O'Hare bids (3 Viewers)

KenilworthSkyBlue · Jul 24, 2022

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.

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.

DannyThomas_1981 · Jul 24, 2022

Grendel said:
Deja Vu

Missing : Bright

Tough game mate , really tough game

www.skybluestalk.co.uk

Deja vu is seeing you criticize 99% of what the club does - ranging from the manager, players, owners, directors. Anyone can play the role of armchair know it all/critic. Take a day off perhaps and spare the rest of us from the usual nonsense?

Deity · Jul 24, 2022

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.

I think Levy and Harry Kane probably killed those for most players and clubs

KenilworthSkyBlue · Jul 24, 2022

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.

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.

Grendel · Jul 24, 2022

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.

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

SlowerThanPlatt · Jul 24, 2022

Grendel said:
In spain it’s the norm not a reflection of ability or demand

Doesn’t Lameires have €60m when he was a free transfer

KenilworthSkyBlue · Jul 24, 2022

Grendel said:
In spain it’s the norm not a reflection of ability or demand

Yeah the fact Braithwaite has a £300m+ buy out clause probably proves that.

Sky Blue Pete · Jul 24, 2022

Grendel said:
If his agent has his head screwed on and Gyokeres thinks he can do the same again the last thing he will be advised to do is sign another deal

We’ll see

KenilworthSkyBlue · Jul 24, 2022

What's with La Liga's billion Euro release clauses?

Pretty interesting read.

Essentially Spanish clubs have to insert such clauses as a part of player welfare rules of the country. But to get around it they make the clauses massive.

SlowerThanPlatt · Jul 24, 2022

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.

Piroe at Swansea (22 Championship goals last season)

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

KenilworthSkyBlue · Jul 24, 2022

SlowerThanPlatt said:
Piroe at Swansea (22 Championship goals last season)

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

Shock horror! Player in demand doesn't accept new contract at current club. Who knew?!

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Jul 24, 2022

Grendel said:
We over value as we have release clauses far in excess of that

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.

skybluegod · Jul 24, 2022

KenilworthSkyBlue said:
What's with La Liga's billion Euro release clauses?

Pretty interesting read.

Essentially Spanish clubs have to insert such clauses as a part of player welfare rules of the country. But to get around it they make the clauses massive.

Only made them ridiculously huge after the Neymar transfer which Barcelona thought wouldn't be met but didn't bank on PSG.

Skybluedownunder · Jul 24, 2022

Brighton Sky Blue said:
To be fair Forest got nearly £5 million for Samba. 20% of that for Moore? Unlikely but not impossible.

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

Sky Blue Pete · Jul 24, 2022

Just lost my striker to 250k release clause - gutted

KenilworthSkyBlue · Jul 24, 2022

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

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.

Brighton Sky Blue · Jul 24, 2022

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.

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.

That’s some good shit

Grendel · Jul 24, 2022

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.

Dion Dublin?

KenilworthSkyBlue · Jul 24, 2022

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

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.

rexo87 · Jul 24, 2022

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.

Dortmunds for Haaland was ridiculous. Cost themselves 100m

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

KenilworthSkyBlue · Jul 24, 2022

rexo87 said:
Dortmunds for Haaland was ridiculous. Cost themselves 100m

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

It depends on which side you look at it.

Haaland would have joined United if not for Dortmund release clause — CEO

As suspected he wouldn't have joined if a release clause hadn't been inserted amid interest from United and others.

rexo87 · Jul 24, 2022

KenilworthSkyBlue said:
It depends on which side you look at it.

Haaland would have joined United if not for Dortmund release clause — CEO

As suspected he wouldn't have joined if a release clause hadn't been inserted amid interest from United and others.

Yeah fair point

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Jul 24, 2022

Grendel said:
Dion Dublin?

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"?

Terry_dactyl · Jul 24, 2022

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"?

I remember being outraged at the time.

Grendel · Jul 24, 2022

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"?

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 · Jul 24, 2022

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"?

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.

Skybluebeliever · Jul 24, 2022

Brighton Sky Blue said:
I don’t disagree. The question there really is can Seppalla find the finance in the case we can’t drum up a big enough fee.

Will be the test I think unless we can get monies from player sales

SlowerThanPlatt · Jul 24, 2022

Skybluebeliever said:
Will be the test I think unless we can get monies from player sales

And if she can’t, the asking price gets lower and lower until we can find someone who will take one of them?

Briles · Jul 24, 2022

Skybluebeliever said:
Will be the test I think unless we can get monies from player sales

Any idea what we got for shipley?

Grendel · Jul 24, 2022

Briles said:
Any idea what we got for shipley?

Ian1779 · Jul 24, 2022

Grendel said:

It was actually 2 of them.

PUSB-We_are_going_up · Jul 24, 2022

Ian1779 said:
It was actually 2 of them.

And a can of thatchers on the side

Greggs · Jul 24, 2022

Skybluebeliever said:
Will be the test I think unless we can get monies from player sales

You know quite a lot about the running of the club and its finances don't you?

mark82 · Jul 24, 2022

Greggs said:
You know quite a lot about the running of the club and its finances don't you?

I imagine he actually does.

SlowerThanPlatt · Jul 24, 2022

Pete doesn’t seem to think so

O'Hare bids (3 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency