O'Hare bids (1 Viewer)

Forums New posts
K

KenilworthSkyBlue

Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue said:
Well it appears at least one did but wasn’t willing or able to pay it all up front. As and when Cornet and/or McNeill are sold we’ll see, but the timing is really not in our favour if they meet all our demands a week before the window shuts.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but the amount agreed upfront is probably as important as the total amount agreed in terms of a fee.

I think if Cornet and McNeil are sold they'll probably come back in with an improved offer, whether it'll meet Boddy's demands regarding X% amount up front is another matter.

As I've touched upon before Burnley have a considerable amount of liabilities and loan repayments due this season so how far fees received for McNeil and Cornet will go is questionable.
 
D

Deity

Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue said:
Spanish release clauses certainly are set to astronomical levels. Dortmund were a bit naive considering how much they extracted for Sancho and Dembele, and likely will for Moukoko in a few years.

For us though, we’d be best off trying to have a gentleman’s agreement instead of a contractual one if at all possible.
Click to expand...
I think Levy and Harry Kane probably killed those for most players and clubs
 
K

KenilworthSkyBlue

Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue said:
Spanish release clauses certainly are set to astronomical levels. Dortmund were a bit naive considering how much they extracted for Sancho and Dembele, and likely will for Moukoko in a few years.

For us though, we’d be best off trying to have a gentleman’s agreement instead of a contractual one if at all possible.
Click to expand...

Yes, those set by Barcalona for instance are ridiculous.

I think it depends on how you look at it. Dortmund are able to attract top young talent because they can fast-track a young player to first team football and they're happy to put contractual agreements in place that effectively stipulates they won't/can't stand in the player's way if and when a more high-profile club comes in for him.

I think it's a pretty good policy to be honest.

Hmm good luck getting agents to agree to that. I'd imagine gentleman's agreements between club and player are becoming increasingly more rare - Harry Kane debacle is a case in point of why.
 
Last edited:
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
KenilworthSkyBlue said:
Yes, those set by Barcalona for instance are ridiculous.

I think it depends on how you look at it. Dortmund are able to attract top young talent because they can fast-track a young player to first team football and they're happy to put contractual agreements in place that effectively stipulates they won't/can't stand in the player's way if and when a more high-profile club comes in for him.

I think it's a pretty good policy to be honest.

Hmm good luck getting agents to agree to that. I'd imagine gentleman's agreements between club and player are becoming increasingly more rare - Harry Kane debacle is a case in point of why.
Click to expand...

In spain it’s the norm not a reflection of ability or demand
 
SlowerThanPlatt

SlowerThanPlatt

Well-Known Member
KenilworthSkyBlue said:
To be fair if he hit the ground running next season and rejected a new contract offer that hardly equates to him not having his head screwed on.

He'd know he'd be able to get a far more lucrative offer, probably in the PL - and if he improved on his finishing he most certainly would be deserving of that.
Click to expand...

Piroe at Swansea (22 Championship goals last season)

www.bbc.com

Joel Piroe agents will not discuss new Swansea City deal at present, says Russell Martin - BBC Sport

Russell Martin says Joel Piroe's agents are not currently willing to discuss the idea of the forward signing a new Swansea City contract.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
 
K

KenilworthSkyBlue

Well-Known Member
  • Like
Reactions: vow
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
We over value as we have release clauses far in excess of that
Click to expand...
If you're putting in a release clause the whole point is you want it to be high so that people don't trigger it. If the clause gets met it almost certainly means they'd have been willing to pay more and you've not got the best value for the asset as you could.

Why would you give a player a new contract on higher wages to also give them a release clause that others would be happy to match? If the player wants an big increase in wages and a low release clause, you don't give them the contract and sell them now.
 
Skybluedownunder

Skybluedownunder

Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue said:
To be fair Forest got nearly £5 million for Samba. 20% of that for Moore? Unlikely but not impossible.
Click to expand...

I think £1m is a fair amount for a player that’s on contract till 2024.

A fee is simply how much someone is worth to the club they are currently at and whether the buying club is willing to pay that price.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
K

KenilworthSkyBlue

Well-Known Member
Skybluedownunder said:
I think £1m is a fair amount for a player that’s on contract till 2024.

A fee is simply how much someone is worth to the club they are currently at and whether the buying club is willing to pay that price.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That is exactly the point though...

More often that not the vast majority of PL clubs aren't willing to invest fees in their No.2's. Proven by the fact that most brought in are free transfers.
 
B

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
KenilworthSkyBlue said:
Yes, those set by Barcalona for instance are ridiculous.

I think it depends on how you look at it. Dortmund are able to attract top young talent because they're happy to put contractual agreements in place that effectively stipulates they won't/can't stand in the player's way if and when a more high-profile club comes in for him.

I think it's a pretty good policy to be honest.

Hmm good luck getting agents to agree to that. I'd imagine gentleman's agreements between club and player are becoming increasingly more rare - Harry Kane debacle is a case in point of why.
Click to expand...

Well you know agents are shifty characters anyway. I’d use it to say ‘if x club came in with y million we’d take it’ and use that to get that fee with some incentives, rather than a clause that is triggered with nothing else inserted.

In Dortmund’s case Haaland was massively undersold.
KenilworthSkyBlue said:
That is exactly the point though...

More often that not the vast majority of PL clubs aren't willing to invest fees in their No.2's. Proven by the fact that most brought in are free transfers.
Click to expand...

That’s some good shit
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
If you're putting in a release clause the whole point is you want it to be high so that people don't trigger it. If the clause gets met it almost certainly means they'd have been willing to pay more and you've not got the best value for the asset as you could.

Why would you give a player a new contract on higher wages to also give them a release clause that others would be happy to match? If the player wants an big increase in wages and a low release clause, you don't give them the contract and sell them now.
Click to expand...

Dion Dublin?
 
K

KenilworthSkyBlue

Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue said:
Well you know agents are shifty characters anyway. I’d use it to say ‘if x club came in with y million we’d take it’ and use that to get that fee with some incentives, rather than a clause that is triggered with nothing else inserted.

In Dortmund’s case Haaland was massively undersold.


That’s some good shit
Click to expand...

They did massively undersell him, but like I said I'd wager they wouldn't have been able to bring him in without the buy-out clause being inserted into his contract.

Well maybe not all GK's in the league that's probably an exaggeration but most in the bottom third of the league would've been a mix of free agents, loans, or bought for nominal fees.

Krul (Norwich), Hennessy (Burnley), Casilla (Leeds), Begovic (Everton), Álvaro Fernández (Brentford). It's also worth noting that Palace only paid around £1m for Butland as an initial fee and Villa £3m for Olsen, who's a pretty established player at international level.
 
Last edited:
R

rexo87

Well-Known Member
KenilworthSkyBlue said:
Hmm I'm not sure I agree with that. I think they're very much a mixed bag. Look at Haaland's at Dortmund as a classic case in point.

For clubs of our stature they're usually agreed to convince in-demand players to stay in the short term, but under the guise that the club can't/won't out-price interested parties as and when they come in.
Click to expand...
Dortmunds for Haaland was ridiculous. Cost themselves 100m

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
Dion Dublin?
Click to expand...
In the end we had to accept the Villa bid because it met the clause. If we'd not given him the new contract we may have got more cos we'd have had the right to say no to the Villa bid. Didn't Blackburn supposedly put in a bigger bid but he refused to leave so we ended up getting less? That seems like a shit bit of business.

In the end we ended up spending more money on his wages for a bit and then letting him go for less than he was worth to us. What other business would say to their top assets "We'll give you a massive pay rise now and then let you leave to use that expertise at one of our competitors in a few months. Don't worry, we won't stand in your way and ask them for a big amount to let you go there"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: vow
Terry_dactyl

Terry_dactyl

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
In the end we had to accept the Villa bid because it met the clause. If we'd not given him the new contract we may have got more cos we'd have had the right to say no to the Villa bid. Didn't Blackburn supposedly put in a bigger bid but he refused to leave so we ended up getting less? That seems like a shit bit of business.

In the end we ended up spending more money on his wages for a bit and then letting him go for less than he was worth to us. What other business would say to their top assets "We'll give you a massive pay rise now and then let you leave to use that expertise at one of our competitors in a few months. Don't worry, we won't stand in your way and ask them for a big amount to let you go there"?
Click to expand...
I remember being outraged at the time.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
In the end we had to accept the Villa bid because it met the clause. If we'd not given him the new contract we may have got more cos we'd have had the right to say no to the Villa bid. Didn't Blackburn supposedly put in a bigger bid but he refused to leave so we ended up getting less? That seems like a shit bit of business.

In the end we ended up spending more money on his wages for a bit and then letting him go for less than he was worth to us. What other business would say to their top assets "We'll give you a massive pay rise now and then let you leave to use that expertise at one of our competitors in a few months. Don't worry, we won't stand in your way and ask them for a big amount to let you go there"?
Click to expand...

We made the clause and then told several clubs about it both Blackburn and Villa bring two of them

Is this another of your “pay day” loan theories?
 
Frostie

Frostie

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
In the end we had to accept the Villa bid because it met the clause. If we'd not given him the new contract we may have got more cos we'd have had the right to say no to the Villa bid. Didn't Blackburn supposedly put in a bigger bid but he refused to leave so we ended up getting less? That seems like a shit bit of business.

In the end we ended up spending more money on his wages for a bit and then letting him go for less than he was worth to us. What other business would say to their top assets "We'll give you a massive pay rise now and then let you leave to use that expertise at one of our competitors in a few months. Don't worry, we won't stand in your way and ask them for a big amount to let you go there"?
Click to expand...

Dion would have been out of contract & could have walked on a free. Signed a new deal to ensure we got a transfer fee & then Richardson hawked him around.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Briles said:
Any idea what we got for shipley?
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top