Re: Kris welham. : Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:46 am  

Gallanteer wrote:

It stands to reason that an external new signing would demand a high wage when moving to a new employer and several teams were after him. There is no doubt in my mind that Welham woukd have been cheaper to retain as a home grown employee. Its the same in all businesses (except in the public sector). In the end Thornley offered no more than Welham.

But then again, hindsight is a wonderful thing. Oh well.

So a ridiculous figure is now a high wage.

Re: Kris welham. : Fri Jan 06, 2017 12:20 pm  

Keiththered wrote:

So a ridiculous figure is now a high wage.

Reports elsewhere claimed he was on the top end of the wage bill. I have no internal insight whatsoever into the inner working at the club. I am a mere supporter, just like you, and have been for 30+ years.

However it stands to reason we paid a large salary for an ex-wigan centre who was reported to be hunted by several SL clubs at the time than is likely Welham was demanding, yet was actually no better that Welham.

As I said, hindsight is a wonderful thing. At the time it probably looked like a good deal but didn't turn out that way.

Re: Kris welham. : Fri Jan 06, 2017 12:43 pm  

Gallanteer wrote:

Reports elsewhere claimed he was on the top end of the wage bill. I have no internal insight whatsoever into the inner working at the club. I am a mere supporter, just like you, and have been for 30+ years.

However it stands to reason we paid a large salary for an ex-wigan centre who was reported to be hunted by several SL clubs at the time than is likely Welham was demanding, yet was actually no better that Welham.

As I said, hindsight is a wonderful thing. At the time it probably looked like a good deal but didn't turn out that way.

I accept that.

The only point I was trying to make was that you used the word ridiculous without saying what you deemed to be a rediculous amount or any evidence of what the salary actually was.

You appeared to be making a dig about our club without any evidence to support your assertions. Your subsequent posts seem to confirm this.

Re: Kris welham. : Fri Jan 06, 2017 12:54 pm  

Keiththered wrote:

I accept that.

The only point I was trying to make was that you used the word ridiculous without saying what you deemed to be a rediculous amount or any evidence of what the salary actually was.

You appeared to be making a dig about our club without any evidence to support your assertions. Your subsequent posts seem to confirm this.

Confirm that I'm not allowed to have an opinion based on the limited evidence available to me? The evidence may be limited or weak but that doesn't stop you having an opinion.

Anyway, welham was OK and loved to intercept the ball. The fact that his success rate at doing so was low and left gaping holes in the line was his undoing. I guess this hasn't changed whilst at Bradford. Thornley wasn't the player we expected him to be (based on what I saw of him on the pitch).

Minns isn't perfect, but better than both of them. Wether that continues this season, we can only hope.

Re: Kris welham. : Fri Jan 06, 2017 1:09 pm  

Thornley looked disinterested at best! Kris was a great servant , thornley doesn't deserve to be in the same post as Kris really, but neither will be missed in my opinion.

Re: Kris welham. : Fri Jan 06, 2017 1:55 pm  

Gallanteer wrote:

Confirm that I'm not allowed to have an opinion based on the limited evidence available to me? The evidence may be limited or weak but that doesn't stop you having an opinion.

Anyway, welham was OK and loved to intercept the ball. The fact that his success rate at doing so was low and left gaping holes in the line was his undoing. I guess this hasn't changed whilst at Bradford. Thornley wasn't the player we expected him to be (based on what I saw of him on the pitch).

Minns isn't perfect, but better than both of them. Wether that continues this season, we can only hope.

We all have opinions and express them, some even based on limited evidence. You however appear to have based your opinion about Thornley being paid a ridiculous amount on no actual evidence at all.