P3te Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Rangers are apparently tying up a deal to loan 4 or 5 players from Newcastle. Bet thats opened a can of worms on their transfer thread. Jesus, surely that'll break all kinds of rules given Ashley's involvement in both clubs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bunnski Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 barcelona insist on that clause when they loan players out, deulofeu had it at everton, it was teh 1st id ever heard of it but it does exist Supposedly Mk Dons wanted to loan Kinsella off us and we said they would have to pay us everytime he didn't start a game. I reckon it's a fairly common term especially when loaning out younger players for experience. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMAICAN-VILLAN Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Cahill has reportedly been offered $3m to play for Shanghai Shenhua for a year, can't see him coming to England myself. That would workout to about 40k per week, surely we could do that for Cahill! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 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'? I still want someone to give me one good reason why Utd would give two shits whether he played week in week out or not. They'd already told him he was surplus to requirements, they don't really want him back (evidence: loaning him out for the last twelve months of his contract) and it's not similar to Deulofeu who Barcelona probably view (or viewed, at any rate) as a project for the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This Could Be Rotterdam Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Who else thinks lambert and fox are sitting in an office trying to decide what takeaway to have but can't agree. Fox has suggested flipping a coin, heads is chinese, tails is Indian. Lambert doesn't want him to realise that flipping a coin is sometimes the most sensible thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bunnski Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 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 allowedWell 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 gameI 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'? I still want someone to give me one good reason why Utd would give two shits whether he played week in week out or not. They'd already told him he was surplus to requirements, they don't really want him back (evidence: loaning him out for the last twelve months of his contract) and it's not similar to Deulofeu who Barcelona probably view (or viewed, at any rate) as a project for the future. Maybe it was a deal with Cleverly himself that he would have to start a certain number of games or else he wouldn't of agreed to join us on loan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cudoz Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 (edited) John Percy @John__Percy 2m2 minutes agoCould be some late activity at #avfc with a bid to sign #lfc striker Rickie Lambert. Deal would be permanent if agreed with player & club Won't happen, but this rumour won't go away.. Edited February 2, 2015 by cudoz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 (edited) Who else thinks lambert and fox are sitting in an office trying to decide what takeaway to have but can't agree. Fox has suggested flipping a coin, heads is chinese, tails is Indian. Lambert doesn't want him to realise that flipping a coin is sometimes the most sensible thing to do. They could be, but they could be doing absolutely anything to be honest. Edited February 2, 2015 by useless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginko Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 You want to put a 35-year-old on 40k a week? We can't do those kinds of deals, and nor should we be looking at them. I'd be excited on getting some other players in but honestly I don't even think that our players are the problem. We have deeper issues that run through the entire club and that's worrying as we have no idea what those problems are as they're hidden from public view. We need a new manager, definitely, but we need wholesale changes throughout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacketspuds Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 John Percy @John__Percy 2m2 minutes agoCould be some late activity at #avfc with a bid to sign #lfc striker Rickie Lambert. Deal would be permanent if agreed with player & club Won't happen, but this rumour won't go away.. Liverpool would need to bring a replacement in. Bit late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted February 2, 2015 Moderator Share Posted February 2, 2015 I don't want Lambert. I don't like him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmarsha_926 Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Lambert is only 32 and has 30 league goals in 2 and half seasons, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bunnski Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 John Percy @John__Percy 2m2 minutes agoCould be some late activity at #avfc with a bid to sign #lfc striker Rickie Lambert. Deal would be permanent if agreed with player & club Won't happen, but this rumour won't go away.. This gives me hope. Lambert and Rodgers seem to get on well also so might help the deal happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skarroki Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 I think the players we have and the manager we have are both good enough for top 10. I don't know who to blame for our position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villan-scott Posted February 2, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted February 2, 2015 John Percy @John__Percy 2m2 minutes agoCould be some late activity at #avfc with a bid to sign #lfc striker Rickie Lambert. Deal would be permanent if agreed with player & club Won't happen, but this rumour won't go away.. Liverpool would need to bring a replacement in. Bit late. Would they though? With Sturridge back, and Sterling playing up top with Borini and Balotelli also there. Could be done for the right money I think. At least it makes the last few hours a little more interesting! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 On a permanent? No thanks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam3773 Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Swap shop. Lambert for Lambert. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PompeyVillan Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 He's only just grabbed his dream move to Liverpool. Don't see it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 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'? I still want someone to give me one good reason why Utd would give two shits whether he played week in week out or not. They'd already told him he was surplus to requirements, they don't really want him back (evidence: loaning him out for the last twelve months of his contract) and it's not similar to Deulofeu who Barcelona probably view (or viewed, at any rate) as a project for the future. Maybe it was a deal with Cleverly himself that he would have to start a certain number of games or else he wouldn't of agreed to join us on loan. And that 'certain number' is 100%? Still seems vanishingly unlikley, why would any manager agree to have their hands tied like that? You think he really agreed to one name on the teamsheet being chosen every week by force of contract? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westholmevillan Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 John Percy @John__Percy 2m2 minutes agoCould be some late activity at #avfc with a bid to sign #lfc striker Rickie Lambert. Deal would be permanent if agreed with player & club Won't happen, but this rumour won't go away..[/ Liverpool would need to bring a replacement in. Bit late. Do we really want another Lambert?.....perhaps its one Lambert in and one Lambert out!......we live in hope! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts