John Fleck (1 Viewer)

[SkyBlueZack]

I thought bigi was shocking Saturday. Definitely missed fleck. Far better players out there than bigi based on Saturday's performance. Would like to see us look at non league players more. Stokes has been a great signing. Surely there's more out there?

 

---

[Otis]

Oldham game made clear to me that Fleck is our most important attacking player. Someone who can cover his role is a must in Jan. Most teams are going to try and kill the game when they play us so his ability to move the ball quickly to the front four is key. Do folks know of anyone from the Academy that could do this job? For me, unless we find someone new (Academy or signing) JoB, Cole or Lamerias should start alongside Vincelot if we want to win games, especially at home.

So, if Fleck were to go, could Joe Cole do that sort of role? I notice the CT have said maybe Cole could maybe do the kind of Richie Wellens role that he did for Oldham on Saturday.

 

[lifeskyblue]

For me Cole too far off the pace. So no I can't see him filling fleck's role. At best I see Coke as a bit part player or more likely a coach of the future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

I doubt there'd be a sell on clause as his original contract expired.

At the time it was when Ranger were in the shitter and went bust or almost, his contract didn't expire but lots Rangers players left the club for free and walked away from there contract when the new company was formed regardless of how long was left on the contract at the time. Ranger new company claimed they had legal rights to the players previous contracts and that they would be taking people to court who walked away from their contract, to avoid any legal ramifications it was reported at the time we had came to an agreement with Rangers about Fleck which was reported to be a sell on clause.

 

[Pete in Portugal]

Not sure you were there skyblue57 he ran out of energy at 75 but before then was excellent. Would have liked him. Little further forward though

I agreed with that. Nearly all his bad passes came in the last 15 mins or so. We thought he was MOTM in the 1st half when he more or less played as a kind of sweeper.

 

[Grendel]

At the time it was when Ranger were in the shitter and went bust or almost, his contract didn't expire but lots Rangers players left the club for free and walked away from there contract when the new company was formed regardless of how long was left on the contract at the time. Ranger new company claimed they had legal rights to the players previous contracts and that they would be taking people to court who walked away from their contract, to avoid any legal ramifications it was reported at the time we had came to an agreement with Rangers about Fleck which was reported to be a sell on clause.

My point is though that the contract that related to expired and he resigned a new contract. I can't see how that could have any sell on clause attached.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

My point is though that the contract that related to expired and he resigned a new contract. I can't see how that could have any sell on clause attached.

Why would that matter? Transfer clauses with a players previous club don't cease to exist when a player signs a new contract, otherwise that would create a massive loophole and people would abuse it.

 

[Grendel]

Why would that matter? Transfer clauses with a players previous club don't cease to exist when a player signs a new contract, otherwise that would create a massive loophole and people would abuse it.

Because the sell on clause normally exists for the duration of the contract originally signed. You can't abuse it as the term of the contract has now gone.

It's irrelevant anyway. The suggestion (and I have no real view if it's true or not) is that his release will result in Bigiamara being signed on a permanent basis and Cole until the end of the season.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Because the sell on clause normally exists for the duration of the contract originally signed. You can't abuse it as the term of the contract has now gone.

It's irrelevant anyway. The suggestion (and I have no real view if it's true or not) is that his release will result in Bigiamara being signed on a permanent basis and Cole until the end of the season.

No that's not how they work, I'm not sure where you've got your information from.

 

[Grendel]

No that's not how they work, I'm not sure where you've got your information from.

So a contract expires and the same club signs the player as a free agent and a sell on clause is legally enforceable from a contract that has now legally expired? I doubt very much that is the case.

Is there any player where a sell on clause is legally enforceable from a contract that is not the original contract signed?

 

[dongonzalos]

So who would take a small fee for fleck in January or risk keeping him and losing him for nothing?

 

[Grendel]

So who would take a small fee for fleck in January or risk keeping him and losing him for nothing?

Look all I'm saying is what I heard, which could be nonsense. The suggestion is we are keen on off loading to deal Bigiamara and cole.

 

[dongonzalos]

Look all I'm saying is what I heard, which could be nonsense. The suggestion is we are keen on off loading to deal Bigiamara and cole.

Not having a go at you. Asking a genuine question. Have heard a similar rumour just not the Cole bit.
Small amount of cash. Sign Bigi for the season. Other amount goes into the transfer kitty.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

So a contract expires and the same club signs the player as a free agent and a sell on clause is legally enforceable from a contract that has now legally expired? I doubt very much that is the case.

Is there any player where a sell on clause is legally enforceable from a contract that is not the original contract signed?

We received a 10% sell on when Sturridge moved to Chelsea from Man City, 7 years after he left us as a school boy

Lallana joined Southampton from Bournemouth as a 12 year old and Bournemouth received a 25% sell on when he was sold to Liverpool, Lallana was at Southampton for 14 years.

Liverpool signed Sterling as a schoolboy at 15 from QPR and QPR received 20% sell on from his summer move to Man City.

Fleetwood recently confirmed in the last month they have a sell on clause on Jamie Vardy should he be sold, Vardy joined Leicester in Summer 2012 on a 3 year contract, he subsequently signed an extension to 2018 but the original contract would have expired in summer 2015.

Normal practice is the sell on clause applies to any transfer fee received for the specified player. Simple as that, things like length of the original contract, time at club, or new contracts signs don't come into it.
The only time usually when a sell on clause would be waived is if the the two clubs came to an agreement, an example of this is Gareth Bale. When Southampton were in financial trouble Tottenham paid them 3 million pounds in return for waiving any future sell on clause on Gareth Bale, subsequently Bale was sold for 80 million and Southampton missed out on a 20 million pay day.







I'm not a lawyer or football agent but thinking about surely it makes sense that it would be two separate contracts anyway. In a transfer there are 3 different parties involved. The player, selling club and buying club. One contract would be between player and buying club specifying salary, length of contract etc. then there would be a second contract between selling club and buying club specifying transfer fee and other clauses so the length of contract between player and club won't apply to the contract between selling club and buying club.
An agreement between player and club on his personal contract will be separate to an agreement between clubs on transfer details. It doesn't make sense to put it all in one contract.
It's safe to assume transfer is even more complicated that that and there will be many more separate contracts with agents getting involved and other things.

 

[skybluepm2]

I believe Fleck will stay and decide his future come the end of the season. I'm sure I read Andy Turner state recently that he was enjoying playing for TM more than any other manager.

If we go up to the Championship, I'm sure we'd have a decent chance of keeping him. If not, there will be a significant number of suitors vying for his services in the Championship.

 

[dongonzalos]

I believe Fleck will stay and decide his future come the end of the season. I'm sure I read Andy Turner state recently that he was enjoying playing for TM more than any other manager.

If we go up to the Championship, I'm sure we'd have a decent chance of keeping him. If not, there will be a significant number of suitors vying for his services in the Championship.

That was my view keep him and in the championship try and sign him. However I think Mr Fisher said the current financial model. I think the one we just signed up to another two years of doesn't work? Or am I getting mixed up?

 

[chiefdave]

Its probably 2 contracts. One between the clubs for the transfer of the player and one between the new club and the player. The players contract with the club will expire but the transfer contract won't.

 

[mmttww]

All Bigi's work was in his own half. Far too deep. Fleck enables us to play from the back. We didn't go through Oldham once. Always around or over them. Couldn't build pressure either as he was always too deep if an attack broke down. Fleck, Lamerias, JoB and Maddison can receive the ball in tight spaces and have an impact. Bigi can't based on all of his showings for us (first spell and now). Fine if you've got width and just need your two DMs to sit. We don't. Bigi's not an answer in that role.

 

[The_Coventry]

Look all I'm saying is what I heard, which could be nonsense. The suggestion is we are keen on off loading to deal Bigiamara and cole.

Seems highly unlikely. Fleck has been one of our best players this year and according to a few interviews I've read there appears to be a strong desire to keep him.