Jump to content

Dundee United 2015/16 Season


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 12.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Anyone else loving that GD has reached a relevant seethe quota where he's writhing around in agony screaming the, frankly embarrassing Mad catchphrase "funsters" repeatedly.

:lol:

What an absolute mess.

Poor c**t.

Thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus the eight games he played for thistle. Would make his next game 25 appearances. Which seems a more likely benchmark.

 

Why would the games for Thistle count?  :lol:

 

United are creating enough stories to laugh at as it is, what the fucking point in making stuff up instead?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard muirhead left as he had to get a restraining order against a st Johnstone fan who kept texting him asking to suck him off whilst raking his manky nails down poor robbies inner thighs.

Yet more sexual abuse at the dump. Saddening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would the games for Thistle count?  :lol:

 

United are creating enough stories to laugh at as it is, what the fucking point in making stuff up instead?

 

Dunno if they do and don't know if there is anything to this appearance money story. , but depending on the wording on the transfer deal about appearances(if there was such a clause) , ie) was it "1st team  appearances for dundee united" or simply "1st team appearances" then they could count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dunno if they do and don't know if there is anything to this appearance money story. , but depending on the wording on the transfer deal about appearances(if there was such a clause) , ie) was it "1st team  appearances for dundee united" or simply "1st team appearances" then they could count.

 

It would make absolutely no sense for United to negotiate a clause which would see them having to fork out money despite him playing for someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would make absolutely no sense for United to negotiate a clause which would see them having to fork out money despite him playing for someone else.

 

doubt they spent 150,000 on a player on the assumption they'd be lending him out to the jags within a few months.

If there was an appearances clause then it was probably just a standard clause with the no of appearances filled in.

 

Besides this is a club that thought Mixu was a good choice so who knows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

doubt they spent 150,000 on a player on the assumption they'd be lending him out to the jags within a few months.

If there was an appearances clause then it was probably just a standard clause with the no of appearances filled in.

 

 

Clubs spend money on players then loan them out all the time, its hardly a bewildering situation.

 

Appearance clauses are only for when they play for the purchasing clubs, as anything else makes no sense. Neither does 26 games being the trigger point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clubs spend money on players then loan them out all the time, its hardly a bewildering situation.

 

Appearance clauses are only for when they play for the purchasing clubs, as anything else makes no sense. Neither does 26 games being the trigger point.

 

yes but i doubt united bought muirhead thinking he was going to be lent out so quickly (or at all) so if killie wanted an appearance clause and united could get away with paying less up front then why not?

 

Depends on the clause in the transfer contract and as far as the selling club is concerned why should they care who he's played the games for? . And he played 16 games for united and 8 for thistle. So his next game would have been 25, which seems a bit more likely.

 

As i said i've no idea if this story is crap or not but if the 8 games he played for thistle are included then it does make more sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes but i doubt united bought muirhead thinking he was going to be lent out so quickly (or at all) so if killie wanted an appearance clause and united could get away with paying less up front then why not?

 

Depends on the clause in the transfer contract and as far as the selling club is concerned why should they care who he's played the games for? . And he played 16 games for united and 8 for thistle. So his next game would have been 25, which seems a bit more likely.

 

As i said i've no idea if this story is crap or not but if the 8 games he played for thistle are included then it does make more sense.

 

It only makes sense if you're desperately scrambling to find reasons to claim United are heading towards Admin, which for some reason every Dundee fan in the country has been peddling and making things up to support, for the past four years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It only makes sense if you're desperately scrambling to find reasons to claim United are heading towards Admin, which for some reason every Dundee fan in the country has been peddling and making things up to support, for the past four years.

 

doubt united are heading for admin but do think they may be wanting to avoid paying out thousands  for a player they clearly don't rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

doubt united are heading for admin but do think they may be wanting to avoid paying out thousands for a player they clearly don't rate.

Depends how much it is, if his rumoured wages are what they are, his payoff could near match/eclipse it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone else loving that GD has reached a relevant seethe quota where he's writhing around in agony screaming the, frankly embarrassing Mad catchphrase "funsters" repeatedly.

:lol:

What an absolute mess.

Poor c**t.

Thank you

The 'thank you' patter is significantly worse than 'Funster'. Though I'm glad to know the term annoys you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...