giblet Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 There's plenty of mumping and moaning from Dons fans on this thread (including me) pointing that out. In reality though, which players...within Aberdeen's financial reality...that moved in this window would have improved Aberdeen ? Cowie ? Maybe, but give me a younger Greg Tansey everyday. Aside from him, I can't think of any player that changed clubs that would have made Aberdeen's title challenge any stronger. Stokes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giblet Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 getting over a million for Sow and still having him available for Sunday will be an excellent bit of business for Hearts and getting Duada in who was our number one target is a bonus too. King would have been out of the team with Nicholson and Walker returning from injury and Gomis would have been further down the pecking order with Cowie coming in so don't mind seeing them loaned out. Swanson never really seemed to cut it so not that bothered to see him go and Souttar looks like a good investment and not that disappointed to see McGhee's move to Boro fall through Very happy to have kept hold of Nicholson, Walker and Paterson though, thought one of them might have been off. Very good transfer window for Hearts What happens if he gets injured on Sunday? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hannibal smith Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 What happens if he gets injured on Sunday? Not sure, they surely wouldn't risk him if it would jeopardise the deal. Danny season has just signed for St Johnstone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tartanhibee Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 What happens if he gets injured on Sunday? He'll get plenty of protection from the referee I don't think he will play maybe on the bench, I do expect to see don cowrie in the team and the new striker who's name escapes me. I hope this is the case on Sunday as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaggycoo Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Stokes Whilst Aberdeen could of signed him, Celtic would never let him go there so a non starter really Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hannibal smith Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 He'll get plenty of protection from the referee I don't think he will play maybe on the bench, I do expect to see don cowrie in the team and the new striker who's name escapes me. I hope this is the case on Sunday as well. I expect the team to be Alexander Paterson Ozturk Augustyn McGhee Buaben Pallardo Djoum Nicholson And two from Juanma/Reilly/Duada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossy Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Stokes Good call, although there are significant questions over his attitude. As pointed out, Celtic wouldn't have let him go to Aberdeen anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tartanhibee Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 I'll go with. Oxley Gray Hanlon McGregor Stevenson bartley McGinn Henderson Mcgeogh Dagnell Cummings This all depends on a clean bill of health after Morton tonight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMcoolJ Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Stokes Would have taken him in an instant. Would be very silly of Celtic to loan to Aberdeen though. Strongly suspect he was not an option for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMcoolJ Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 I'm amazed at how little ambition Aberdeen have shown in this window given how pish Celtic are. Surely adding one imaginative loan signing and adding a wee bit of depth in areas you're short would have given everyone a lift though. I don't know, maybe McInnes didn't have any ideas within budget it just seems that the Jambo's have been far more proactive this window. No argument from me with any of the above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMcoolJ Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) oops Edited February 2, 2016 by SMcoolJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASTA Mick Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 7/1 for Hearts to win the league without Celtic looks very tempting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hannibal smith Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 7/1 for Hearts to win the league without Celtic looks very tempting. 8 points behind with 15 to play Hmmm I wouldn't bet on it, well not until I see Duada in action anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debian Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 8 points behind with 15 to play Hmmm I wouldn't bet on it, well not until I see Duada in action anyway Dauda might be better than Duada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest faircity Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 I wonder how Tansey will respond to all this though. It all seems to be about whether or not the full amount was due in a single payment, its either written down or it isn't. If not, wouldn't Tansey be within his rights to simply walk away due to a breach in contract? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angus_Young Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 I wonder how Tansey will respond to all this though. It all seems to be about whether or not the full amount was due in a single payment, its either written down or it isn't. If not, wouldn't Tansey be within his rights to simply walk away due to a breach in contract? Disgraceful that they are trying to unsettle the boy like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbcmfc Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Disgraceful that they are trying to unsettle the boy like that. I suppose it's all just guesswork, but if the boy wanted to go to Aberdeen, and Aberdeen were willing to pay the correct amount, it seems counter productive for ICT to hold on to a player that wants away and turn down the cash when they aren't going to get a penny more in the summer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hannibal smith Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Dauda might be better than Duada. Takes me a while to get the spelling right ? I was forever getting those Lithuanians wrong. Not so bad with the current team but I still don't attempt Juwon's surname Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark frae Crieff Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) I wonder how Tansey will respond to all this though. It all seems to be about whether or not the full amount was due in a single payment, its either written down or it isn't. If not, wouldn't Tansey be within his rights to simply walk away due to a breach in contract? If Aberdeen triggered the clause in his contract it's still up to Aberdeen to pay.. Inverness are within their rights to ask the full amount and not £100 per week. As I assume that there wasn't a clause in the buy out that said you can pay up. So Tansey is still contracted to ICT as they seem to have done nothing wrong. (ok £100 per week is a bit mean but you know fit I mean) edit: I know its a bit rich fae a supporter of a team that sold a player to the equivalent of poundland.... Edited February 2, 2016 by Mark frae Crieff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 If Aberdeen triggered the clause in his contract it's still up to Aberdeen to pay.. Inverness are within their rights to ask the full amount and not £100 per week. As I assume that there wasn't a clause in the buy out that said you can pay up. So Tansey is still contracted to ICT as they seem to have done nothing wrong. (ok £100 per week is a bit mean but you know fit I mean) We have no idea why the deal collapsed. Although most indications suggest that it was hee haw to do with payment terms and everything to do with ambiguity in the wording of the release clause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossy Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 If Aberdeen triggered the clause in his contract it's still up to Aberdeen to pay.. Inverness are within their rights to ask the full amount and not £100 per week. As I assume that there wasn't a clause in the buy out that said you can pay up. So Tansey is still contracted to ICT as they seem to have done nothing wrong. (ok £100 per week is a bit mean but you know fit I mean) edit: I know its a bit rich fae a supporter of a team that sold a player to the equivalent of poundland.... You need to talk to the guy a few pages back who blames Aberdeen for everything with absolutely no proof. He's making it up as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark frae Crieff Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 We have no idea why the deal collapsed. Although most indications suggest that it was hee haw to do with payment terms and everything to do with ambiguity in the wording of the release clause. You need to talk to the guy a few pages back who blames Aberdeen for everything with absolutely no proof. He's making it up as well. I don't blame Aberdeen but looking at it should you not think that if the clause has been met the sale would have went through... So without making anything up it seems that the contracted payment and the way its paid was the main stumbling block... Well that's what I think though I may be right may be wrong but time will tell as the full events will eventually leach out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iainmac1 Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 I've no idea if he's obsessed or not. I don't even know who he is as a poster. I'm still waiting for him to post absolute proof of his assertion though. I thought we were talking about John Hughes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenAngus Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 From information I've been told I don't think installment payments were an issue as AFC would have paid up the full amount. Lots of speculation but nobody on here including me knows the full story. The best guess I've seen is that ICT disputed the wording of the release clause which they claimed allowed them to not sanction the move from their end. Certainly sounds plausible and only ICT themselves can answer why the transfer didn't go ahead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossy Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Tansey is ICT's player and they're perfectly entitled not to sell him, if that's what they want. That's fine. I do take issue with those that know nothing about events...i.e. all of us.....but have suddenly decided that it's Aberdeen's fault. I'm still waiting for evidence that we insulted ICT and pissed them off during the negotiations to sign Shinnie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.5eeaf0fbe501ba3c868c32fd77caef1f.jpg)
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.