posted Jul 21, 2008

The whole situation with Garner is very odd.
First he's sold then he isn't & as you say why put this out on the club web site?

Looks to me that the lad wants away and the board are covering their backsides before this is confirmed & fans start wondering where the £1m went. A - to Blackburn apparntly.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 21, 2008

Agree with all the comments about why we have decided to put on the web site. It is certainly an odd position and one I would seriously question. If he goes, good luck to him and we get some money, but why tell the world what the contract terms are, as the comment, that there will be no bids in excess of the £1.14m - is very well made! Come on Blues decision makers think before you write!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 21, 2008

Mansfieldblade - I must admit I didn't read it that way, but you could be correct.

I seems that Garners agent told Forest about the clause, as United has said it wasn't them.

My suspicion on the reason that Carlisle have gone public, is that this could now trigger a bidding war if other clubs are interested, rather than just letting Forest tie it up at the minimum £1.14 million.
Bristol City were interested at £1 million not long ago and we were able to reject it as it fell below the minimum price in the contract. They might still be interested, as might other teams.
So fingers crossed, if were are resigned to losing Joe, the price might rise.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 21, 2008

I doubt it Bruntongoldfish.

Now the news is out no club will offer a single penny more than needed & any bidding war will be down to Clubs trying to outbid each other with Garner for wages.

I can olny assume they have released this because it's a done deal, nothing else makes sense

I'm not sure if I'm happy about it to be honest, He's undoubtably a good players but if we've signed him what we have (at least for the time being) is a one legged teenager

It's all very odd

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 21, 2008

Why publisise all this information if you dont want to sell him ,Are we trying to set up an auction!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 21, 2008

The only unacceptable part of this contract is the 50% sell on clause? Usually the percentage is around 20%/25%.So there is no reason why Carlisle cannot stipulate a sell on percentage onto the Blackburn one.However no more acceptance to these type of high sell on clauses by the Board.Hope there is a 50% sell on clause with Coventry.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 21, 2008

But why tell prospective clubs you can talk to Garner if you offer the clause amount in his contract.surely you keep all info to yourself until the trigger is met,To me we want to sell him regardless whats said ,mr Allan isnt helping the doubters to believe.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 21, 2008

United have gone public to get a bidding war going ,I believe its united who leaked the contract info ,Wether they did or didnt its frankly a poor way of developing positive relation with fans,United want to sell Garner otherwise they would keep quiet,United will say its good business paint a gloss on the situation Most of us accept he will go ,Its just all the rubbish you read and are supposed to believe .Ward wants to keep him as do the fans and players but does anyone realy believe the 4 business men want the same!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 21, 2008

joe garner is a preston fan and has already made it clear that the only team he would leave carlilse for is preston. he was the centre of a transfer saga between the two teams in january but both teams couldn't agree a fee. i wouldn't be suprised to see him at pne by the end of the summer

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 22, 2008

Lets move on, take the money, wish him luck and play like we did even without him.

add comment | complain about this comment