[Archived] Bellamy

[BlueMonday]

  ABBEY said:

santa clause

Nah. He has a clause saying he only has to work one day a year.

Must be a similar clause in McCarthy's contract !

[Eddie]

  tcj_jones said:

Is it just me or does this sound utterly ridiculous? We weren't in a position of power when we sold Bellamy so how could we demand a buy back clause, when a minimum fee clause had already been met? Or was this clause part of the original clause - a clause within a clause...

So, presumably, this means that if we had offered £7 million in January, then Liverpool would have had to have accepted the offer and the decision would have lied with Bellamy? And, if Villa were to offer £10 million, and we were to offer £7 million, then Liverpool would have to sell to us before Villa?

I don't believe this for a second.

They wouldn't have to sell to us before them, they would simply have to accept our bid whereas they would not have to accept Villa's.

[thenodrog]

  FourLaneBlue said:

Daily Mail - Bellamy pleads for a piece of the action by Peter Ferguson

Ferguson : "Aston Villa had a bid for Bellamy turned down in January but remain keen, while Blackburn could trigger a £7million buy-back clause."

Villa interest although possible is not a foregone conclusion as Villa signed Carew on a 3.5 year deal when they didn't get Bellamy and he's been going well for them.

[tchocky]

  tcj_jones said:

Is it just me or does this sound utterly ridiculous? We weren't in a position of power when we sold Bellamy so how could we demand a buy back clause, when a minimum fee clause had already been met? Or was this clause part of the original clause - a clause within a clause...

What he said.

[bob fleming]

  tcj_jones said:

Is it just me or does this sound utterly ridiculous? We weren't in a position of power when we sold Bellamy so how could we demand a buy back clause, when a minimum fee clause had already been met? Or was this clause part of the original clause - a clause within a clause...

Clever stuff on our part in inserting a counter clause in the contract. No need for Bellamy to deny or confirm the existance of a secret clause as we already know. Then again maybe his agent has leaked it to the press in case we forgot? Then again, again, Bellamy has a reputation of being a bit of a trouble maker so maybe he's a rebel without a clause?

  Quote

So, presumably, this means that if we had offered £7 million in January, then Liverpool would have had to have accepted the offer and the decision would have lied with Bellamy? And, if Villa were to offer £10 million, and we were to offer £7 million, then Liverpool would have to sell to us before Villa?

I don't believe this for a second.

Why would they have to sell to us? £10 million is three more than £7million and would surely still activate the clause. I'm no expert but I doubt it would have to be precisely £7million to activate the clause. In which case why didn't we make the clause £7,000,007.83p to stop people from guessing? Admittedly we'd end up pay nearly eight quid more than we should but you'd like to think we could have found the extra.

As for buying him in January - isn't there an FA rule whereby players can't be transferred between Premier league clubs twice in a year? Unless West Ham are involved of course. Or am I getting confused?

[Alan75]

No Bob your not confused, a lot of people believe in the Santa Clause syndrome.

[doctorryan]

  bob fleming said:

Why would they have to sell to us? £10 million is three more than £7million and would surely still activate the clause. I'm no expert but I doubt it would have to be precisely £7million to activate the clause. In which case why didn't we make the clause £7,000,007.83p to stop people from guessing? Admittedly we'd end up pay nearly eight quid more than we should but you'd like to think we could have found the extra.

The idea behind this silliness Bob is that the clause (as if) exists only for us. It wouldn't matter what Villa or anyone else bid because it wouldn't activate anything. BUT if Blackburn comes in with a £7 million bid then...............

[Jimmy Jupiter]

  bob fleming said:

As for buying him in January - isn't there an FA rule whereby players can't be transferred between Premier league clubs twice in a year? Unless West Ham are involved of course. Or am I getting confused?

I think the rule is a player can't play for more than 2 teams in any given season so I think buying him in Jan would have been ok. But don't quote me on that.

[bob fleming]

  doctorryan said:

The idea behind this silliness Bob is that the clause (as if) exists only for us. It wouldn't matter what Villa or anyone else bid because it wouldn't activate anything. BUT if Blackburn comes in with a £7 million bid then...............

OK, I'm with you now. Here's hoping.

[Darth Paul]

  Jimmy Jupiter said:

I think the rule is a player can't play for more than 2 teams in any given season so I think buying him in Jan would have been ok. But don't quote me on that.

Whoops, sorry.

[youandwhosearmy]

  Jimmy Jupiter said:

I think the rule is a player can't play for more than 2 teams in any given season so I think buying him in Jan would have been ok. But don't quote me on that.

I think your right, they are not supposed to play for two teams from the same country in a season, however these rules do tend to get bent alot

[bluebruce]

  youandwhosearmy said:

I think your right, they are not supposed to play for two teams from the same country in a season, however these rules do tend to get bent alot

Not supposed to play for two teams from the same country in a season? That would make most January transfers pointless, so no. You're not supposed to play for MORE than two teams, and the same country is nothing to do with it. Mascherano needed special dispensation because he had played in Argentina, then for Wham, then for Liverpool.

This Ferguson fellow, is he a Blackburn fan? Sounds like very wishful thinking on our part! Like someone said, we weren't in a position of power when we sold him, and I highly doubt Liverpool did it out of the goodness of their hearts. Sounds like tosh to me, alas.

[Jimmy Jupiter]

  bluebruce said:

Not supposed to play for two teams from the same country in a season? That would make most January transfers pointless, so no. You're not supposed to play for MORE than two teams

Exactly what I said. (I realise you weren't replying directly to me but hey ho).

[HairwayToSteven]

I simply cannot wait to see who Benitez axes now, Bellars could easily be one of them. Maybe Harry Kewell as well?

[krislu]

With Bellamy not getting even a minute of the final today....I will not be suprised if he is the first one out the door at Liverpool! The guy is leaving thats for sure, only question is where.

[colin]

  bob fleming said:

he's a rebel without a clause?

I've clicked that, even if no one else has.

[youandwhosearmy]

  bluebruce said:

Not supposed to play for two teams from the same country in a season? That would make most January transfers pointless, so no. You're not supposed to play for MORE than two teams, and the same country is nothing to do with it. Mascherano needed special dispensation because he had played in Argentina, then for Wham, then for Liverpool.

This Ferguson fellow, is he a Blackburn fan? Sounds like very wishful thinking on our part! Like someone said, we weren't in a position of power when we sold him, and I highly doubt Liverpool did it out of the goodness of their hearts. Sounds like tosh to me, alas.

oh yes, i meant sign for 2 seperate teams in the same league

anyways, Bellamy not getting a minute obviously signals the end of his Anfield dream

we can only hope his ego can withstand the possibility to return to us

also: so much for Benitez the "european master" as people in Liverpool waxed lyrical about this weekend. Not playing to strikers was a big mistake

[LeftWinger]

  youandwhosearmy said:

anyways, Bellamy not getting a minute obviously signals the end of his Anfield dream

It must have been a kick in the teeth to Bellamy to see Rafa bringing on a defender for a defender late on when they needed a goal.

[CAPT KAYOS]

  Eddie said:

They wouldn't have to sell to us before them, they would simply have to accept our bid whereas they would not have to accept Villa's.

or on a more logical basis -there being a clause that we have first option should some other club trigger a £7+m offer

[waggy]

well i hope bellamy has enjoyed his season,getting splinters in his arse on the bench at liverpoo,football is fantastic sometimes

[benhben]

Last night was crying out for Bellamy. Fastest player on the pitch up against Nesta with an injury and a possibly not fit 39 year old. Rafas tactics were awful. Id love Bellamy back, but I cant see it happening.

[Shevchenko]

Apparently Rafa has named Mark Gonzales and Zenden as players leaving the club, among others unnamed. So they will need at least one left winger this summer...MGP? The article I read indicated a massive clear out and use of money so Bellamy might go as well. The article was in norwegian, so I won't post the link.

[John]

I just think it is guaranteed that Liverpool will go for Pedersen. I am not so worried about Spurs, I think we (and even MGP could resist that)

The fact we want Bellamy could see a potential swap deal muted.

[thenodrog]

  Shevchenko said:

Apparently Rafa has named Mark Gonzales and Zenden as players leaving the club,

So why play him then?

Unless injuries rendered us completely desperate I could hardly see Mark Hughes last season picking the likes of Matteo and Amoruso for the biggest game of the season.

[Oakland]

  thenodrog said:

So why play him then?

Unless injuries rendered us completely desperate I could hardly see Mark Hughes last season picking the likes of Matteo and Amoruso for the biggest game of the season.

Rafa plans major changes