Jump to content

Gareth Bale...

Gordon Mockles

By Gordon Mockles,
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

Window Cleaner

Window Cleaner

Posted
Posted
no, Lowe is supposedly meant to have cashed in on the add-ons when he came back so i doubt they owe us anything now.

 

Edit: no supposedly about it, he did http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/football_league/article4293645.ece

 

Personally though i think Bale would be good to stay at Spurs as it is a young team developing together.

 

What's the difference between our young team developing together who are sh!te and Spurs young team developing together who are sh!te then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John

John

Posted
Posted
no, Lowe is supposedly meant to have cashed in on the add-ons when he came back so i doubt they owe us anything now.

 

Edit: no supposedly about it, he did http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/football_league/article4293645.ece

 

...and the most shocking thing is that Lowe publicly criticised Leon Crouch for instigating the same early closure of the Walcott deal...he is a shameful hypocite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
St Marco

St Marco

Posted
Posted
What's the difference between our young team developing together who are sh!te and Spurs young team developing together who are sh!te then?

 

The difference being Spurs have players who are proven good players while still being young.

Bentley,Lennon,Jenas,Bent,Dawson,Santos,Pavlyuchenko,Huddlestone,Hutton etc..

 

We all knew those players were good players before this season started. But the main thing is Spurs have Ramos as their manager. They will no doubt go on to be a great team this season. Do we have players that have the ability to get us out of the mess we are in? Right now i can't see it. Do we have a manager who is proven at getting teams to win cups? Obviously no. And this is the problem. People are expecting players like Wotten to be Jenas type material....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Window Cleaner

Window Cleaner

Posted
Posted
The difference being Spurs have players who are proven good players while still being young.

Bentley,Lennon,Jenas,Bent,Dawson,Santos,Pavlyuchenko,Huddlestone,Hutton etc..

 

We all knew those players were good players before this season started. But the main thing is Spurs have Ramos as their manager. They will no doubt go on to be a great team this season. Do we have players that have the ability to get us out of the mess we are in? Right now i can't see it. Do we have a manager who is proven at getting teams to win cups? Obviously no. And this is the problem. People are expecting players like Wotten to be Jenas type material....

 

But they'll get relegated as likely as not, they'll all being baling (ouch)

out . Couldn't happen to a nicer club. They have sold the players that matter, the others will not fill their boots. I suspect if you look closely the 46 goals scored by Keane and Berbatov are the difference between survival and

failure. If Pavulychenko (or whatever) can't fill the boots of the departed they will not survive.Ramos won't stand being in the shadow of Benitez for long.Another month or so without league wins and he'll be off, he likes winning does Juande.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Barry Horne

Barry Horne

Posted
Posted
no, Lowe is supposedly meant to have cashed in on the add-ons when he came back so i doubt they owe us anything now.

 

Edit: no supposedly about it, he did http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/football_league/article4293645.ece

 

...and the most shocking thing is that Lowe publicly criticised Leon Crouch for instigating the same early closure of the Walcott deal...he is a shameful hypocite.

 

I don't read what Lowe says in that article as being anything to do with a sell-on clause. He's referring to the add-ons we were supposed to get based on Bale's future appearances for Spurs. IF a sell-on clause was negotiated at the time of Bale's transfer it could still be valid. That newspaper piece doesn't make that clear one way or another IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saintjay77

saintjay77

Posted
Posted
...and the most shocking thing is that Lowe publicly criticised Leon Crouch for instigating the same early closure of the Walcott deal...he is a shameful hypocite.

 

No point in getting into this argument but when Lowe was given the boot the finances were set up to have a steady income from the payments of the likes of Walcott and the deal that took Bale to Spuds was a similar thing.

 

While Lowe was gone a gamble was made to get us back to the Prem which failed and left us without a pot to P in. We were told money was available and we dont need to sell blah blah blah then it appeared the Theo deal had been cashed in while we had "no need to sell and money was available" So Rupes using that to have a dig while being very childish and doesnt ultimatly get anyone anywhere, he did have a point. When he came back he obviously realised the finances are worse than what was hoped and has had to do what he had a dig at Crouch for. I bet it was the last thing he would have wanted to do as he knows he would have looked like a complete muppett but if it was what was needed then he cant really be beaten because of it.

 

Didnt the early settlement cover the remainder of the payments? I would be surprised if it cancels out any sell on clauses that any transfer would have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint Without a Halo

Saint Without a Halo

Posted
Posted
no, Lowe is supposedly meant to have cashed in on the add-ons when he came back so i doubt they owe us anything now.

 

Edit: no supposedly about it, he did http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/football_league/article4293645.ece

 

...and the most shocking thing is that Lowe publicly criticised Leon Crouch for instigating the same early closure of the Walcott deal...he is a shameful hypocite.

 

And your option to pay the players and staff is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint Without a Halo

Saint Without a Halo

Posted
Posted

 

I don't read what Lowe says in that article as being anything to do with a sell-on clause. He's referring to the add-ons we were supposed to get based on Bale's future appearances for Spurs. IF a sell-on clause was negotiated at the time of Bale's transfer it could still be valid. That newspaper piece doesn't make that clear one way or another IMO.

 

If it was based on appearences for spurs maybe it was a good deal then? For if he is sold then no further appearances for spurs will happen!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
up and away

up and away

Posted
Posted
no, Lowe is supposedly meant to have cashed in on the add-ons when he came back so i doubt they owe us anything now.

 

Edit: no supposedly about it, he did http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/football_league/article4293645.ece

 

...and the most shocking thing is that Lowe publicly criticised Leon Crouch for instigating the same early closure of the Walcott deal...he is a shameful hypocite.

 

And lots did the same. But the point is that it was not the fact Walcott and Bale were cashed in, it was the situation that brought that about.

 

So, so shamefully hypocritically shockin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gordon Mockles

Gordon Mockles

Posted
  • Author
Posted

A new trend that worries me in football of today is the smaller, naïve clubs like Saints accepting transfer deals that don’t involve the full payment – MONEY DOWN ON THE TABLE! The fans are led to believe the club have made a tidy packet, as it sometimes the case, but the full figure quoted across the tabloids is not always as lucrative as the quote figure suggests (much like advertising – where they draw you in with LARGE PRINT, ATTRACTIVE NUMBERS but, upon reading the small print, the deal is nowhere near as good as we’re initially led to believe).

 

We already know Lowe has the arrogance to shower himself with praise and think he knows better than experienced businessmen who actually live and UNDERSTAND football. I make this point because we, the fans, are told that the club receive high transfer fees for players down to Rupert’s business acumen (it may have been the case with Davies when Blackburn were desperate to sign him, no matter what the cost). I believe he did get some good deals and for that I’m grateful. However, in recent times the club seem to be cashing in early on some truly exciting players we were unable to keep (I realise Theo was under Crouch’s tenure). It concerns me we didn’t have enough foresight to cash in as much money as we could have for these rising stars.

 

As soon as these early settlements are made (depending on the clause), players seem to play more (if on games quote/pay clauses) or the buying clubs hold onto the players a couple of games short of the pay out quota, then let their contracts expire or sell the players on. This seems the potential case with Bale. That’s good business by the buying club. Naturally. Bad business by Saints. So, it seems the buying clubs may actually be more astute and I don’t doubt the experienced business and executives of Arsenal and Spurs can run rings around the likes of Lowe, Wilde and Cowen, despite what they may actually think. History has seen Saints with egg on their faces more times than not but I hope we can notice and rectify this trend in the future, if we have any new starts left to sell (possible Lallana in January).

 

All in all, does anyone know how much we got paid for Gareth? I’ll talk hypothetically (so don’t take it as gospel):

 

If Tottenham paid Saints 6.5 million down payment for Bale (with 3.5 million upon appearances that he won’t ever make), then it’s bad business, but good business for Spurs (If they only paid 6.5 million, had no sell on clause to SFC and offloaded wages from a keeper they didn’t want in Forecast as early settlement) Then, Bale is sold on to a club like Liverpool for 15 million. That could be around 8 million (depending on how you value Forecast – not much imho) profit for Spurs........Who’s the good businessman in that case?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foxy

Foxy

Posted
Posted
What's the difference between our young team developing together who are sh!te and Spurs young team developing together who are sh!te then?

 

From Bale's PoV? A couple of million signing on bonus and £30k per week I would imagine.

 

And from a corporate PoV premiership money versus championship. Mind you Spurs would probably be a lot worse off than us if they went down with their cost base

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Window Cleaner

Window Cleaner

Posted
Posted
From Bale's PoV? A couple of million signing on bonus and £30k per week I would imagine.

 

And from a corporate PoV premiership money versus championship. Mind you Spurs would probably be a lot worse off than us if they went down with their cost base

 

They are my favourites for the title of first "big club" to get into real difficulties.Mind you West Ham seem to have their nose in front just now. They are going to get hit from all sides.Anyone who deems themself to have suffered from West Ham's trickidickiness will be hitting them with a law suit now. The flood gates are open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...