Danbert Posted 12 February, 2012 Share Posted 12 February, 2012 According to the Torygraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/championship/9077998/Southampton-2-Burnley-0-match-report.html Billy Sharp cost just 1.8 million. I didn't think that info was in the public domain. Seems a steal if true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 12 February, 2012 Share Posted 12 February, 2012 I thought it was common knowledge that his release clause was £1.8m? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danbert Posted 12 February, 2012 Author Share Posted 12 February, 2012 OK, just me then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Who? Posted 12 February, 2012 Share Posted 12 February, 2012 I had no idea how much we paid, but thought it would have been close to 3m, what a deal that was, well done NA! When we gt promotion Hooper will join us as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danbert Posted 12 February, 2012 Author Share Posted 12 February, 2012 Thinking about it again... Leicester were in for him too so I'd've thought we'd've had to pay more than just the release clause fee. BBC has it as undisclosed fee: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/16794210 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 12 February, 2012 Share Posted 12 February, 2012 Thinking about it again... Leicester were in for him too so I'd've thought we'd've had to pay more than just the release clause fee. BBC has it as undisclosed fee: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/16794210 We wouldnt pay more than the release fee would we! If anything we threw money at the player, but not the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Posted 13 February, 2012 Share Posted 13 February, 2012 Thinking about it again... Leicester were in for him too so I'd've thought we'd've had to pay more than just the release clause fee. BBC has it as undisclosed fee: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/16794210 It was made clear that Doncaster accepted a bid for Sharp but he didn't agree terms with them. He said in his first interview after he signed that he was holding out for us to go in for him and that Leicester wasn't right for him. I very much doubt we would've paid any more than the £1.85m release clause fee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 13 February, 2012 Share Posted 13 February, 2012 Thinking about it again... Leicester were in for him too so I'd've thought we'd've had to pay more than just the release clause fee. That makes no sense. Why would Saints bid more than a fee guaranteed to be accepted by Doncaster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Godfather Posted 13 February, 2012 Share Posted 13 February, 2012 Although the fee was undisclosed, I think it was common knowledge the fee was 1.85 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 13 February, 2012 Share Posted 13 February, 2012 Although the fee was undisclosed, I think it was common knowledge the fee was 1.85 million. No wonder he can afford customised red and white striped boots then.Must make him the most expensive player in our current side . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostBoys Posted 13 February, 2012 Share Posted 13 February, 2012 The fee was not disclosed anywhere I have read. My Leicester supporting neighbour asked me this over the weekend and he said LCFC bid £2.5m but £1.85m was the kicker price for the release clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stu0x Posted 13 February, 2012 Share Posted 13 February, 2012 The fee was not disclosed anywhere I have read. My Leicester supporting neighbour asked me this over the weekend and he said LCFC bid £2.5m but £1.85m was the kicker price for the release clause. Your neighbour is a cretin then, as is anyone who would suggest bidding *more* than the value of a release clause. What would be the point in it, exactly? By meeting the release clause you meet the demands of one of the parties (ie the team). Offering more will do absolutely nothing to meet the demands of the other party required (ie the player). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 13 February, 2012 Share Posted 13 February, 2012 We wouldnt pay more than the release fee would we! If anything we threw money at the player, but not the club. Why? It's just the release clause? All that tells us is that is the minimum we could have paid. Might have been that, might have been a fair bit more, especially if Leicester were competing for his signing. We'll probably never know though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 13 February, 2012 Share Posted 13 February, 2012 Your neighbour is a cretin then, as is anyone who would suggest bidding *more* than the value of a release clause. What would be the point in it, exactly? By meeting the release clause you meet the demands of one of the parties (ie the team). Offering more will do absolutely nothing to meet the demands of the other party required (ie the player). I think you're the one being a cretin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JibMcdo Posted 13 February, 2012 Share Posted 13 February, 2012 Why? It's just the release clause? All that tells us is that is the minimum we could have paid. Might have been that, might have been a fair bit more, especially if Leicester were competing for his signing. We'll probably never know though. Why would a club pay more than a release clause? If we bid 1.8m Doncaster had to accept it, regardless of competititon from other clubs. Why pay more?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperMikey Posted 13 February, 2012 Share Posted 13 February, 2012 But why would we pay more than his release clause? It doesn't make sense. Two clubs have bids for the same amount accepted but one offers more than the other to the player in terms of wages and wins. There's no point in us bidding £2.5m for him when £1.85m would be accepted anyway. That 750k extra will pay his wages for half a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Millbrook Saint Posted 13 February, 2012 Share Posted 13 February, 2012 It wouldn't matter whether Leicester offered £3mil and we offered £1.85mil he could still talk to us both and Doncaster wouldn't get a choice who he chose because of the clause Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 13 February, 2012 Share Posted 13 February, 2012 Why? It's just the release clause? All that tells us is that is the minimum we could have paid. Might have been that, might have been a fair bit more, especially if Leicester were competing for his signing. We'll probably never know though. I'd argue it's the exact opposite. If his contract contains a clause which states that any offer equal to or in excess of £1.85m must be accepted, and clubs know about this clause (which it seems was common knowledge as the Donny chairman said as much in an interview), why would anyone offer any more than that? If we're competing with other clubs for the player, it's down to us offering the player better terms and/or prospects than the competitors. If we offered £2.5m and Leicester offered £1.85m, both bids would still be accepted and it would still be down to the player to decide where he wanted to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldsarum Posted 13 February, 2012 Share Posted 13 February, 2012 I'd argue it's the exact opposite. If his contract contains a clause which states that any offer equal to or in excess of £1.85m must be accepted, and clubs know about this clause (which it seems was common knowledge as the Donny chairman said as much in an interview), why would anyone offer any more than that? If we're competing with other clubs for the player, it's down to us offering the player better terms and/or prospects than the competitors. If we offered £2.5m and Leicester offered £1.85m, both bids would still be accepted and it would still be down to the player to decide where he wanted to go. I thought we only paid £1.85m, and also read somewhere that Sharpe turned down more money in wages from Leicester to join us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 13 February, 2012 Share Posted 13 February, 2012 I'd argue it's the exact opposite. If his contract contains a clause which states that any offer equal to or in excess of £1.85m must be accepted, and clubs know about this clause (which it seems was common knowledge as the Donny chairman said as much in an interview), why would anyone offer any more than that? If we're competing with other clubs for the player, it's down to us offering the player better terms and/or prospects than the competitors. If we offered £2.5m and Leicester offered £1.85m, both bids would still be accepted and it would still be down to the player to decide where he wanted to go. But none of us know how the release clause is structured, so we're only speculating. Why would a club agree to a clause in a contract that meant they had to accept a bid of £1.85m if they knew a club would be prepared to pay £5m. All we actually know is the release clause was at £1.85m. If it was as clear cut as that, I'd expect us to have announced it was that figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 13 February, 2012 Share Posted 13 February, 2012 Why would a club agree to a clause in a contract that meant they had to accept a bid of £1.85m if they knew a club would be prepared to pay £5m? Because the players agent has demanded it as part of the negotiations for his client's contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattio Posted 13 February, 2012 Share Posted 13 February, 2012 If the fee is meant to have been £3m do you think that's taking into account the agent fee etc? Also didn't the club pay for an apartment for Lee? Maybe they did the same for Sharp? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 13 February, 2012 Share Posted 13 February, 2012 Why? It's just the release clause? All that tells us is that is the minimum we could have paid. Might have been that, might have been a fair bit more, especially if Leicester were competing for his signing. We'll probably never know though. I'm not sure you really understand how this works. We didn't pay more than the release fee, Guaranteed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david in sweden Posted 13 February, 2012 Share Posted 13 February, 2012 (edited) Thinking about it again... Leicester were in for him too so I'd've thought we'd've had to pay more than just the release clause fee. BBC has it as undisclosed fee: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/16794210 Some clubs come out with transfer figures, but it seems (rightly so IMO) Corteses' viewpoint that " it's our business how much we pay for / or pay players and it's often " undisclosed. Looking at the list of everyone else, it's fairly unusual to see a fee declared now, as the actual cost of importing a player to the squad may contain; moving costs, agents fees, loyalty payments and any number of " harry-isms " that we can declare to the Taxman, rather than the fee that the selling club actually receives at the end of the day. Hooiveld's deal was the same,(undisclosed) but I read that one Celtic fansite where they clearly stated we paid £1.4 million ! ......(true or not). Personally I don't think the fee is of great interest nowadays, as a player is worth what he achieves for the club.... and you can't always quantify that in £££££'s. £1 million may be a reasonable fee for an up-and-coming young player, or for an experienced veteran who is "thirty-something". You can't compare. NOTED; One of the many sites listing the T. Lee deal (before it happened) said the fee was £500K..yet he was declared as a " free transfer "- work that one out if you can? Edited 13 February, 2012 by david in sweden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint-crinny Posted 13 February, 2012 Share Posted 13 February, 2012 Why? It's just the release clause? All that tells us is that is the minimum we could have paid. Might have been that, might have been a fair bit more, especially if Leicester were competing for his signing. We'll probably never know though. If we met the release clause then it is activated and we can speak to the player, nothing Donnie could have done to stop us. Therefore, why on earth would we offer more, even if other teams were also competing. Donnie couldnt turn down any bid that met the clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david in sweden Posted 13 February, 2012 Share Posted 13 February, 2012 (edited) Why would a club agree to a clause in a contract that meant they had to accept a bid of £1.85m if they knew a club would be prepared to pay £5m. I think that the (Sharp) "release clause " was probably related to his value at the time of buying / or eventual guaranteed selling price... were he to leave. The fact that he performed better than expected at Donnie, and the fact that there were only a few strikers " on the market " at the time drove up the bids, but I don't believe anyone would have considered paying £5 million for him ..not from a club at the bottom of CCC. As it was Leicester were rumoured to have bid more, but Billy decided he didn't want to go there and plumped for a link-up with Nigel Adkins again. At the end of the season he's made the right decision. Donnie didn't go empty-handed, and we got a good deal, which will likely seem better if (he) helps us up to the Prem. Edited 13 February, 2012 by david in sweden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bucks Saint Posted 13 February, 2012 Share Posted 13 February, 2012 But none of us know how the release clause is structured, so we're only speculating. Why would a club agree to a clause in a contract that meant they had to accept a bid of £1.85m if they knew a club would be prepared to pay £5m. All we actually know is the release clause was at £1.85m. If it was as clear cut as that, I'd expect us to have announced it was that figure. Release clauses are not new! Very common in Spain and Italy. A release clause is so called because thats exactly what it is. If the club (Donny) agreed to it when they signed him, its tough if later on it appears that they should have held out for more, or not agreed at all, or whatever. A contract is a contract. Once someone matches that release clause, its down to the player and there is nothing the selling club can do about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david in sweden Posted 13 February, 2012 Share Posted 13 February, 2012 Release clauses are not new! Very common in Spain and Italy. A release clause is so called because thats exactly what it is. If the club (Donny) agreed to it when they signed him, its tough if later on it appears that they should have held out for more, or not agreed at all, or whatever. A contract is a contract. Once someone matches that release clause, its down to the player and there is nothing the selling club can do about it If I recall correctly, there was such a clause in Kevin Keegan's contract (1982) ...which was why he could walk away so easily after his spat with Laurie Mac. A number of players who left us suddenly after relegation to CCC in 2006 had similar agreements, Kevin Phillips, Nigel Quashie, I think... amongst others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxosponge Posted 13 February, 2012 Share Posted 13 February, 2012 I put £2 into the bucket collection for him at the Donny game in December and he repaid me by scoring the winner against us. It was clearly that £2 that decided him to join us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 13 February, 2012 Share Posted 13 February, 2012 I think that the (Sharp) "release clause " was probably related to his value at the time of buying / or eventual guaranteed selling price... were he to leave. The fact that he performed better than expected at Donnie, and the fact that there were only a few strikers " on the market " at the time drove up the bids, but I don't believe anyone would have considered paying £5 million for him ..not from a club at the bottom of CCC. As it was Leicester were rumoured to have bid more, but Billy decided he didn't want to go there and plumped for a link-up with Nigel Adkins again. At the end of the season he's made the right decision. Donnie didn't go empty-handed, and we got a good deal, which will likely seem better if (he) helps us up to the Prem. Jesus wept. I never said anyone would pay £5million for him. My point is that none of us actually know the detail behind any agreement or how the release clause was structured, contracts can have no end of sub clauses and are rarely straight forward. In all likelihood it would have been £1.85m, but we'll never know for certain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericofarabia Posted 13 February, 2012 Share Posted 13 February, 2012 I'm pretty sure Skatesmuff had a 5 million quid deal lined up but those horrible people at HMRC said they wanted some money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonist Posted 13 February, 2012 Share Posted 13 February, 2012 Jesus wept. I never said anyone would pay £5million for him. My point is that none of us actually know the detail behind any agreement or how the release clause was structured, contracts can have no end of sub clauses and are rarely straight forward. In all likelihood it would have been £1.85m, but we'll never know for certain. I expect the minimum fee release clause also stipulated that a new born panda be delivered to his partner on valentines day. **** occam's razer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicestersaint Posted 13 February, 2012 Share Posted 13 February, 2012 Too much squabbling again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dronskisaint Posted 13 February, 2012 Share Posted 13 February, 2012 I'm pretty sure Skatesmuff had a 5 million quid deal lined up but those horrible people at HMRC said they wanted some money. It doesn't usually stop them?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raucebysaint Posted 13 February, 2012 Share Posted 13 February, 2012 Squabble squabble - who gives a sh*t what we paid, he plays for Saints now and will hopefully help to get us promoted.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JibMcdo Posted 13 February, 2012 Share Posted 13 February, 2012 Jesus wept. I never said anyone would pay £5million for him. My point is that none of us actually know the detail behind any agreement or how the release clause was structured, contracts can have no end of sub clauses and are rarely straight forward. In all likelihood it would have been £1.85m, but we'll never know for certain. Certainly wasn't your original point. You claimed we could have paid more than the clause and that Leicester's interest could have bumped up the price, which is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david in sweden Posted 13 February, 2012 Share Posted 13 February, 2012 (edited) Jesus wept. I never said anyone would pay £5million for him. My point is that none of us actually know the detail behind any agreement or how the release clause was structured, contracts can have no end of sub clauses and are rarely straight forward. In all likelihood it would have been £1.85m, but we'll never know for certain. it seems that your original meaning must have got lost in translation ...Sour Mash..most of us on the site seemed to have read that you felt that. perhaps you can re-read it yourself and see if you agree, BUT for the record...(from various sources (inkl. Wikipedia...it seems that.. Billy had his worst period whilst at Sheff.Utd when he was injured and scored only a dozen or so goals. Sheff. rejected bids of £1 million from a couple of clubs, but he finally signed for Donnie in May 2010 (3 year contract till 2013)...for £1.15 million. This must have been when the "release clause" was (secretly) written into the contract . I say that because it's bad business to advertise such a low selling price if he turned out to be another Ronaldo..or Messi...BUT Donnie seemed to think that if Billy wanted to go, they'd get a profit by insisting on £1.8 million as a fee. It is clear that when Saints offered £3.25 in the summer (they weren't aware of that after the Ipswich bid (£2.5 million)was rejected, and Billy would have lost his cut of the deal - if he asked for a move. Billy himself didn't say he didn't want to come to Saints but (as I recall ) .."that the time wasn't right " (perhaps due to the fact that his wife was heavily pregnant with the baby that they eventually lost). Maybe a move away and a fresh start was what they were looking for, and when the "release clause" became known,it was only for (ANY) club to meet Donnie's figure of £1.8 and then for the club(s) to agree terms with the player. They didn't need to bid more to the club. because it was then upto the player to agree personal terms. Leicester seem to have agreed the deal first, but Billy refused to agree terms with them, perhaps because he wanted to come to Saints after all.(?) Anyway it's happened. I don't think that any club needed to offer more than the £1.8 because that was Billy's "get out clause - if Donnie lost form" - which they did, and he decided to move. Edited 13 February, 2012 by david in sweden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now