’re in. I’m not saying the buyout clause has to be 700k for some average bloke. Just a fair price for all parties. I’m unclear about Orient’s position in football. Are they about producing good young talent then selling them at a good fee? Are they a team that gets a load of journeymen? The whole thing is confused.

[Ornchurch]

No, because only an idiot wouldn’t have good release clauses in when offering their best players 2 year deals only

So what would you do if the players wouldn't sign a contract containing the release clause you wanted?

That’s no different to the situation we’re in. I’m not saying the buyout clause has to be 700k for some average bloke. Just a fair price for all parties. I’m unclear about Orient’s position in football. Are they about producing good young talent then selling them at a good fee? Are they a team that gets a load of journeymen? The whole thing is confused.

But you said only an idiot wouldn't have good release clauses in their contracts.

I'm asking you what you would do if you were negotiating and the player wouldn't sign as they felt that the release clause was set too high? Would you take the clause out or just not sign them?

[redintheface]

By no means an answer to your question Ornchurch but don’t Peterborough operate a policy of making any player entering the final year of their contract available for transfer -irrespective of whether or not they are in discussions about a contact extension? It doesn’t seem to have done them any harm as far as I can see, so maybe that would go some way to solving the club’s dilemma?

[A Pedant]

Bonne and Koroma didn't extend their contracts for the love of Leyton Orient, it was with a release clause for a certain amount if we got promoted. Either one could have refused a contract extension and sought a move to a League club in 18/19, but instead the club secured their services for the whole of that season (and who played a major role in getting us back to the Football League), in return they got their moves. Everybody won.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

Bonne and Koroma didn't extend their contracts for the love of Leyton Orient, it was with a release clause for a certain amount if we got promoted. Either one could have refused a contract extension and sought a move to a League club in 18/19, but instead the club secured their services for the whole of that season (and who played a major role in getting us back to the Football League), in return they got their moves. Everybody won.

Exactly this.

If the release clauses weren’t there, they wouldn’t have renewed, meaning they would have walked at the end of 18/19 anyway.