P3te

That's an extreme example, and one that I'm sure there would be a way for us to get around. I'm sure the payment terms need to be agreed upon by both clubs.

 

But I'd be very surprised if a buyout clause means we have to have every penny up front.

 

If a payment plan needs to be agreed by both clubs then it's not a release clause, it's an obligation to negotiate with no obligation to agree

 

 

Isn't it Standard practice that usually half the fee is paid up front & the remaining 12 months later? I'm talking about domestic transfers here...remember seeing something on it once

That wouldn't be triggering a clause though, that'd be paying half of the clause and triggering it a year later when the rest is paid. This isn't a standard practice transfer. Depending on what's in the contract, we don't have to sell until someone gives us 32.5m (or whatever the figure is) for Benteke. 16m now and 16m next year does not equal someone giving us 32m for him now

 

Are you making this up on the fly?

Because I'm really not sure that's how it works.

 

So what's to stop pool bidding nothing up front, and the rest on the last possible day, but planning to sell him before that point at a profit so he costs them nothing apart from wages? By your logic we'd be bound to accept that deal

 

 

I disagree.

Fair enough.

Well Blackburn paid £3.6m for Shearer so Townsend is probably worth about £800k.

Those were the days

Seriously though, that Shearer fee is equivalent to £20m in today's money. I guess it's like me saying I remember when bread was 50p for a loaf. It's still the same bread now, but the economy is different, wheat and flour are more expensive, the pound is weaker. So although that 50p seems cheap, it holds the same value as bread does today. Just in a different market.

 

It shouldn't be about equivalent value, but rather something measurable, like % of annual club revenue at the time of purchase. That'd give a much, much better idea as to whether or not players are costing clubs more or less, by a metric that makes sense.

I'll wager players in any given bracket cost in or about the same in terms of % of the purchaser's annual revenue as they did 5, 10, 15, 20, years ago

Isn't it Standard practice that usually half the fee is paid up front & the remaining 12 months later? I'm talking about domestic transfers here...remember seeing something on it once

That wouldn't be triggering a clause though, that'd be paying half of the clause and triggering it a year later when the rest is paid. This isn't a standard practice transfer. Depending on what's in the contract, we don't have to sell until someone gives us 32.5m (or whatever the figure is) for Benteke. 16m now and 16m next year does not equal someone giving us 32m for him now

 

 

 

Herd has gone , was offered 3 month contract to be assessed by Sherwood and turned it down

It's really worrying that we thought we might need him (if true)

Nothing to suggest we thought we'd need him, more that Sherwood wanted to take a look at him to see if he was any use

That's touch contradictory Pete. Why would we use him if we didn't need him?

 

It's not contradictory at all. Sherwood clearly had no idea if he was good enough, and wanted to figure out if he was worth keeping. Hence the shorter deal. There's no suggestion of needing him or not needing him, more wanting to look at him. Nothing contradictory in that at all

Do you think we have a sell on fee included in the clause as well? I'd hope for 10% of c.£60mil when he moves on in three years. 

Doubt it. It wouldn't really fit with the nature of a release clause

This, i doubt many if any big deals are done in one swift payment

The vast majority are done over payments. This is not a regular transfer though, it's a release clause triggered transfer

You've seen the clause then?

Obviously not, but think about it with your common sense hat on for a minute. Why would a release clause allow a club to essentially pay nothing up front, and the rest over 100 years (which would be the case if there was no specific noted about it in the clause)? It's a release clause, which means the player can be released when the fee is paid, not when the fee is agreed to be paid over x amount of years

I'm genuinely amazed that anyone is making any noise at all about staggered payments. Firstly it's Twitter of course so nonsense, but secondly as everyone's been pointing out this is standard practice. From an accounts point of view the money is essence ours (whether we get out now or in bits over the next 2 years or whatever) so we can spend it because we will get the money. It'll have no effect on is buying anyone else.

If it's a release clause trigger it needs to be up front to activate the clause. That prevents clubs from bidding a quid and spreading the rest over a set period. It's different for a regular transfer where there's wiggle room for negotiation, but for a release clause it's the whole hog up front or the clause isn't activated

 

Herd has gone , was offered 3 month contract to be assessed by Sherwood and turned it down

It's really worrying that we thought we might need him (if true)

 

Nothing to suggest we thought we'd need him, more that Sherwood wanted to take a look at him to see if he was any use

 Today it seems like deals for Kaboul, Evans, Clasie et al have come from nowhere.  Would the boards of other teams have been frothing about those targets for weeks in advance?

Not sure about Evans or Kaboul, but the Clasie thing was being spoken of weeks ago

I want Charlie!. On topic Austin would be good!

Edit: Would we be the only squad with two Charles in it?

No, but we'd probably be the only one with a couple of Charles' and a Carles

 

 

 

 

 Let my guard down with the Delph case and got caught up in the furore of "if everyone is saying it, it must be true" 

 

But it was true?

 

 

But it actually wasn't, was it...because if you believe the story, the deal was done and the decision was made already.

 

The deal WAS agreed and the decision WAS made - Fabian just changed his mind at the last minute. That doesn't stop the reports being true up to that point though

 

 

Confirmed that himself did he?

 

The fact that City had briefed local media on a planned medical (which Fabian didn't show for) and interviews with the player is enough for me. People change their minds about things. If I say I'm going to do the groceries tomorrow, but I end up not doing it, it doesn't make what I said untrue, it was true at the time, but the circumstances changed

 

 

 Let my guard down with the Delph case and got caught up in the furore of "if everyone is saying it, it must be true" 

 

But it was true?

 

 

But it actually wasn't, was it...because if you believe the story, the deal was done and the decision was made already.

 

The deal WAS agreed and the decision WAS made - Fabian just changed his mind at the last minute. That doesn't stop the reports being true up to that point though

Dragging on this one.....why would he meet with the club? Get them to accept a lower offer from Lyon?

Loyalty payment?

 Let my guard down with the Delph case and got caught up in the furore of "if everyone is saying it, it must be true" 

 

But it was true?

Did we offer him an improved contract? If not, why not?

 

There was talk I think of us going as high as £90k a week (although I took that with a large pinch of salt).

 

I think it would be well worth offering him that for another year on his existing contract with the same £32.5m escape clause to rescue him from the potential hell of spending a couple of years playing for a club whose fans do not want him on a similar salary to play a couple of games in the Europa League and less games than he would for us in the PL.

 

Or could it be that we need to sell to buy? If so, we need to do that as well as Southampton did with less money.

 

Or it could be that he doesn't want to be here?

Imagine we'd signed Benteke after MONs first season, we could be where Man City are now.

He'd have been a bit young at that stage

 

We should get about £29m then, not too bad really.

What do you reckon he will get as a loyalty bonus? Never thought of that. 5%?

 

I'd be interested in knowing if a loyalty bonus is applicable in the circumstances of a release clause being met, because we didn't actively attempt to sell the player, rather we were contractually obligated to accept an offer and it was up to the player to decide to go. I wouldn't be surprised if there's no loyalty payment in this situation

Assumed most people would of already seen it but.

 

Former Manchester United star Rio Ferdinand was announced as lead analyst, with Paul Scholes, Michael Owen, Steve McManaman, Owen Hargreaves

Nice and varied former pros from clubs up and down the Premier League I see

16. Watford

17. Bournemouth

18. Sunderland

19. Norwich

20. Leicester

I think it's fair to say that if we don't reinvest wisely, we will be playing Championship football in 2016/17. Let's hope Sherwood, Reilly and Fox get it right.

I honestly believe that we could not spend another penny this summer and stay up

He'll go there, score 20-25 and want to move this time next year

 

 

What does a sporting director do?

directs sport

 

 

Directing sport, "guys the sport is this way". 

No, you've got it all wrong. That would Director of People Towards the Sport. We haven't hired one of them yet, but I'm told Fox is looking 

 

 

Meh. This approach aint winning us a thing!

It's not exactly something that you can turn on overnight ffs

Man City pretty much did or at least the intentions were turned on over night.

 

And now we're in a world where that's impossible