Jump to content

January Transfer Speculation 2015


Supervillan78

Recommended Posts

made even worse by some silly loan terms that means we have to play him........

There's absolutely no chance that's a clause, because it'd never be allowed
Well there is obviously some kind of clause that is finance related like us having to pay money everytime he doesn't play. The deal was rushed through after the deadline and I wouldn't put anything past some of the jokers involved with our club making a balls out of the deal.

Why obviously? I strongly doubt there is tbh. I think it's more down to the manager not having a clue how to organize a midfield.

Think about it, though, how could the FA possibly allow a clause that means a player has to play? He could end up intentionally passing the ball to the other team and still be required by the contract to play every game

I agree that's it's unlikely there is a clause that he has to play and I was most likely wrong to say that but it's very possible that there is a clause that means we have to pay money if he doesn't start or if he doesn't reach a certain amount of starts over the course of the season, clauses like that are not uncommon in loan deals.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CAHILL LEAVES NEW YORK

Tim Cahill has left MLS side New York Red Bulls after his contract was ended by mutual consent. 

http://www1.skysports.com/transfer-centre/

 

Free agent anyone? :-)

he can now be signed outside the window as a free agent, too. Definitely heading to england I reckon

Tim Cahill would be a good short term deal IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pete Colley@petecolley 22s23 seconds ago

For Those asking Paul Lambert and Tom Fox both here at BMH and trying to do deals, things could change its a crazy day...

Shameless whoring for "please continue to watch deadline day on Sky, pretty please".
Tbf in one of the recent deadline days Colley was gone home early in the day after stating there would be no business done by us so I'm still clinging on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

made even worse by some silly loan terms that means we have to play him........

There's absolutely no chance that's a clause, because it'd never be allowed
Well there is obviously some kind of clause that is finance related like us having to pay money everytime he doesn't play. The deal was rushed through after the deadline and I wouldn't put anything past some of the jokers involved with our club making a balls out of the deal.
Why obviously? I strongly doubt there is tbh. I think it's more down to the manager not having a clue how to organize a midfield.

Think about it, though, how could the FA possibly allow a clause that means a player has to play? He could end up intentionally passing the ball to the other team and still be required by the contract to play every game

I agree that's it's unlikely there is a clause that he has to play and I was most likely wrong to say that but it's very possible that there is a clause that means we have to pay money if he doesn't start or if he doesn't reach a certain amount of starts over the course of the season, clauses like that are not uncommon in loan deals.

Oh, do you mean he hasnt been 'passing the ball to the other team intentionally'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...
Â