the saint in winchester Posted 20 August, 2013 Posted 20 August, 2013 Just read this on yahoo. http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/pitchside-europe/oxlade-chamberlain-oversight-costs-arsenal-200-000-133938812.html We've billed Arsenal for using their own player!? You have to laugh. Kerching.
Matthew Le God Posted 20 August, 2013 Posted 20 August, 2013 The Oxlade-Chamberlain Clause - prudent? or money-grabbing? We've billed Arsenal for using their own player!? Umm, no we've agreed a transfer for one of our players. Payments for future appearances/goals/international appearances/team performance etc are common in deals.
shurlock Posted 20 August, 2013 Posted 20 August, 2013 Just read this on yahoo. http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/pitchside-europe/oxlade-chamberlain-oversight-costs-arsenal-200-000-133938812.html We've billed Arsenal for using their own player!? You have to laugh. Kerching. Where have you been all day? Still looking for Pards in public toilets?
saints_is_the_south Posted 20 August, 2013 Posted 20 August, 2013 Prudent. That money will just end up making up for what we could have sold him at an older age. Very good business by Cortese to insert such a clause. I wonder how much they have to pay us every time he plays for England?
simo Posted 20 August, 2013 Posted 20 August, 2013 It there any proof or conformation of this yet ? If there is you got to say depending on the duration of said clause Cortese well and truly pulled Arsenals pants down and gave them a spanking !
Colinjb Posted 20 August, 2013 Posted 20 August, 2013 (edited) Opportunistic, cheeky, needless c**k swinging? I think it was as much about who was the dominant party in the negotiating room then any tangible financial benefit to the club. The transfer of Chamberlain was always going to be a massive one as it would lay the precedent of any further business we do going forward. If we had simply rolled over at that point then I would doubt we would have held onto Luke Shaw. There were complaints that we were difficult to deal with from agents a couple of years ago, that was never a problem, the problem would have been if they had found us too easy to 'do business' with. The marker had been laid down, do not f**k with us. Edited 20 August, 2013 by Colinjb
Window Cleaner Posted 20 August, 2013 Posted 20 August, 2013 They wanted the player at all cost so they have to pay the price. Don't doubt that they've got plenty of players on iffy contracts. Can't seem to get players otherwise, then again as it's probably universally known in football that Arsenal do not conduct transfers particularly well everyone takes them for a ride. Look at their bid for Suarez 40million £ +1£, was supposed to trigger the release cluse but as usual they're ill-informed. Wouldn't have happened when David Dein was chairman or Hill-Wood.
Bristol_Benji Posted 20 August, 2013 Posted 20 August, 2013 Prudent. That money will just end up making up for what we could have sold him at an older age. Very good business by Cortese to insert such a clause. I wonder how much they have to pay us every time he plays for England? I'm not so sure really. 200 20+min appearances = 2m. Pretty sure that if he reaches 200 appearances for Arsenal then he'll be worth more than 14m.... Not sure if we've a sell on clause tho?
Crazy Diamond Posted 20 August, 2013 Posted 20 August, 2013 If Arsenal are stupid enough to pay it, it's their problem. What else needs to be said?
S-Clarke Posted 20 August, 2013 Posted 20 August, 2013 They wanted him, they signed him on OUR terms. We dictated that transfer, not them. They could have easily walked away if they wanted, but they agreed to it - so more fool them. Nice to see Wenger is helping him fulfill his potential as well.
Miltonaggro Posted 20 August, 2013 Posted 20 August, 2013 Obviously Le Professor's blind spot is accountancy. LMFAO...
BigShadow Posted 20 August, 2013 Posted 20 August, 2013 Obviously Le Professor's blind spot is accountancy. LMFAO... Hmmmm....he has a degree in Economics - you would have thought he have a good grasp of the terms of the deal.
Professor Posted 20 August, 2013 Posted 20 August, 2013 Of course its money-grabbing of the highest order. When another club wants one of your Academy players you should just hand them over, regardless of how much you've invested in them from the age of 8.
Mallagroth Posted 21 August, 2013 Posted 21 August, 2013 It's bloody hilarious. End thread. This. Still chuckling, thanks Daily Mail, most enjoyable transfer story in ****ing years. (After the Osvaldo one.)
Strangely Brown Posted 21 August, 2013 Posted 21 August, 2013 I for one consider the Chairmen to have done what most businessmen would have done and ensured that the deal benefitted the the club as much as possible, unlike a previous incumbent who knew the price of everything but the value of nothing.... Gareth Bale for instance and no sell on clause!!!
DuncanRG Posted 21 August, 2013 Posted 21 August, 2013 It's an amusing notion but doesn't add up to stupid amounts of money. Would anyone bat an eyelid if it were reported as £3m in appearance-based add-ons if he were to start every week for two seasons of league football? Does start to add up if he becomes a superstar and plays until he's 36 though...
the saint in winchester Posted 21 August, 2013 Author Posted 21 August, 2013 Where have you been all day? Still looking for Pards in public toilets? Unlike some, I don't spend all day online. And I've never sought AP in toilets. I have seen him in town and smiled and put my hand up in recognition, to which he smiled back. That's the full extent of our relationship, sir, and any further allegation will be routed to my counsel.
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 21 August, 2013 Posted 21 August, 2013 I for one consider the Chairmen to have done what most businessmen would have done and ensured that the deal benefitted the the club as much as possible, unlike a previous incumbent who knew the price of everything but the value of nothing.... Gareth Bale for instance and no sell on clause!!! We did have one, we just sold it (effectively) to get an instant hit of cash when we were teetering on the brink of admin. Part of this deal was Tommy forecast. Yep, crap deal - that didn't even prevent admin, but there was a sell-on clause.
david in sweden Posted 21 August, 2013 Posted 21 August, 2013 It there any proof or conformation of this yet ? If there is you got to say depending on the duration of said clause Cortese well and truly pulled Arsenals pants down and gave them a spanking ! I'm wondering if any of their financial "brains " read the small print in that deal and calculated the eventual cost of signing AOC ? ....if they did..... then they must have been satisfied with that clause.....if they didn't they deserve to pay us every penny ..that's business.
Brave Sir Robin Posted 21 August, 2013 Posted 21 August, 2013 If they don't like it, they can always lend him back to us!
Jimmy_D Posted 21 August, 2013 Posted 21 August, 2013 If they don't like it, they can always lend him back to us! Depending on the exact wording, that clause could come into effect every time he played for us while on loan here
teacher Posted 21 August, 2013 Posted 21 August, 2013 Cortese = Legend! If other teams want our players/ academy graduates then they are going to have to pay the price!
paulwantsapint Posted 21 August, 2013 Posted 21 August, 2013 Personally would have preferred it was £500 per minute which would mean more like £48k+ for a full match as saints charge for injury time Buyers beware when dealing with saints
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