Jai27 Posted 3 February, 2017 Share Posted 3 February, 2017 For those wanting Berahino... lucky escape? http://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/football/saido-berahino-banned-for-failing-drug-test-while-at-west-brom-according-to-reports/ar-AAmz9hj?li=AA572I&ocid=spartandhp I said before, he's a trouble maker and I'm glad he's nothing to do with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jai27 Posted 3 February, 2017 Share Posted 3 February, 2017 This must have been a nightmare for the club involved... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4180978/Affair-led-Premier-League-footballer-ask-move.html Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk Well, Oscar went about as far away as you can get! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 3 February, 2017 Share Posted 3 February, 2017 (edited) Marc Wilson is my pick. Good signing for Stoke. Edited 3 February, 2017 by hypochondriac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 3 February, 2017 Share Posted 3 February, 2017 Marseille is "miles away". Just sayin' No it's not. The nearest anagram is "miles real" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 3 February, 2017 Share Posted 3 February, 2017 (edited) It's pretty obvious who this is....and no its not Fonte. I'm not naming anyone getting pulled in by the police for things said online doesn't appeal....rumours are it happened to someone on here..... Edited 3 February, 2017 by doddisalegend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 3 February, 2017 Share Posted 3 February, 2017 Well we wont be signing Caceres because he is in Milan having a medical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 3 February, 2017 Share Posted 3 February, 2017 Marseille is "miles away". Just sayin' Depends where from really I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 3 February, 2017 Share Posted 3 February, 2017 I can't believe that any falls for anyone of the nonsense he posts. And yet people believe the nonsense written on here on a daily basis. Go figure! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 3 February, 2017 Share Posted 3 February, 2017 Why would anyone want to believe in what Jack Schitt tweets? It would mean that the club have been working hard to support the manager, that they don't pay over the odds for players, that they don't take crap from players and that Les Reed is not a total idiot. What can't have that can we? We would much rather believe that the club we support is badly run and has only got here by luck. I bet if Jack had slagged Reed and Puel off and had said that Fonte had been badly stitched up it would be quoted on here as gospel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALWAYS_SFC Posted 3 February, 2017 Share Posted 3 February, 2017 Why would anyone want to believe in what Jack Schitt tweets? It would mean that the club have been working hard to support the manager, that they don't pay over the odds for players, that they don't take crap from players and that Les Reed is not a total idiot. What can't have that can we? We would much rather believe that the club we support is badly run and has only got here by luck. I bet if Jack had slagged Reed and Puel off and had said that Fonte had been badly stitched up it would be quoted on here as gospel. You are so right mate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AK Posted 3 February, 2017 Share Posted 3 February, 2017 Why would anyone want to believe in what Jack Schitt tweets? It would mean that the club have been working hard to support the manager, that they don't pay over the odds for players, that they don't take crap from players and that Les Reed is not a total idiot. What can't have that can we? We would much rather believe that the club we support is badly run and has only got here by luck. I bet if Jack had slagged Reed and Puel off and had said that Fonte had been badly stitched up it would be quoted on here as gospel. He says VVD isn't out for months just before the club confirm he is. That kinda dents his ITK status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggytrousers Posted 3 February, 2017 Share Posted 3 February, 2017 He says VVD isn't out for months just before the club confirm he is. That kinda dents his ITK status. He didn't say that at all. His exact words were "If his recovery goes as well as we hope, Virgil could be back in training in around four to six weeks or so." Puel said that we are unlikely to see VVD playing for two to three months. Don't think the two statements are inconsistent at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charliemiller Posted 3 February, 2017 Share Posted 3 February, 2017 Ruben Semedo... That would be an incredible signing but he has a 35m euro release clause Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AK Posted 3 February, 2017 Share Posted 3 February, 2017 He didn't say that at all. His exact words were "If his recovery goes as well as we hope, Virgil could be back in training in around four to six weeks or so." Puel said that we are unlikely to see VVD playing for two to three months. Don't think the two statements are inconsistent at all. He says VVD "shouldn't be out for months as widely reported." Puel confirms he is out for months as widely reported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKD Posted 3 February, 2017 Share Posted 3 February, 2017 Why would anyone want to believe in what Jack Schitt tweets? It would mean that the club have been working hard to support the manager, that they don't pay over the odds for players, that they don't take crap from players and that Les Reed is not a total idiot. What can't have that can we? We would much rather believe that the club we support is badly run and has only got here by luck. I bet if Jack had slagged Reed and Puel off and had said that Fonte had been badly stitched up it would be quoted on here as gospel. I wasn't referring to what he has recently wrote, it was more directed at some of the 'schitt' he has wrote in the past. I haven't even bothered reading his recent revelations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 3 February, 2017 Share Posted 3 February, 2017 I wasn't referring to what he has recently wrote, it was more directed at some of the 'schitt' he has wrote in the past. I haven't even bothered reading his recent revelations. Indeed. Soggy is just bitter and likes to bash this site because he was chased off here with ridicule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cartman Posted 3 February, 2017 Share Posted 3 February, 2017 That would be an incredible signing but he has a 35m euro release clause Irrelevant. Why is the concept of a release clause so difficult to understand? All it means is that he will not cost more than 35 million euros, it says nothing about how much he would actually cost. He is having quite a poor season anyway, very talented but very raw. Prone to making daft challenges. Prefer Söyüncü from Freiburg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted 3 February, 2017 Share Posted 3 February, 2017 Irrelevant. Why is the concept of a release clause so difficult to understand? All it means is that he will not cost more than 35 million euros, it says nothing about how much he would actually cost. He is having quite a poor season anyway, very talented but very raw. Prone to making daft challenges. Prefer Söyüncü from Freiburg. It means exactly the opposite. Means it costs at least 35 million to 'release' him from his contract early. It likely costs a few million more, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 3 February, 2017 Share Posted 3 February, 2017 That would be an incredible signing but he has a 35m euro release clause Er... if he has a release clause of any kind then he must be under contract and therefore not eligible to join us outside the transfer window? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKD Posted 3 February, 2017 Share Posted 3 February, 2017 (edited) It means exactly the opposite. Means it costs at least 35 million to 'release' him from his contract early. It likely costs a few million more, though. no it doesn't :lol: It means if we or any other club bid 35 million euros, then he we will be able to discuss terms with the player. It is feasible that his club may accept an offer under 35 million euros however no club in their right mind would bid over his release clause... that would just be stupid. Thankfully you're not running the club aye. Edited 3 February, 2017 by SKD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 3 February, 2017 Share Posted 3 February, 2017 no it doesn't :lol: It means if we or any other club bid 35 million euros, then he we will be able to discuss terms with the player. People who take the **** should be sure of their facts. A Release Clause represents the minimum amount at which a player will be allowed to discuss a transfer, as eddie stated (and it certainly does not mean how much the transfer will be settled at). It is not a maximum. We've had this before on here and it seems to be a common misconception that it is a maximum. You may choose not to believe me, fair enough, but the below links will confirm: https://www.theguardian.com/football/charles-russell-sports-law-blog/2014/jan/20/rooney-cabaye-buy-out-contracts-premeier-league http://www.danielgeey.com/buy-out-release-clauses-in-football-the-basics/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plastic Posted 3 February, 2017 Share Posted 3 February, 2017 People who take the **** should be sure of their facts. A Release Clause represents the minimum amount at which a player will be allowed to discuss a transfer, as eddie stated (and it certainly does not mean how much the transfer will be settled at). It is not a maximum. We've had this before on here and it seems to be a common misconception that it is a maximum. You may choose not to believe me, fair enough, but the below links will confirm: https://www.theguardian.com/football/charles-russell-sports-law-blog/2014/jan/20/rooney-cabaye-buy-out-contracts-premeier-league http://www.danielgeey.com/buy-out-release-clauses-in-football-the-basics/ Quite right. It was widely reported that arsenal cheekily bid £40m+£1 for Suarez in order to activate the release clause and facilitate discussions with the player. Obviously Liverpool didn't sell him for that, as that would have been mental. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/jul/23/arsenal-luis-suarez-liverpool-transfer?client=safari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKD Posted 3 February, 2017 Share Posted 3 February, 2017 People who take the **** should be sure of their facts. A Release Clause represents the minimum amount at which a player will be allowed to discuss a transfer, as eddie stated (and it certainly does not mean how much the transfer will be settled at). It is not a maximum. We've had this before on here and it seems to be a common misconception that it is a maximum. You may choose not to believe me, fair enough, but the below links will confirm: https://www.theguardian.com/football/charles-russell-sports-law-blog/2014/jan/20/rooney-cabaye-buy-out-contracts-premeier-league http://www.danielgeey.com/buy-out-release-clauses-in-football-the-basics/ Pardon my ignorance but in the guardian article it clearly states; A release clause dictates that a club has to sell a player when it receives a bid over a certain amount Perhaps people should read their articles before trying to act clever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 3 February, 2017 Share Posted 3 February, 2017 People who take the **** should be sure of their facts. A Release Clause represents the minimum amount at which a player will be allowed to discuss a transfer, as eddie stated (and it certainly does not mean how much the transfer will be settled at). It is not a maximum. We've had this before on here and it seems to be a common misconception that it is a maximum. You may choose not to believe me, fair enough, but the below links will confirm: https://www.theguardian.com/football/charles-russell-sports-law-blog/2014/jan/20/rooney-cabaye-buy-out-contracts-premeier-league http://www.danielgeey.com/buy-out-release-clauses-in-football-the-basics/ Err, except you're wrong. James Rodriguez has a €500m release clause, but there were reports on whether Real would accept Chelsea's offer of £60m for him. Why would they even consider it if €500m is the minimum? There are plenty of players in Portugal and Spain with huge release clauses that will be sold for far less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKD Posted 3 February, 2017 Share Posted 3 February, 2017 Quite right. It was widely reported that arsenal cheekily bid £40m+£1 for Suarez in order to activate the release clause and facilitate discussions with the player. Obviously Liverpool didn't sell him for that, as that would have been mental. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/jul/23/arsenal-luis-suarez-liverpool-transfer?client=safari Suarez didn't have a release clause... again read the articles.... with an offer that activates a clause in Suárez's contract by one pound. Under the terms of a contract signed in August, Liverpool must inform last season's leading goalscorer of a club's interest once they receive a bid of more than £40m. It will then be up to Suárez to decide whether he wishes to agitate for a move to Arsenal A massive difference in clauses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plastic Posted 3 February, 2017 Share Posted 3 February, 2017 Suarez didn't have a release clause... again read the articles.... A massive difference in clauses. If you say so, I'm no expert. As I said the club is at no obligation to sell at that price, and as others mention it doesn't mean that a club won't sell for less, but it does meant the club must inform the player and they may speak to the interested party. I suppose in reality it means very little, and very much depends upon whether the club wants to sell the player or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKD Posted 3 February, 2017 Share Posted 3 February, 2017 If you say so, I'm no expert. As I said the club is at no obligation to sell at that price, and as others mention it doesn't mean that a club won't sell for less, but it does meant the club must inform the player and they may speak to the interested party. I suppose in reality it means very little, and very much depends upon whether the club wants to sell the player or not. No, in Suarez case this is correct but if a player has a release clause then, assuming the player wants to leave, the club has to sell if that fee is met. Really don't see why this is so hard to grasp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Munster Posted 3 February, 2017 Share Posted 3 February, 2017 (edited) No, in Suarez case this is correct but if a player has a release clause then, assuming the player wants to leave, the club has to sell if that fee is met. Really don't see why this is so hard to grasp. Exactly. And if all parties agree there's nothing to stop a sale below the release amount. Or above if there's a bidding war (unlikely). Edited 3 February, 2017 by Dark Munster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plastic Posted 3 February, 2017 Share Posted 3 February, 2017 No, in Suarez case this is correct but if a player has a release clause then, assuming the player wants to leave, the club has to sell if that fee is met. Really don't see why this is so hard to grasp. Think I may have grasped it, so probably not that hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 3 February, 2017 Share Posted 3 February, 2017 Exactly. And if all parties agree there's nothing to stop a sale below the release amount. Or above if there's a bidding war (unlikely). There wouldn't be a bidding war. If a release clause is met, they have to accept. E.g. If a player has a £30m clause and someone bids that, another club could bid 50, 60, 70 million or whatever they want but the selling club still has to accept the other £30m bid. Hence there's no point in bidding higher and everyone would just bid the release clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Munster Posted 3 February, 2017 Share Posted 3 February, 2017 There wouldn't be a bidding war. If a release clause is met, they have to accept. E.g. If a player has a £30m clause and someone bids that, another club could bid 50, 60, 70 million or whatever they want but the selling club still has to accept the other £30m bid. Hence there's no point in bidding higher and everyone would just bid the release clause. Yes that makes sense. But perhaps two teams offer the player the same terms (and can't go higher because of a club wage cap), and so one may up the buying price a bit above the release clause, to try to win the bid. Assuming the player has no preference over the competing clubs. Very unlikely, but if the release clause isn't ridiculously high ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKD Posted 4 February, 2017 Share Posted 4 February, 2017 Yes that makes sense. But perhaps two teams offer the player the same terms (and can't go higher because of a club wage cap), and so one may up the buying price a bit above the release clause, to try to win the bid. Assuming the player has no preference over the competing clubs. Very unlikely, but if the release clause isn't ridiculously high ... Nope. Why would upping the buying price increase the likely hood of the player wanting to go there? When they can discuss terms after they've met clause? If The above was to happen, the player would have 2 choices.... Pick which club he favours (if wages are the same then club could always make offer more attractive in other ways like increasing the players signing on fee) Stay at current club I'll say it again if someone has a release clause, at no point would there be a bidding war or would any (sensible) club bid over what is an acceptable bid (as stated in contract as part of release clause). FFS it's really not difficult Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 4 February, 2017 Share Posted 4 February, 2017 Indeed. Soggy is just bitter and likes to bash this site because he was chased off here with ridicule. Chased off with ridicule? Not really as I still post here most days. What I haven't done is renew my membership, and that is because the place is populated by ****s like yourself. What was ridiculous (and embarrassing) was your childish posturing in trying to get a fellow member permanently banned. A bit like a petulant Premiership prima donna waving an imaginary red card about. Anyway, back to business and Jack Schitt's info. He was very detailed about the injury and I haven't seen that elsewhere. If that is wrong I was say that was more than an indication of the veracity of his information than the timescale of the lay off. He said that VVD (if all goes well) "could be back in training in to around four to six weeks or so." Or so would take it into two months and you wouldn't expect him to be back in the first team until he has put in several training sessions, so out of the first team for between 2 and 3 months isn't miles away. The other stuff was also very detailed and if false could soon be disproved. As far as I know the only info that he passed on that he been proved wrong was the Pellegrini rumour and he did come back to explain why that happen. You believe him or you don't, which comes back to my original point which is that the same people who say that the JS is rubbish are often the same people who believe or repeat other, more negative stuff, about the club which has the same level of providence i.e. these people have heard or have been given the info from someone else who may or may not be kosher. Whether the JS info is correct or not, do people seriously believe that the club didn't try to bring in another CH in the last window? It makes no sense to anyone with a modicum of common sense, unless of course you want to believe that Reed is doing all he can to sabotage the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALWAYS_SFC Posted 4 February, 2017 Share Posted 4 February, 2017 Chased off with ridicule? Not really as I still post here most days. What I haven't done is renew my membership, and that is because the place is populated by ****s like yourself. What was ridiculous (and embarrassing) was your childish posturing in trying to get a fellow member permanently banned. A bit like a petulant Premiership prima donna waving an imaginary red card about. Anyway, back to business and Jack Schitt's info. He was very detailed about the injury and I haven't seen that elsewhere. If that is wrong I was say that was more than an indication of the veracity of his information than the timescale of the lay off. He said that VVD (if all goes well) "could be back in training in to around four to six weeks or so." Or so would take it into two months and you wouldn't expect him to be back in the first team until he has put in several training sessions, so out of the first team for between 2 and 3 months isn't miles away. The other stuff was also very detailed and if false could soon be disproved. As far as I know the only info that he passed on that he been proved wrong was the Pellegrini rumour and he did come back to explain why that happen. You believe him or you don't, which comes back to my original point which is that the same people who say that the JS is rubbish are often the same people who believe or repeat other, more negative stuff, about the club which has the same level of providence i.e. these people have heard or have been given the info from someone else who may or may not be kosher. Whether the JS info is correct or not, do people seriously believe that the club didn't try to bring in another CH in the last window? It makes no sense to anyone with a modicum of common sense, unless of course you want to believe that Reed is doing all he can to sabotage the club. Did he really? What a loser:lol: guess it was me but I have him on ignore so don't see it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 5 February, 2017 Share Posted 5 February, 2017 Did he really? What a loser:lol: guess it was me but I have him on ignore so don't see it Yes he did. On several posts he asked that you should be banned permanently. I think he may have some issues! 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