AvfcTheObsession Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 I can't see him going anywhere until next summer at the earliest. Don't see why he'd go through the whole 'this is my club, I love it here routine, I'm loyal' only to leave 6 months later. I think the clause was an insurance in case we got relegated in the season just gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 I wonder how that happened, confused me too. He may not be good enough but if they come in for him and tell him they want him to be part of their plans to win all 4 trophies and get paid 100k + a week while getting to play alongside the likes of Aguero. Or you can stay and battle to survive in the league again.... It's something to consider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted June 28, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted June 28, 2015 Footballers will also back themselves. Why wouldn't Delph think that he can get into the Man City team? He's obviously a confident player, why wouldn't he want to see if he can make it at a club like that? Unless he's specifically told he won't get a chance in their first XI then I don't see why he wouldn't think he could have a go at making it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Footballers will also back themselves. Why wouldn't Delph think that he can get into the Man City team? He's obviously a confident player, why wouldn't he want to see if he can make it at a club like that? Unless he's specifically told he won't get a chance in their first XI then I don't see why he wouldn't think he could have a go at making it. Exactly. It's not like Pellegrini will meet him and say we want you to sign but you will spend most of the time on the bench because we don't think you are good enough to start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwpzxjor1 Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) There is A sky sports reporter Twitter account saying it's his understanding that city will not be pursuing the release clause. Whether this account is real I do not know, it's unverified without too many followers, so I doubt it. Looks like it's a real reporter who only joined up yesterday, other tweets he's put seem genuine but easy enough to fake something like that. @JamesCooperSSN: Before I leave, it is my understanding Manchester City will not be activating Fabian Delph's £10m release clause this summer. #mcfc #avfc Very strange if it is true. Makes no sense for city to not trigger it, more likely they've been told Delph won't be agreeing any terms. Edited June 28, 2015 by Qwpzxjor1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkyvilla Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Footballers will also back themselves. Why wouldn't Delph think that he can get into the Man City team? He's obviously a confident player, why wouldn't he want to see if he can make it at a club like that? Unless he's specifically told he won't get a chance in their first XI then I don't see why he wouldn't think he could have a go at making it. Thing is City are never far away from signing a £30m+ player in a certain player's position regardless of whether they really need him, and I may be wrong but I get the impression it's often at the expense of an English player. It was only because Milner worked his socks off and would play any position that he played as much as he did. Pellegrini will probably be gone within a year and a new manager comes in and changes things again, then it's Delph sat on the bench. I think Fab is a bit wiser to it than a lot of players. I hope so anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubby Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Also, people saying that the clause was a stupid thing for us to put in there, you realise if it wasn't for that he'd have walked away for nothing already, right? Well in that case no one can praise his loyalty then. Last I checked, loyalty didn't mean "I'll sign so long as I can leave if a better team comes knocking". I also don't care that this would mean we would get some money for a transfer, am I supposed to be happy he is a kind enough gentleman to let us keep him temporarily? Such a low release clause totally undervalues his worth and it wouldn't even be a profit so what is the point? I just hope it's all untrue, if it's not then I point to my early points about our administration and what this would mean in my eyes for a player that waxed lyrical about signing to stay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted June 28, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted June 28, 2015 Also, people saying that the clause was a stupid thing for us to put in there, you realise if it wasn't for that he'd have walked away for nothing already, right? Well in that case no one can praise his loyalty then. Last I checked, loyalty didn't mean "I'll sign so long as I can leave if a better team comes knocking". I also don't care that this would mean we would get some money for a transfer, am I supposed to be happy he is a kind enough gentleman to let us keep him temporarily? Such a low release clause totally undervalues his worth and it wouldn't even be a profit so what is the point? I just hope it's all untrue, if it's not then I point to my early points about our administration and what this would mean in my eyes for a player that waxed lyrical about signing to stay. Becasue Villa getting £8m for him is better than getting £0m surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czechlad Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 At the beginning of the season if you told me that we could realistically be losing Guzan, Delph, Benteke, and Vlaar in one transfer window, I would have been certain we would have been relegated and that's why we were forced to sell. If we lose all 4 of those players this transfer window, I might wonder if Sherwood is actually a boyhood blue noser. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Could you explain how Sherwood has any effect on a player out of contract and two players with release clauses in their current deals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubby Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) Also, people saying that the clause was a stupid thing for us to put in there, you realise if it wasn't for that he'd have walked away for nothing already, right?Well in that case no one can praise his loyalty then. Last I checked, loyalty didn't mean "I'll sign so long as I can leave if a better team comes knocking". I also don't care that this would mean we would get some money for a transfer, am I supposed to be happy he is a kind enough gentleman to let us keep him temporarily? Such a low release clause totally undervalues his worth and it wouldn't even be a profit so what is the point? I just hope it's all untrue, if it's not then I point to my early points about our administration and what this would mean in my eyes for a player that waxed lyrical about signing to stay.Becasue Villa getting £8m for him is better than getting £0m surely? My point would be that £20m+ is what he is worth in today's market and that's the kind of fee we should be aiming for. Again, IF it is true, you wouldn't catch other clubs acting in such ways, where the hell is our pride? We are acting like the prison bitch Edited June 28, 2015 by Tubby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czechlad Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Could you explain how Sherwood has any effect on a player out of contract and two players with release clauses in their current deals? Sure. Vlaar did not resign and doesn't look like he will sign for any major club that he wanted to. If Vlaar signs for a club like Sunderland, then we can probably say that it was a problem with Vlaar not trusting Sherwood's management style or not liking how he did things. Then we have Delph and Benteke who have releases clauses, but we don't have to sell. If Delph is your captain, then you don't sell him for 10m. Benteke is his only consistent striker, so you don't sell him unless you have a very competent replacement lined-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Could you explain how Sherwood has any effect on a player out of contract and two players with release clauses in their current deals? Sure. Vlaar did not resign and doesn't look like he will sign for any major club that he wanted to. If Vlaar signs for a club like Sunderland, then we can probably say that it was a problem with Vlaar not trusting Sherwood's management style or not liking how he did things. Then we have Delph and Benteke who have releases clauses, but we don't have to sell. If Delph is your captain, then you don't sell him for 10m. Benteke is his only consistent striker, so you don't sell him unless you have a very competent replacement lined-up. So if Vlaar signs for another club it's because of Sherwood? Even though he was happy to run his contract down at the club before Sherwood even joined? Could it not be down to money? Could other clubs offer him more? Or being first choice at another club as he might have been told okore and clark are the ones we are going to go with? No it must be because he doesn't like Sherwood. And you know the exact details of both players release clauses to hold it against the manager if they are sold? Wow. You've gone to some effort to have a go at the manager there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntrimBlack Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Footballer in 'looking after his own interests' shocker. Were people really that naive to think that he didn't have some provisions in his new contract? Delph is way too good for us, we damn near got relegated last season, he's easily good enough for a top half team chasing European competition. To say he's not good enough for a club like Everton or Liverpool based on their current squads is absolutely laughable, that's the level he should be playing at, not ours. Did someone say that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 If we want to improve then players like Delph should be playing for us, nevermind letting them leave with our 'best wishes' rubbish. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 I mean the reason players like Delph might seem be too good for us is because we keep letting players like Delph go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntrimBlack Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Also, people saying that the clause was a stupid thing for us to put in there, you realise if it wasn't for that he'd have walked away for nothing already, right? Well in that case no one can praise his loyalty then. Last I checked, loyalty didn't mean "I'll sign so long as I can leave if a better team comes knocking". I also don't care that this would mean we would get some money for a transfer, am I supposed to be happy he is a kind enough gentleman to let us keep him temporarily? Such a low release clause totally undervalues his worth and it wouldn't even be a profit so what is the point? I just hope it's all untrue, if it's not then I point to my early points about our administration and what this would mean in my eyes for a player that waxed lyrical about signing to stay. Becasue Villa getting £8m for him is better than getting £0m surely? My point would be that £20m+ is what he is worth in today's market and that's the kind of fee we should be aiming for. Again, IF it is true, you wouldn't catch other clubs acting in such ways, where the hell is our pride? We are acting like the prison bitch You seem to be intent upon attacking the club. I reiterate, this was all the club could do in order to keep him, and £8m was what he was worth at that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Nobody (save for the people involved with contract) knows what the club could have or couldn't have done to get him to sign the contract. We don't even know if the clause actually exists or if it does the conditions surrounding it. And even if there is such a clause, Delph might not have any intentions of leaving should a team activate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czechlad Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Could you explain how Sherwood has any effect on a player out of contract and two players with release clauses in their current deals? Sure. Vlaar did not resign and doesn't look like he will sign for any major club that he wanted to. If Vlaar signs for a club like Sunderland, then we can probably say that it was a problem with Vlaar not trusting Sherwood's management style or not liking how he did things. Then we have Delph and Benteke who have releases clauses, but we don't have to sell. If Delph is your captain, then you don't sell him for 10m. Benteke is his only consistent striker, so you don't sell him unless you have a very competent replacement lined-up. So if Vlaar signs for another club it's because of Sherwood? Even though he was happy to run his contract down at the club before Sherwood even joined? Could it not be down to money? Could other clubs offer him more? Or being first choice at another club as he might have been told okore and clark are the ones we are going to go with? No it must be because he doesn't like Sherwood. And you know the exact details of both players release clauses to hold it against the manager if they are sold? Wow. You've gone to some effort to have a go at the manager there. Not really. If I leave my job for another job that offers me similar pay and is not a step up, then it probably had something to do with me not liking how the company was managed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubby Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) Also, people saying that the clause was a stupid thing for us to put in there, you realise if it wasn't for that he'd have walked away for nothing already, right?Well in that case no one can praise his loyalty then. Last I checked, loyalty didn't mean "I'll sign so long as I can leave if a better team comes knocking". I also don't care that this would mean we would get some money for a transfer, am I supposed to be happy he is a kind enough gentleman to let us keep him temporarily? Such a low release clause totally undervalues his worth and it wouldn't even be a profit so what is the point? I just hope it's all untrue, if it's not then I point to my early points about our administration and what this would mean in my eyes for a player that waxed lyrical about signing to stay.Becasue Villa getting £8m for him is better than getting £0m surely?My point would be that £20m+ is what he is worth in today's market and that's the kind of fee we should be aiming for. Again, IF it is true, you wouldn't catch other clubs acting in such ways, where the hell is our pride? We are acting like the prison bitch You seem to be intent upon attacking the club. I reiterate, this was all the club could do in order to keep him, and £8m was what he was worth at that time. That's one thing you've said in this debate that I agree with, this past five years have been torture and only those running our club are responsible for that. As Useless said, we aren't getting better if we let our best players leave with a friendly tap on the arse, no other team acts like we do and that stems from the top Edited June 28, 2015 by Tubby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts