Jump to content

Whats was with Ricky and Huddersfield


Noodles34
 Share

Recommended Posts

i think their chairman didn't want to match the deal rovers wanted - he said

 

"A move for Rickie Lambert is a no-no," Hoyle told the Huddersfield Examiner.

 

 

 

"No disrespect to a very good player but it's a simple matter of economics.

"Any deal would cost a minimum of £750,000 plus add-ons for a player who is 27 and who would want a three-year contract.

"Even if he scored 30 goals a season for those three years, by the time the contract is at an end the player would be 30, and therefore there would be little or no resale value.

"That means that even before meeting wage demands, the signing would cost £5000 a week, and this club cannot do that kind of business.

"If Rickie Lambert was 22 or 23, it would be a different matter, but he's not and suggestions that we will sign him are nonsense."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think their chairman didn't want to match the deal rovers wanted - he said

 

"A move for Rickie Lambert is a no-no," Hoyle told the Huddersfield Examiner.

 

 

 

"No disrespect to a very good player but it's a simple matter of economics.

"Any deal would cost a minimum of £750,000 plus add-ons for a player who is 27 and who would want a three-year contract.

"Even if he scored 30 goals a season for those three years, by the time the contract is at an end the player would be 30, and therefore there would be little or no resale value.

"That means that even before meeting wage demands, the signing would cost £5000 a week, and this club cannot do that kind of business.

"If Rickie Lambert was 22 or 23, it would be a different matter, but he's not and suggestions that we will sign him are nonsense."

Oh no, does this mean we've been ripped off?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think their chairman didn't want to match the deal rovers wanted - he said

 

"A move for Rickie Lambert is a no-no," Hoyle told the Huddersfield Examiner.

 

 

 

"No disrespect to a very good player but it's a simple matter of economics.

"Any deal would cost a minimum of £750,000 plus add-ons for a player who is 27 and who would want a three-year contract.

"Even if he scored 30 goals a season for those three years, by the time the contract is at an end the player would be 30, and therefore there would be little or no resale value.

"That means that even before meeting wage demands, the signing would cost £5000 a week, and this club cannot do that kind of business.

"If Rickie Lambert was 22 or 23, it would be a different matter, but he's not and suggestions that we will sign him are nonsense."

 

To be honest I think their chairman makes a very valid point there. He is not affordable for a smaller club like Huddersfield but we can afford him and since we have different ambitions we need those kind of players. I don't get why Lambert would be upset at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest I think their chairman makes a very valid point there. He is not affordable for a smaller club like Huddersfield but we can afford him and since we have different ambitions we need those kind of players. I don't get why Lambert would be upset at that.

 

The fans blamed him for being a greedy b@stard and chasing the money when he signed for us rather that them. They gave him loads of stick up there and were singing "Lambert what's the score?" at 3-1. He gave them a bit back, that's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest I think their chairman makes a very valid point there. He is not affordable for a smaller club like Huddersfield but we can afford him and since we have different ambitions we need those kind of players. I don't get why Lambert would be upset at that.

 

yeh he does make a fair point tbh - which is why i don't feel we'll lose him like others are fearing.

 

clubs outside the EPL cannot justify paying that sort of fee for someone over 27. And clubs in the PL aren't going to pay over £2m (which is what i guess he'd be worth now) on someone who has never played above L1 and is over 27.

 

he's ours for a long time!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeh he does make a fair point tbh - which is why i don't feel we'll lose him like others are fearing.

 

clubs outside the EPL cannot justify paying that sort of fee for someone over 27. And clubs in the PL aren't going to pay over £2m (which is what i guess he'd be worth now) on someone who has never played above L1 and is over 27.

 

he's ours for a long time!

 

Some on here would disagree!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest I think their chairman makes a very valid point there. He is not affordable for a smaller club like Huddersfield but we can afford him and since we have different ambitions we need those kind of players. I don't get why Lambert would be upset at that.

 

 

Not so sure I agree, if he's the difference between promotion and not going up, surely that more than offsets the fact that he may have little re-sale value.

 

Anyway, the Huddersfield chairman's wrong about that as well, Rickie's good enough for the Prem, I sincerely believe that, so he has re-sale value. If he had pace, he'd be in the England squad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fans blamed him for being a greedy b@stard and chasing the money when he signed for us rather that them. They gave him loads of stick up there and were singing "Lambert what's the score?" at 3-1. He gave them a bit back, that's all.

 

 

I was there for the away game at the Galpharm.They gave him abuse all game

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})