James Vaughan

I don't think you can really call Will Grigg a journeyman on his way down at all. Any club worth owt would snap your hand off to have him up front, especially at our level

 

And when you have young players who improve and develop, you sit them down and get them to sign a contract extension when they are about to enter the last year of their current deal. That's what we should have done with Wood in January but we didn't and now he is into his last year with the salary cap in place. No way will he sign an extension now and to be fair to him, I don't blame him.

 

I agree but it is hungry ambitious non league prospects like others have invested in, Not spoilt Premier league cast offs

 

At least he later admitted he didn't perform for us and apologised.

 

I wonder when Vaughan will apologise for being a tw@t.

 

I agree but as far as city is concerned the big culprit here is Stuart. Firstly he made the mistake that he could talk the player round and he sounded very confident in the fans forum. Then he stated after the salary cap came in he couldn’t have him in the dressing room. We had Vaughan on a further two year contract if we had stuck it out there is no way he is going to waste the next two years of his short career sulking.

 

It well may the case as you outline Park - but you do not know what was discussed with Rhodes at al about Vaughan. Why was pressure not put on to ship him out before the cap? The club saves money with this outcome which leaves a question did the CEO / owner want to spend as much money on the player budget or make savings - the Cap provided that opportunity to save if Vaughan went after.

 

As illustrated in January.

 

How can that be if Stuart was trying to talk him round if the club had wanted shut he would have gone then.

 

Yeah, Vaughan leaving doesn't seem to be a financially oriented move to me.

 

Two parts to my reply.

Initially, replying to Briggus, I replied with "as illustrated in January". This was on the back of Briggus having doubts about the timing of Vaughan’s permanent transfer and as we know we have an upper limit on wages, so a potential saving for the football club?

Using January as MY example, I'm sure (though cannot back it up) that Doyle out and Vaughan on loan to tranmere, that it was more cost effective to the club with Novak and Guthrie coming in.

Secondly, maybe Macca did want him to stay, especially knowing the limitations of the salary cap. Macca will know JV's potential and the cost to replace adequately. Maybe Macca use of words, was to appease fans?

 

It's a favourite tactic of politicians, If it works for them why not in other fields? Say what people want to hear when you know what is going on behind the scenes is a bit different.

 

Agree from a James Vaughan point of view. Their was enough around to suggest that James wanted away. Vaughan, it appears, wanted out and thus has happened.

But in him moving, their is a potential for the football club to make a financial saving?

 

He should have toughed it out with Vaughan he would have got over it

 

Parker clearly reading the message boards to write his latest as the club's media mouthpiece and now trying to play on and back up the clubs version of 'clearly he had to go' - what they both don't seem to realise and appreciate is that the fans know this and it's not this aspect of the saga that the majority have a problem with, it's the way the club have handled the whole thing.

 

Do we know all of the details?

 

I don’t think there is anything at all that points to the club wanting rid of Vaughan for financial reasons

 

But we didn't...

It's now about the now and how we move forward. You maybe but I'm not overly confident about how this pans out...

 

Don't disagree. But you can agree that POTENTIALLY the club could make financial savings, now JV has moved on?

 

Yes that will be the unintended consequence of it