[Archived] Summer 2011 Transfer Window Part One

[BuckyRover]

Wasn't Nicko fishing for proof in above message?

He doesn't know either way.

So what I was saying hasn't been proved false when people were saying nicko had said otherwise. He has just admitted he doesn't know.

[rebelmswar]

He doesn't know either way.

So what I was saying hasn't been proved false when people were saying nicko had said otherwise. He has just admitted he doesn't know.

I getcha.

So there is no proof of the proof that you use as proof for the proof needed in your argument that has proof.

[Taggart]

With regards to the minimum release clause, why would Liverpool offer £22 million if they only had to bid £16.5 - bit strange unless the actual truth is that it triggers the player being allowed to discuss with the prospective new team ?

Surely, if it was just a sweetner to try and get the player, they could offer maybe 1 or 1.5 million above the release clause.

[JAL]

I'm not saying you are wrong, but was Mark Hughes an experienced manager in the transfer market when he joined Blackburn Rovers? If I remember correctly he was the manager for Wales and had no experience in buying or selling players when we gave him his first EPL chance.

I could be wrong, though. Please enlighten me.

47er posted a few pages that Venkys shouldn't be making noise if they thought that Jones was valued 16 million in January. The problem is that his value ROSE after January. And obviously he isn't going to sign another contract just four months after his last contract, agreeing to up his clause to 20 million. Still, from what I can infer from this whole saga, apparently you don't have to sell if someone bids the minimum amount for the clause. You just let them talk to him.

It might be wrong for Venkys, but if that's the case why hasn't the saga ended already?

The big differences between Kean and Hughes was one of respect, in the game, from fans and players alike for winning many trophies through a glittering career. Ending that career with a Man Of the Match performance that ensured Blackburn Rovers victory by winning the Worthington cup in 2002 the clubs last major trophy, plus helping the club back into the premier league.

Then Hughes went onto do a reasonable job on the International scene with Wales.

Whats Stephen Kean achieved that can compare to the above absolutely nothing on that scale, nothing.

So why is he managing Rovers?

[Hughesy]

The big differences between Kean and Hughes was one of respect, in the game, from fans and players alike for winning many trophies through a glittering career.

Perhaps not from Fabregas though eh!

[Wiggy]

The big differences between Kean and Hughes was one of respect, in the game, from fans and players alike for winning many trophies through a glittering career. Ending that career with a Man Of the Match performance that ensured Blackburn Rovers victory by winning the Worthington cup in 2002 the clubs last major trophy, plus helping the club back into the premier league.

Then Hughes went onto do a reasonable job on the International scene with Wales.

Whats Stephen Kean achieved that can compare to the above absolutely nothing on that scale, nothing.

So why is he managing Rovers?

Because he puts in long hours and is a positive thinker.

[nicko]

Wasn't Nicko fishing for proof in above message?

I have a suspicion that there WAS a price clause before.

But frankly it doesn't matter much in the current situation.

The £16 million clause in the contract NOW is all that matters.

With regards to the minimum release clause, why would Liverpool offer £22 million if they only had to bid £16.5 - bit strange unless the actual truth is that it triggers the player being allowed to discuss with the prospective new team ?

Surely, if it was just a sweetner to try and get the player, they could offer maybe 1 or 1.5 million above the release clause.

The Liverpool 'bid' is what is commonly known in the trade as a 'wind up.'

[Black Burn]

The big differences between Kean and Hughes was one of respect, in the game, from fans and players alike for winning many trophies through a glittering career. Ending that career with a Man Of the Match performance that ensured Blackburn Rovers victory by winning the Worthington cup in 2002 the clubs last major trophy, plus helping the club back into the premier league.

Then Hughes went onto do a reasonable job on the International scene with Wales.

Whats Stephen Kean achieved that can compare to the above absolutely nothing on that scale, nothing.

So why is he managing Rovers?

I heard Steve Kean has respect from the players and staff, though, even if he doesn't have the respect of fans.

Hughes's reasonable job with Wales isn't equivalent to experience, is it? I could be wrong, but the club took a gamble with him back then, and now they're taking a similar gamble with Kean. He did screw up last season, but Rome wasn't built in a day, and even when Hughes first came in, he managed to lift Blackburn out of the relegation zone and finish 13th place. If John Williams and the rest didn't have faith in him when the season ended, he would never have brought Blackburn up to 6th the next season.

But I guess you don't want to risk the chance Kean might drag us to relegation. I do get where you're coming from.

What has he achieved? If you don't give him a chance (for the sake of argument, let's put last season behind us), he will never achieve anything in the first place. And giving him half a season to prove himself and achieve something is impossible, isn't it?

Well, you are justified in your opinion, but I just happen to disagree with it. You can assume I'm a naive, hopelessly optimistic idiot if you want.

Perhaps not from Fabregas though eh!

This is epic. "That's not how Barcelona played, was it?"

Because he puts in long hours and is a positive thinker.

Hopefully that will work out in the long run, eh?

[Hughesy]

I have a suspicion that there WAS a price clause before.

But frankly it doesn't matter much in the current situation.

The £16 million clause in the contract NOW is all that matters.

It would make sense - a couple of papers reported last week that Arsene knew about it last summer.

[gumboots]

Because he puts in long hours and is a positive thinker.

Because he's the owners' choice. Whinge all we want but nobody sees that changing soon.

[Roverdale]

M'Bengue Possible Left Back

Anyone seen him play?

[BuckyRover]

I have a suspicion that there WAS a price clause before.

But frankly it doesn't matter much in the current situation.

The £16 million clause in the contract NOW is all that matters.

The Liverpool 'bid' is what is commonly known in the trade as a 'wind up.'

I expect a flood of apologies.

I won't hold my breath.

[Black Burn]

I expect a flood of apologies.

I won't hold my breath.

Er...sorry.

For what, exactly? I was one of those who hypothesized that there was in fact a clause in Jones's contract before Venkys offered him a new one to up that clause. I don't know if it was 8 million, but I was sure it was definitely lower than 16 million. And at that time 16 million looked good enough for him.

But since you expect me to apologize, I will do so sincerely.

[47er]

The £16 million price clause in Phil Jones's new contract was put in by the owners.

Fact.

If you are telling me there was a lower figure - £8 million allegedly - in his old contract that may well be the case.

I would like to know if that was the case. It would make me laugh out loud.

There are people on here Nicko who swear its a fact. Its been in the press you know!

[den]

Thanks. Any come back on this den?

It appears I just have to believe something is true and then proof will follow.

What now Bucky?

Seems you have lost the plot again. You said there's no way that a club would offer to put a release clause into a players contract. I said I knew for a fact that they do - and I do. You didn't believe me. The owners, according to Nicko, put this clause forward - adding to what I'm saying, not detracting from it.

There's nothing changed, apart from you and the wind direction.

[Black Burn]

What now Bucky?

Seems you have lost the plot again. You said there's no way that a club would offer to put a release clause into a players contract. I said I knew for a fact that they do - and I do. You didn't believe me. The owners, according to Nicko, put this clause forward - adding to what I'm saying, not detracting from it.

There's nothing changed, apart from you and the wind direction.

The way I read Bucky's posts, it seemed clear to me that he was 100% certain that there was already a clause in Jones's contract before Venkys came along and offered him a new one. Are you sure you're not misunderstanding him, or is that just me?

Or are you referring to him talking about the clause not being inserted by Venkys? I'm pretty sure Nicko cleared that up with him a few posts back.

[47er]

I getcha.

So there is no proof of the proof that you use as proof for the proof needed in your argument that has proof.

:D

[BuckyRover]

What now Bucky?

Seems you have lost the plot again. You said there's no way that a club would offer to put a release clause into a players contract. I said I knew for a fact that they do - and I do. The owners, according to Nicko, put this clause forward - adding to what I'm saying, not detracting from it.

There's nothing changed, apart from you and the wind direction.

There is something wrong with your comprehension.

I said they (Venky's) would not voluntarily put in a release clause UNLESS there was one previously.

They don't need to sell hence no need for release clauses.

That hasn't been proven otherwise. Logic and common sense dictates that this is the case.

[hawkiiz]

I'm sorry, but what does it really matter who's idea it was to put the clause in there? Negotiating is about give and take untill both parties are satisfied. If a £16m clause is what it took to get the deal signed, then fine.

[BuckyRover]

Of course it matters!

If people are blaming Venky's for it when they had no choice in the matter.

If there was one previously (likely) then they had NO CHOICE.

Unless they wanted to see him swan off for 8m.

Den said previously that If they didn't want to be known as a selling club then maybe they shouldn't keep inserting clauses. My stance all along has been that if there was one previously they had no choice. Hence it couldn't be used as a stick (which den was using it as).

I'm sure he will just resort to a personal attack and bring a completely unrelated point. But there you go.

[hawkiiz]

Since they wanted to sign PJ on a new contract, then i guess they had no (better) choice either way, because PJ probably asked for a lot, and forced Rovers to go pretty far for his signature.

[den]

Den said previously that If they didn't want to be known as a selling club then maybe they shouldn't keep inserting clauses. My stance all along has been that if there was one previously they had no choice. Hence it couldn't be used as a stick (which den was using it as).

Wrong again. I said any owner, be it Venky's or the trust, that continually puts release clauses into players contracts, can't really argue that they aren't a selling club. I already explained that to you.

To remind you of the discussion Bucky:-

According to our resident expert Bucky, a club would never ever ask for a transfer fee clause to be inserted into a player's contract.

Bucky's reply:-

I wasn't basing it on what a tabloid journo had said. I was basing it on common sense.

But now a journalist has said the opposite so I stand corrected.

Ha.

But Bucky says they don't, he's using his common sense. So it must be true.

Bucky's wrong. As are the people who say a release clause is always put there at the request of agents and players. Rovers have used release clauses in the past.

and that makes all those arguments "that they wouldn't have signed without a clause" open to debate.

A team that doesn't need to sell it's players wouldn't insert a release clause.

Why do you feel the need to say "I know for a fact", do you think people will believe it?

Because I don't.

and so on.......

[Black Burn]

Wrong again. I said any owner, be it Venky's or the trust, that continually puts release clauses into players contracts, can't really argue that they aren't a selling club. I already explained that to you.

Bucky's wrong. As are the people who say a release clause is always put there at the request of agents and players. Rovers have used release clauses in the past.

and that makes all those arguments "that they wouldn't have signed without a clause" open to debate.

and so on.......

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure there's a release clause for every contract. Whether it's your telephone contract, your company contract, your scholarship, ANY contract at all. There's always a clause that says if you want out or if you want ot terminate your contract, you have to pay a fee. I'm pretty sure it's the same for players contract.

Otherwise what happen if the player suddenly wants to quit the club and move? If he doesn't have a release clause he isn't allowed to resign prematurely and must play for the club no matter what? I bet he'll go on strike when that happens. If it's a phone and you want to terminate your contract, they can't expect you to keep paying bills for the next 12 months if you refuse to use your phone and pay up. The company or government can't expect you to continue your scholarship or working if you want to quit/stop working. It's not as if they can point to the paper and say "your signature means you must study/work for the next four years NO MATTER WHAT." It might be seen as unethical to terminate your contract midway, but sometimes people do that to pursue careers or to switch fields. A release clause allows you to do that legally without having to go on strike or bitterly and miserably slough your way through for the remainder of the contract.

No difference for players, right?

[BuckyRover]

Wrong again. I said any owner, be it Venky's or the trust, that continually puts release clauses into players contracts, can't really argue that they aren't a selling club. I already explained that to you.

To remind you of the discussion Bucky:-

Bucky's reply:-

Bucky's wrong. As are the people who say a release clause is always put there at the request of agents and players. Rovers have used release clauses in the past.

and that makes all those arguments "that they wouldn't have signed without a clause" open to debate.

and so on.......

I stand by what I said.

It's of no benefit to the selling club. I don't believe clubs do it voluntarily.

99.99% of them anyway.

You also know what the original discussion was about. It was about whether Venky's could be blamed for inserting the clause. You used Cryer and nicko as evidence of there being no clause previously, I always said that there must have been.

Your sources have since changed to there probably being a clause before. Which is what I said and all along and you said was untrue.

Now you think you have won a sematic argument when that was never the original discussion.

As I said, you would bring up an irrelevant point and claim victory.

It shouldn't have been that difficult for you either, my mind is on other matters at the moment.

[ChrisyG]

Anyone know of any transfer targets? besides RSC.