VincentGuerin Posted July 13 Share Posted July 13 21 minutes ago, Hoose Rice said: I don't disagree mate. I would have had Docherty at us too. It looks like the club is going in a different direction though in terms of having a manager and the age of a player. The age thing is interesting. Assuming Hibs were interested in Murray, and they seem to have been, as well as renewing Newell for three years at 31, and I'm not sure there is a big change of policy there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoose Rice Posted July 13 Share Posted July 13 14 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said: The age thing is interesting. Assuming Hibs were interested in Murray, and they seem to have been, as well as renewing Newell for three years at 31, and I'm not sure there is a big change of policy there. Hibs weren't interested in Murray as far as I know mate. Newell is the experienced head around the place and club captain, probably the exception. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyle Lanley Posted July 14 Share Posted July 14 I’ve had a few drinks and I’ll say the treble is ours this season. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted July 14 Share Posted July 14 19 hours ago, Crùbag said: I still think you'll regret not getting Murray. Murray wanted a 3yr deal approaching the top end of Hibs' wage scale. Would you be wanting to pay a 35yo Simon Murray that amount of money when one semi-serious injury is going to steal his pace? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VincentGuerin Posted July 14 Share Posted July 14 2 hours ago, RandomGuy. said: Murray wanted a 3yr deal approaching the top end of Hibs' wage scale. Would you be wanting to pay a 35yo Simon Murray that amount of money when one semi-serious injury is going to steal his pace? Surprising Hibs were ever in for him, given their becoming a feeder club for Bournemouth provided them with investment to put them on another financial level from everyone else. But there we go. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crawford Bridge Posted July 14 Share Posted July 14 Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoose Rice Posted July 14 Share Posted July 14 (edited) 3 hours ago, VincentGuerin said: Surprising Hibs were ever in for him, given their becoming a feeder club for Bournemouth provided them with investment to put them on another financial level from everyone else. But there we go. Do feeder clubs not usually own the clubs below them in the food chain? Hibs weren't in for him either. Edited July 14 by Hoose Rice 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VincentGuerin Posted July 14 Share Posted July 14 (edited) 53 minutes ago, Hoose Rice said: Do feeder clubs not usually own the clubs below them in the food chain? Hibs weren't in for him either. No, I'm afraid you're mistaken. Hibernian are very much a feeder club. As for the interest in Murray; maybe you can point me somewhere, but given the lack of denial from a friendly journalist to that effect, I'd say Hibernian's silence on this issue is confirmation they were interested in Murray. Either that or their failure to deny it is incompetent. Hibs took on investment in the winter. Their much-vaunted loan signings led them to the bottom six. They have then hired a controversial Director of Football and made absolutely zero progress in the transfer window, despite having months to plan for it, and, apparently, cash to spend. They need a PR win. Losing a player to Dundee is a PR disaster for a club the size of Hibs, and, given all that I've outlined above, I find it very hard to believe Hibs wouldn't have made sure everyone knew about it if the Murray story was not true. Maybe such a denial has appeared somewhere. I'm happy to row back if I've missed it. I've certainly not seen anything to that effect from any Hibs-centric journalists or media organisations of substance. I think that's very telling. So far, the feeder club era has delivered nothing that justifies the belitlement of your status. I find it odd that Hibs haven't made much progress in the transfer market, gven the noises made at the time of the BK investment. Tumbleweed stuff. A cynic would suggest their business will depend on the needs of Bournemouth later in the window. Edited July 14 by VincentGuerin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crawford Bridge Posted July 14 Share Posted July 14 We already have Rocky Bushiri. We don't need Rocky Dennis as well. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoose Rice Posted July 14 Share Posted July 14 (edited) 37 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said: No, I'm afraid you're mistaken. Hibernian are very much a feeder club. As for the interest in Murray; maybe you can point me somewhere, but given the lack of denial from a friendly journalist to that effect, I'd say Hibernian's silence on this issue is confirmation they were interested in Murray. Either that or their failure to deny it is incompetent. Hibs took on investment in the winter. Their much-vaunted loan signings led them to the bottom six. They have then hired a controversial Director of Football and made absolutely zero progress in the transfer window, despite having months to plan for it, and, apparently, cash to spend. They need a PR win. Losing a player to Dundee is a PR disaster for a club the size of Hibs, and, given all that I've outlined above, I find it very hard to believe Hibs wouldn't have made sure everyone knew about it if the Murray story was not true. Maybe such a denial has appeared somewhere. I'm happy to row back if I've missed it. I've certainly not seen anything to that effect from any Hibs-centric journalists or media organisations of substance. I think that's very telling. So far, the feeder club era has delivered nothing that justifies the belitlement of your status. I find it odd that Hibs haven't made much progress in the transfer market, gven the noises made at the time of the BK investment. Tumbleweed stuff. A cynic would suggest their business will depend on the needs of Bournemouth later in the window. You will have to explain as to why we are a feeder team in that case. Our owners, who own 75& of the shares in the football club have absolutely no obligation to take/sell on the wishes of a minority shareholder. When in any case in any business does the 25% stakeholder tells the majority what to do? Where are all these young players being sent to us to gain experience? The very definition of a feeder club being fed. As for Murray, I posted on here before any reports of bids were in or anything that we weren't interested. We did take an investment in the winter. We took two loan signings from Bournemouth, they didn't work out and our manager was sacked. Were we loaded with loans from them we didn't want? If there's a strategy in place to make us stronger with the signings of the likes of Milo, who on paper should have improved us it's a world away from taking on any old pap because we have to. It would be a PR disaster, but it never happened. Why would we comment on press stories? Do hertz respond to media speculation lego heid wants to go to his boyhood heros? No. Did Hertz even comment on any of the pre-contracts they had with other players? No. Why? Because they were contracted to other teams. You seem fixated on Murray a lot more than any Hibernian supporter tbh. So far we have signed a centre half who was a top player for a team in a league you are selling one of your only sellable assets to in the next couple of days, and another who looks very good and was very good prospect in the exact same league. You bash on about the feeder club all you like. If we were a feeder club, the situation at the moment would contradict a lot of what you are saying, there would be plenty activity from Bournemouth to us, the likes of that Killie keeper would be here on loan, not the better goalkeeper we have on loan for example. Edited July 14 by Hoose Rice 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VincentGuerin Posted July 14 Share Posted July 14 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Hoose Rice said: You will have to explain as to why we are a feeder team in that case. Our owners, who own 75& of the shares in the football club have absolutely no obligation to take/sell on the wishes of a minority shareholder. When in any case in any business does the 25% stakeholder tells the majority what to do? Where are all these young players being sent to us to gain experience? The very definition of a feeder club being fed. As for Murray, I posted on here before any reports of bids were in or anything that we weren't interested. We did take an investment in the winter. We took two loan signings from Bournemouth, they didn't work out and our manager was sacked. Were we loaded with loans from them we didn't want? If there's a strategy in place to make us stronger with the signings of the likes of Milo, who on paper should have improved us it's a world away from taking on any old pap because we have to. It would be a PR disaster, but it never happened. Why would we comment on press stories? Do hertz respond to media speculation lego heid wants to go to his boyhood heros? No. Did Hertz even comment on any of the pre-contracts they had with other players? No. Why? Because they were contracted to other teams. You seem fixated on Murray a lot more than any Hibernian supporter tbh. So far we have signed a centre half who was a top player for a team in a league you are selling one of your only sellable assets to in the next couple of days, and another who looks very good and was very good prospect in the exact same league. You bash on about the feeder club all you like. If we were a feeder club, the situation at the moment would contradict a lot of what you are saying, there would be plenty activity from Bournemouth to us, the likes of that Killie keeper would be here on loan, not the better goalkeeper we have on loan for example. Clubs comment unofficially on press stories all the time. Just a couple of days ago Scott Burns quickly quashed the rumour that Aberdeen were in for the lad from Brighton. Clearly with info from the club to manage expectations. Hearts have done it loads of times through the likes of Barry Anderson with players in and out. I simply don't buy that Hibs are sitting letting this run if there's nothing in it. Plenty of your own fans have been making a lot of noise about it over the last few days. If it's not true, Hibs could stop that in a moment, and it's in their interests to do so. But they haven't. I think because it is true. Hibs' behaviour makes no sense otherwise. As for the feeder club thing; it's very obvious that's what you are. That's what they're paying you for. My HUGE SUMMER TIP is activity between Bournemouth and Hibs later in the window once it's established which players it suits Bournemouth to send you. They're a few weeks behind, obviously, so you'll need to wait. Edited July 14 by VincentGuerin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Terrapin Posted July 14 Share Posted July 14 I've really missed Vincent's obsession, I mean interest, in Hibs affairs over the close season. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VincentGuerin Posted July 14 Share Posted July 14 Just now, Joe Terrapin said: I've really missed Vincent's obsession, I mean interest, in Hibs affairs over the close season. It's a multi-club messageboard, mate. You know you're in trouble when you're reaching for "obsession". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Terrapin Posted July 14 Share Posted July 14 4 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said: It's a multi-club messageboard, mate. You know you're in trouble when you're reaching for "obsession". No reach required. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoose Rice Posted July 14 Share Posted July 14 4 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said: Clubs comment unofficially on press stories all the time. Just a couple of days ago Scott Burns quickly quashed the rumour that Aberdeen were in for the lad from Brighton. Clearly with info from the club to manage expectations. Hearts have done it loads of times through the likes of Barry Anderson with players in and out. I simply don't buy that Hibs are sitting letting this run if there's nothing in it. Plenty of your own fans have been making a lot of noise about it over the last few days. If it's not true, Hibs could stop that in a moment, and it's in their interests to do so. But they haven't. I think because it is true. Hibs' behaviour makes no sense otherwise. As for the feeder club thing; it's very obvious that's what you are. That's what they're paying you for. My HUGE SUMMER TIP is activity between Bournemouth and Hibs later in the window once it's established which players it suits Bournemouth to send you. They're a few weeks behind, obviously, so you'll need to wait. So because we didn't unofficially comment on the story it must be true? So when the press say Shankland is dying to go to the **** it's true because hearts or the player haven't unofficially denied it? That's up to you what you think and do mate, I know, from someone at the club there was no interest in signing Simon Murray. It's only obvious to you it seems. You would think it would have been established earlier seeing as players are going out on loan already wouldn't you? They have already sent players out last week to league 2 down south for example. Unless a stand out player becomes available that will play in our team there will be next to no action. How many players on loan did they send to Lorient last season? I'll give you the answer - 1. Feeder club? Non. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennyzer0 Posted July 14 Share Posted July 14 8 hours ago, RandomGuy. said: Murray wanted a 3yr deal approaching the top end of Hibs' wage scale. Would you be wanting to pay a 35yo Simon Murray that amount of money when one semi-serious injury is going to steal his pace? If that's true, it's no wonder Hibs didn't touch him. But it seems odd that Dundee were willing to pay an amount at the top end of Hibs' wage scale. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoose Rice Posted July 14 Share Posted July 14 Just now, lennyzer0 said: If that's true, it's no wonder Hibs didn't touch him. But it seems odd that Dundee were willing to pay an amount at the top end of Hibs' wage scale. It was reported in the press that only Dundee had a bid accepted for him. I don't think without a bid being accepted we could have talked to the player. If we did tap him up, found out what he wanted contract wise and Dundee could trump us then why would we have made a bid for the player, to be turned down, when the contract wasn't going to be suitable regardless. It's all just made up rubbish. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VincentGuerin Posted July 14 Share Posted July 14 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Hoose Rice said: So because we didn't unofficially comment on the story it must be true? So when the press say Shankland is dying to go to the **** it's true because hearts or the player haven't unofficially denied it? That's up to you what you think and do mate, I know, from someone at the club there was no interest in signing Simon Murray. It's only obvious to you it seems. You would think it would have been established earlier seeing as players are going out on loan already wouldn't you? They have already sent players out last week to league 2 down south for example. Unless a stand out player becomes available that will play in our team there will be next to no action. How many players on loan did they send to Lorient last season? I'll give you the answer - 1. Feeder club? Non. Hearts officials (such as Mckinlay) have spoken about Shankland at club events plenty of times. No offers received, no enquiries received. Whether he wishes to go is irrelevant. Shankland himself has spoken publicly about his future. There's nothing really to add. Hearts feed Anderson stuff all the time. That's patently obvious. I get that you want to be optimistic. But it would be quite odd for Hibs, supposedly newly-cashed up Hibs, to be accused of losing a player to Dundee and just to let that sit as the public narrative. Lots of your own fans are upset about it. Hibs' silence is booming. Edited July 14 by VincentGuerin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennyzer0 Posted July 14 Share Posted July 14 1 minute ago, Hoose Rice said: It was reported in the press that only Dundee had a bid accepted for him. I don't think without a bid being accepted we could have talked to the player. If we did tap him up, found out what he wanted contract wise and Dundee could trump us then why would we have made a bid for the player, to be turned down, when the contract wasn't going to be suitable regardless. It's all just made up rubbish. Oh, I'm sure that is the case. I'm just pondering, if money was an issue, why Dundee would pay more than Hibs were willing to pay. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Der Panzer Posted July 14 Share Posted July 14 Just now, lennyzer0 said: Oh, I'm sure that is the case. I'm just pondering, if money was an issue, why Dundee would pay more than Hibs were willing to pay. If RandomGuy is talking about wages you are best distegarding it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.