Snodgrass

[Simon21-LUFC]

I didn't mention anything about a buy back clause, I was comparing the apparent love for Leeds United and desire to want to play for them again that clearly didn't exist with Alan Smith and I'm fairly confident in suggesting isn't the case with Snodgrass either.

Except we never offered Smith the opportunity to come back, it would have been far too risky given the way the fans are split in opinion over him, and even some who agree with what he did don't think he's good enough any more.

Really your post was just a load of crap trying to wind me up which served no actual useful purpose.

 

[Tony_Munky_Canary]

IF Snodgrass does love Leeds there is just as much chance he can fall in love with Norwich as well which would make the clause pointless.

Absolutely, this is my point entirely

 

[Simon21-LUFC]

So you are saying that none of this is true and that none of this has happened? Are you sure?

Read my post above.

 

[Tony_Munky_Canary]

And why would there not be a similar split between your notoriously fickle and very often unreasonable fans about Snodgrass? I appreciate that you respect and understand why he decided to move on, and I respect you for taking this view, but I would imagine a hell of a lot of your fans would be livid that he's jumped ship to join "little old Norwich" so wouldn't it be a similar "risk" to welcome him back at some point in the future?

Wouldn't he be showing more loyalty in staying with you and trying to help you back into the Premiership? He is only 24 as you keep telling us and not yet at his peak let alone winding down so it's not as if he desperately needs to move now to get financial security or anything at this stage of his career?

All in all a very strange thread if you ask me

 

[Simon21-LUFC]

And why would there not be a similar split between your notoriously fickle and very often unreasonable fans about Snodgrass? I appreciate that you respect and understand why he decided to move on, and I respect you for taking this view, but I would imagine a hell of a lot of your fans would be livid that he's jumped ship to join "little old Norwich" so wouldn't it be a similar "risk" to welcome him back at some point in the future?

Wouldn't he be showing more loyalty in staying with you and trying to help you back into the Premiership? He is only 24 as you keep telling us and not yet at his peak let alone winding down so it's not as if he desperately needs to move now to get financial security or anything at this stage of his career?

All in all a very strange thread if you ask me

One major factor: MANCHESTER UNITED

Any player who moves there is automatically considered "Judas". There are of course the other group, including me, who see that the Scum were the only club willing to offer us the full fee up front and so Smithy was basically forced to go there.

You were acting as if we've been desperately trying to lure him back for years and he's been turning us down because actually we don't mean anything to him: Not true.

As for the thread, I just passed on some information I thought you might find interesting, then your fans started speculating and blamed me for all the speculation.

 

[Canary Rob]

I'll repost this because the thread continued without any response... Sniff!

As I said, this info is pointless- designed only to encourageLeeds fans by being ambiguous. Nothing to see or debate here- of all opposition posters I quite like Simon and Josh, so let's move on.

I think this line emphasises that this entire thread is pointless.

No-one really knows the details. Anything outside of the fact there is some kind of buy-back clause somewhere is pure speculation.

Simon is not wumming, but there isn't anything to debate either- this is only interesting inasmuch as it shows how common buy-back clauses are now.

Yes, there will be a buy-back clause. This is normal.

No, we don't know what the terms are. It will almost certainly not be anything unusually disadvantageous to Norwich. The most likely thing it will be is a first refusal type clause. It may even specify a minimum amount for Leeds to pay, which given the chance that Snodgrass might flop, could well end up being a serious disadvantage to them getting him back very cheap.

There is every reason to think the same would have been included in Croft's contract- hence when we made it clear we wanted to sell him, they would have had first refusal and got him back at an excellent price. Of course, we don't know that for sure, but it really is irrelevant either way.


I suspect this is a case of the LUST Chairman saying something quite ambiguous about a perfectly normal clause in order to make Leeds fans feel a bit better because it can be interpreted more positively than the practical reality. That's fair enough- it's his job.

 

[Superman wears Grant Holt pyjamas in bed]

I wasn't suggesting anything, look back, I was just reporting the information.

Anyway, I'll just leave it:

Someone said their is a buy-back clause somewhere involving Snodgrass' move to you -> I, along with a huge number of Leeds United fans, trust this person 100% -> I thought it would be of interest to you, as it involves your club too after all, so I passed it on

Everything else is just speculation and I have no reason to make things up or "clutch at straws" as some of you have been saying, with one of them clearly part of the "haha LOL #feederclub" set. You might want to be a bit more open minded to information from fans of different clubs.

what i and others are saying is that this 'clause' is of absolutely no interest to us! it is not unusual, it is not important in any way, shape or form. i see no reason why a thread was made to discuss it - we've not learnt anything here that we probably wouldn't have guessed anyway. i think we are all aware that most clubs stick clauses in players contracts like this on almost every deal. the clause means pretty much nothing to us and certainly doesn't affect the player in any way. the only beneficiary is leeds who know they have first dibs on the guy if they so wish.

what a bizarre thread

 

[Simon21-LUFC]

what i and others are saying is that this 'clause' is of absolutely no interest to us! it is not unusual, it is not important in any way, shape or form. i see no reason why a thread was made to discuss it - we've not learnt anything here that we probably wouldn't have guessed anyway. i think we are all aware that most clubs stick clauses in players contracts like this on almost every deal. the clause means pretty much nothing to us and certainly doesn't affect the player in any way. the only beneficiary is leeds who know they have first dibs on the guy if they so wish.

what a bizarre thread

Once-a-****ing-gain. This actually case as a huge surprise to Leeds fans btw, whatever your transfer dealings are like we're not used to this sort of thing, I thought you might be interested so I posted it, you didn't have to discuss it if you didn't want to.

 

[Superman wears Grant Holt pyjamas in bed]

Think it's him ensuring he gets what he wants whatever happens. He gets his shot at the PL now, but still gets the chance to play in the PL with Leeds United if we get there and still want him.

the above was your second post on this thread.

quite evidently, you felt that it was the player proposing a clause rather than the club. then you've changed your mind. now you don't know. this is all completely irrelevant!

you've been fishing and you've got a few catches. well done

 

[Canary Rob]

Once-a-****ing-gain. This actually case as a huge surprise to Leeds fans btw, whatever your transfer dealings are like we're not used to this sort of thing, I thought you might be interested so I posted it, you didn't have to discuss it if you didn't want to.

Read my post.

This shouldn't be a surprise.

These clauses are normal. They are designed to help the situation if the player is not a success at his new club. This will be of very little benefit to Leeds unless Snodgrass can't make it in the Prem. This sounds like the LUST chair being deliberately ambiguous to encourage positive interpretations of a non-event.

 

[Superman wears Grant Holt pyjamas in bed]

he's blatantly on the wind up rob. he knew it would get a reaction and he's got what he wanted. for what its worth i think you've called it bang on - this is the LUST chairman deliberately being ambiguous to help fans think he might go back to leeds one day

 

[Tony_Munky_Canary]

...and I'm still waiting for an example of when this has ever occured with any other transfer ever.

And no, I don't think it was the deal with Crofts, rather he may have had a choice of clubs who were interested in him and he chose Brighton because he's played there before, they've got a promising young manager and it's a cracking place to live

 

[Canary Rob]

he's blatantly on the wind up rob. he knew it would get a reaction and he's got what he wanted. for what its worth i think you've called it bang on - this is the LUST chairman deliberately being ambiguous to help fans think he might go back to leeds one day

Fair point! I'm often a sucker for the WUMs who act the innocent, just-trying-to-get-opinions type!

 

[Canary Rob]

...and I'm still waiting for an example of when this has ever occured with any other transfer ever.

And no, I don't think it was the deal with Crofts, rather he may have had a choice of clubs who were interested in him and he chose Brighton because he's played there before, they've got a promising young manager and it's a cracking place to live

I'm sure that entered into it, but actually everything points to there being this clause- Norwich were looking to sell, most player contracts have a first refusal option, Brighton almost certainly were approached first, then made a satisfactory offer for all parties and all was hunky dory. Without the clause, I suspect Brighton would have had stiffer competition for an international with decent Prem experience's signature.

This would be a case of the clause acting as it should- helpful to the old club and the player, and not really a problem for the selling club keen to offload.

 

[Tony_Munky_Canary]

But Simon (great name by the way ) is suggesting that if Leeds offered us a particular amount that would be sufficient to trigger the clause then there would be nothing we could do to stand in his way of signing for them, and that clearly wasn't the case with Crofts. First refusal is different from having an agreed fee clause (or whatever the technical lingo is, forgive me), which is what he's talking about.

 

[Canary Rob]

But Simon (great name by the way ) is suggesting that if Leeds offered us a particular amount that would be sufficient to trigger the clause then there would be nothing we could do to stand in his way of signing for them, and that clearly wasn't the case with Crofts. First refusal is different from having an agreed fee clause (or whatever the technical lingo is, forgive me), which is what he's talking about.

Given that Simon has admitted that the LUST Chairman indicated nothing beyond that a clause existed (probably to encourage supporters to think it was more beneficial than it is) that interpretation is unfounded and almost certainly wrong, particularly given what I know about normal football contracts.

There will almost certainly be a first refusal clause. Or buy-back, or whatever you want to call it. There was also almost certainly one in Croft's contract. Of course, there could be a very unusual clause in Snodgrass's contract, we don't know, but it is unlikely and there has been nothing to suggest there is

 

[YellowLittle]

I'm sure that entered into it, but actually everything points to there being this clause- Norwich were looking to sell, most player contracts have a first refusal option, Brighton almost certainly were approached first, then made a satisfactory offer for all parties and all was hunky dory. Without the clause, I suspect Brighton would have had stiffer competition for an international with decent Prem experience's signature.

This would be a case of the clause acting as it should- helpful to the old club and the player, and not really a problem for the selling club keen to offload.

Don't think there was a clause on Crofts, probably went there because he played there before and they are in a lot better position than they were. PLus he was only there for 1 year, not exactly a huge amount of sentiment when he left I would imagine.

 

[Superman wears Grant Holt pyjamas in bed]

i bet there was a clause in crofts contract!

i'd bet my mortgage on it

 

[Simon21-LUFC]

he's blatantly on the wind up rob. he knew it would get a reaction and he's got what he wanted. for what its worth i think you've called it bang on - this is the LUST chairman deliberately being ambiguous to help fans think he might go back to leeds one day

****'s sake. Ask anyone on the Leeds board when I've ever been on the wind up, answer: never, I'm not going to start now on a board I actually quite like.

He would have no reason to do that, it would be something that would unnecessarily paint the Bates regime in a better light and that's the last thing LUST would do. It wasn't a calculated statement, it was an out of hand post on a Leeds United forum on a takeover thread where he possibly even accidentally let slip. I admit my 2nd post is simply my opinion, but you can agree or not because that's all it is, my personal opinion, no facts or evidence involved.

It was news to Leeds fans and I thought you might be interested. End of. You might want to take people at face value more in future rather than look for wind-ups that aren't there.

 

[YellowLittle]

i bet there was a clause in crofts contract!

i'd bet my mortgage on it

Out of interest , any idea how much we got for him?