[Archived] Phil Jones

[den]

We got 20m for him didn't we?

£16m+ add ons I believe. Most deals are quoted as the basic fee. Many have add ons as well.

[Majiball]

Yes we got 20M with add-on's, after refusing to honour our side of the bargain as his clause was 16M.

Main comment I get when Jones is brought up is 'bargain of the season', people can call it an achievement but I will always consider it a monumental failure by the club and whoever wrote the contract in the first place.

[Amo]

But now that he has seen him close up he's comparing him to one of the greatest defenders of all time...

Yeah, 'cause the latest English starlet is never overhyped.

[Majiball]

Yeah, 'cause the latest English starlet is never overhyped.

I would ask how often Capello comes out with comparsions?

Is Wellbeck the new???? Is Wilshire the new???? and so on.

He was worth more than what we got when we sold him, United are ecstatic they got him so cheap and avoided the bidding war by getting in early.

For me it's one of the biggest mistakes of their rein and a clause of less than Duff's some 10 odd years ago, given the current climate in football.

[thenodrog]

Correct - the price we got for Jones was the correct amount for his performances, experience and a certain extent of potential (which is immeasurable).

Comparable players with the same club. Rooney 26m (2004), Ferdinand 30m (2002).

Go figure those sums and dates out.

And if anybody thinks potential and future performance needs to be reckoned in then the reputed 4m in add ons after the miniscule 16m outlay is pathetic.

[Eddie]

He was the most expensive teenage defender ever sold. We got a good price for him.

[Amo]

I would ask how often Capello comes out with comparsions?

Is Wellbeck the new???? Is Wilshire the new???? and so on.

http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/football/854010-jack-wilshere-is-englands-future-and-better-than-claude-makelele-fabio-capello

http://www.soccerway.com/news/2010/February/12/capello-rooney-like-raul/

[Majiball]

http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/football/854010-jack-wilshere-is-englands-future-and-better-than-claude-makelele-fabio-capello

http://www.soccerway.com/news/2010/February/12/capello-rooney-like-raul/

:lol:

Rooney N Raul I can see, but Wilshire and Makalele WTF.

I'll give him his dues though they are better than some of the ones we've heard recently.

I still believe we could have gotten a lot more for PJ as several 'big' clubs wanted him. Liverpool are even rumoured to have bid/prepared one, for a cheeky 22M. When a bidding war ensues, rumoured well before he signed, why set a limit?

The clause was not a smart move. Just as everyone says they did well to get them up to 20M with add-ons, United could easily have dug their heels in at that point and won. And yet they quite quickly and without any bother sorted it out and signed on the line, all that did was make me think Mmmm we'd easily have gotten more out of them.

[ruggles1995]

phil Jones is Judas! FACT.

[K-Hod]

I really don't know how much more people expected us to get for Jones....

Ferdinand cost £30m and he was proven at the time, and was 24 years old!

[donnermeat]

Capello hadn't even heard of him until the summer...

Good point. I remember when Smalling got an England call up ahead of him after only 12 minutes of Premier League football that current season. In the meantime Jones was arguably our most important player at the time, playing regularly and didn't get a look in. Just proves that its who you play for really doesn't it.

[imy9]

Comparable players with the same club. Rooney 26m (2004), Ferdinand 30m (2002).

Go figure those sums and dates out.

And if anybody thinks potential and future performance needs to be reckoned in then the reputed 4m in add ons after the miniscule 16m outlay is pathetic.

Ferdinand had played over 150 pl games and had cl experience.

Rooney had played a lot more pl games and is a striker- valued at more any way. Ferdinand actually cost closer to 25 million in the end too. The most expensive teenage defender in history is a pathetic 16 million, strange.

Jones was a fair price for both and 20 million plus a sell on fee was the grand total

[BuckyRover]

I really don't know how much more people expected us to get for Jones....

Ferdinand cost £30m and he was proven at the time, and was 24 years old!

Indeed. He already had many caps for England and had played at 2 major tournaments. He had played at one major tournament when he went for £18m.

Jones had played for one season and had been on the receiving end of a major knee injury.

[Majiball]

Ferdinand signed for United way back in 2002 almost a whole decade ago it's all changed since then. Financially we now have far bigger players in football and so fees can be crazy, so why cap the fee it makes absolutely no sense and it's why most don't do it. Who in their right mind would ever have thought Andy Carroll would cost 30M, I wonder why Newcastle got that kind of money???

Was it a fair price? No chance.

Disclaimer: It truly is a dark day when I'm holding up Mike Ashley as a better example of football business given how much he's lost at Newcastle and the laughter the whole sorry saga has caused.

[Eddie]

The difference is that Phil Jones knew that he'd be leaving at some point and was undoubtedly hearing the praise thrown about by Allardyce and several other managers and journalists. With that in mind it will have been HIS choice to include a minimum fee release clause and it is quite possible that he would never have signed an extension without its inclusion (see the current Hoilett saga for an indication on how that can play out).

There is also another argument that says that it makes it far easier for us as a club to hold out for a specific fee when we can point to the clause. Who knows what had happened had that clause not existed and United had put in an offer of £10m. I don't doubt that the club would have rejected it, but it is also quite possible that Jones could have reacted negatively to that and we would have been put in a position where we had to sell and had no real leverage.

In an ideal world there would be no need for a clause like that, but if we all take a step back we would see that we got a decent fee for Jones, just as we did for Duff. The only time when a clause has seriously worked against us was when we had to sell Bellamy for a seriously cut-price fee, but then he would never have signed for us without its inclusion, so it needed to be put in.

The lesson the club should take from the Jones and Hoilett negotiations is that it is far better to stick the clause in and get the player tied down. Once the clause is over £15m that is big money for a club of our size and is a fee that we would have to seriously consider clause-or-no-clause.

[roverandout]

cant really blame jones for joining man utd, probably once in a lifetime chance and for all he knew he could have gone backwards in his career and ending up playing at a lower level.

[BuckyRover]

Ferdinand signed for United way back in 2002 almost a whole decade ago it's all changed since then. Financially we now have far bigger players in football and so fees can be crazy, so why cap the fee it makes absolutely no sense and it's why most don't do it. Who in their right mind would ever have thought Andy Carroll would cost 30M, I wonder why Newcastle got that kind of money???

Was it a fair price? No chance.

Disclaimer: It truly is a dark day when I'm holding up Mike Ashley as a better example of football business given how much he's lost at Newcastle and the laughter the whole sorry saga has caused.

Carroll had played half the games but had scored plenty of goals as a striker.

I don't know how you can use him as an example. Most expensive defender ever, Ferdinand £30m, most expensive forward Ronaldo £80m.

[Majiball]

The difference is that Phil Jones knew that he'd be leaving at some point and was undoubtedly hearing the praise thrown about by Allardyce and several other managers and journalists. With that in mind it will have been HIS choice to include a minimum fee release clause and it is quite possible that he would never have signed an extension without its inclusion (see the current Hoilett saga for an indication on how that can play out).

There is also another argument that says that it makes it far easier for us as a club to hold out for a specific fee when we can point to the clause. Who knows what had happened had that clause not existed and United had put in an offer of £10m. I don't doubt that the club would have rejected it, but it is also quite possible that Jones could have reacted negatively to that and we would have been put in a position where we had to sell and had no real leverage.

In an ideal world there would be no need for a clause like that, but if we all take a step back we would see that we got a decent fee for Jones, just as we did for Duff. The only time when a clause has seriously worked against us was when we had to sell Bellamy for a seriously cut-price fee, but then he would never have signed for us without its inclusion, so it needed to be put in.

The lesson the club should take from the Jones and Hoilett negotiations is that it is far better to stick the clause in and get the player tied down. Once the clause is over £15m that is big money for a club of our size and is a fee that we would have to seriously consider clause-or-no-clause.

Argument one: Assumption, will that do?

Argument two: If it's such a good idea, why don't all the clubs of similar ilk do the same? Bolton (Cahill), Stoke (Shawcross), Wigan (N'zogbia), all those (and more) and not one clause, why?????

Nixon in 2010 when chelsea were first linked

The most wanted youngster in England (because there is a serious lack of top talent in england) and another goes for 30M, so if PJ is the more in demand?? Who knows, every single one of the mega rich clubs were checking him out and we decide oh no were little old blackburn, we're not as greedy as the magpies of the north, we reckon 50% of Carrolls fee is more than enough for us!!!

United obviously didn't think it was a harsh fee as their first bid bang in their on the money, 16.5M have some of that? No haggling no nothing, just happy days we got the bargain of the century. And then the most condemming part in all of this our owners throw their toys out the pram and stomp their feet demanding more? Why demand more, 16.5M is a great price for a club of our size?

Does that mean even our club, our baby, was worth more than 16.5M and we knew it? Anyway 'stomping' demanded 20M a whopping 25% more than United 'legally' had to pay (it was a written contract) and what did United do? Remember this is the club that fought and demanded 10 or 12M from Chelsea for Mikel and what did they do? That's right Royal Red Nose got his Kilt on, drew his Claymore walked up to Ewood and said 'here you go you unscrupulous, Immoral deities from cloud chicken land have your demands, here's your 20M, I'll be taking the next JT (with pace)(quote ref:Nixon), thanks very much. Doesn't sound like Royal Red Nose to me, not at all, must have been an off day who knows? Perhaps they too were happy to be paying 20M?

I wonder how much the likes of Liverpool, Chelsea, United have spent in the last 12 months on transfer fess one of them even spent 12M on a manager (Did you ever see that in 2002?), so why do it? PJ was still on his last contract signed under the halo endowed days of bliss under the JW trust, they promised no more so I choose to believe them (JW was defo honest publicly). So if a player had come to me and said I wants a 'release clause' I'd have gone 'no chance young nipper' and then sold him in the summer at auction (why do I get a feeling of de ja fu???). Because I thought he was tied down to 2015 anyway and without a clause.

And to think way back in the meagre transfer days of 1996 we got 15M (a world fee) for Shearer and yet some 15 years later when the highest in the world is 80M we think 1.5M more than shearer is a good old fair deal. It wasn't about fair when we sold Shearer and it shouldn't have been here either. What sort of moron agrees to a new deal when he already has 4 years left on one without a clause when he's being heralded as high lighted above.

[Eddie]

1) A major flaw in your position is that Jones' previous contract also included a minimum fee release clause, so it was in the clubs interest to renegotiate his deal and try to remove that clause or at least increase it (reports suggest that we doubled it).

2) Minimum fee release clauses are fairly common, so we are far from the only club that use them. It will really only be used for players playing for smaller clubs as they want to ensure that they can't be prevented from moving to a bigger team, so it is no surprise to see that it is not as common with the big four.

3) Phil Jones is a DEFENDER. This is crucial in this argument. You can say what you like about how highly rated or 'in demand' he was, but the fact remains that midfielders and strikers go for more. It is the HIGHEST ever fee for a defender of his age, one of the highest ever fees for any defender and one of the highest ever fees for any teenager. Will he end up being worth more than that? Almost certainly, but that was true of Rooney and I think Everton got a good fee for him at the age and stage of his development at which they sold him.

[Majiball]

Carroll had played half the games but had scored plenty of goals as a striker.

I don't know how you can use him as an example. Most expensive defender ever, Ferdinand £30m, most expensive forward Ronaldo £80m.

Carroll had scored barely 10 premier league goals as a striker costing 30M I'd say that's bloody poor business, christ RSC with 20+ for us was cheaper and proven (abliet a crock), but Carroll was English and you lot lack talent (means they cost more). So if a crap striker like Carroll is worth 30M then what price could we really have gotten for PJ?

So Rio 30M in 2002, zidane was the record than at 50M or 60% so it's now 80M so 48M but hey ho lets all be happy with 16.5M or 34% of Rio's relative fee today.

I think we could easily have gotten 30M, chelsea, liverpool, United and Arsenal all wanted him, what a bidding war that could have become.

[Al]

I think that the reason we were able to increase the fee was that Ferguson had illegally tapped up the player and we were able to apply a bit of blackmailpersuasion to increase the fee.

[BuckyRover]

Carroll had scored barely 10 premier league goals as a striker costing 30M I'd say that's bloody poor business, christ RSC with 20+ for us was cheaper and proven (abliet a crock), but Carroll was English and you lot lack talent (means they cost more). So if a crap striker like Carroll is worth 30M then what price could we really have gotten for PJ?

So Rio 30M in 2002, zidane was the record than at 50M or 60% so it's now 80M so 48M but hey ho lets all be happy with 16.5M or 34% of Rio's relative fee today.

I think we could easily have gotten 30M, chelsea, liverpool, United and Arsenal all wanted him, what a bidding war that could have become.

Rio is still the most expensive defender ever though. He also had a lot more experience. We couldn't have had a bidding war because he wanted a release clause

[den]

The difference is that Phil Jones knew that he'd be leaving at some point and was undoubtedly hearing the praise thrown about by Allardyce and several other managers and journalists. With that in mind it will have been HIS choice to include a minimum fee release clause and it is quite possible that he would never have signed an extension without its inclusion (see the current Hoilett saga for an indication on how that can play out).

Stating opinions as fact again Eddie. It was reported at the time by Nicko that the release clause was inserted at the request of the club.

Do you want to start again?

I think we could easily have gotten 30M, chelsea, liverpool, United and Arsenal all wanted him, what a bidding war that could have become.

That point is being ignored Maj.

[Eddie]

Stating opinions as fact again Eddie. It was reported at the time by Nicko that the release clause was inserted at the request of the club.

Do you want to start again?

Well from that fallout from this saga it was reported that his representatives had wanted it included. Maybe they did this without his knowledge and sign-off, but that seems pretty unlikely. It didn't take him long to make his mind up and leave, so it is fairly clear that from the moment he got a bit of attention that he always had one eye on the door.

[thenodrog]

3) Phil Jones is a DEFENDER.

Really? Then you'd better email Capello and tell him that. The silly buggers been playing him in midfield against the World Champs this last week.