We're not being held to ransom or overpaying for him (well actually we could be, we don't know the full details yet, but there's no suggestion that we are I mean.) If we really rate this player but could only get him on a short contract with a release clause then surely it's a no brainer to sign him on those terms? We'd be cutting our nose off to spite our face, not signing him just because we'd later lose him if he does well. I'd agree with your point if it was a Bullard type deal, by all means walk away in that instance. This appears to be nothing like that. Financially it's a great deal. Football wise it's probably the best we could get. Not all interested clubs are picked up by the media you know... The laughable thing in this debate is that you appear to think we just agreed to this release clause without thought. Do you really think the club didn't negotiate the best possible deal they could get for him?
Everything is negotiable, depends on how good you are at it, and how firm your stance is. Looking at the details we have at hand, I don't think it's great, for someone who was fairly well down our preferred list. So there's more than likely an element of agreeing to almost everything just to get the player through the door. How many strikers had we been linked with and held talks with before we put a bid in for him? We know of Hooper, Austin, Cole, Graham - may well be others too. I want the club to make a profit without ceiling on players they gamble on, if they are a success. Why should we be dictated to by a contractual sell price, if he proves to be decent? We've spent long enough being mediocre with players seldom sold on for huge profits. Player sales for profit will be a key income stream for the club going forward and is one of the most effective ways for the club to balance books. Most player interest is in the media, it's almost impossible not to. How else do you drive potentially interested parties into action and create demand for players?
Sorry my mistake, I was basing it on the rumoured £1.6million fee and equating that to selling him for 3 x more ..ie £4.8million Of course your right. If we sold him for £5million the profit would be 212.5%... (I hope this doesn't come up in the mocks)
Sorry, can someone point me to details of this supposed release clause? The delay of the transfer was down to the fee and add-ons agreed between Hull and Evian. Sagbo appeared to sign personal terms within 24 hours of him being in England so there doesn't appear to be that much hard-balling going on. The more likely negotiation point would be a sell-on percentage that Evian want (to keep the fee down) sould the boy discover Benteke-like form.
It doesn't matter whether you like it or not. It's there (supposedly), so you need to get over it, we can't change it.
http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/Hull-City-transfer-talk-July-28-Hugo-Rodallega/story-19580398-detail/story.html#axzz2aGjhRvPQ
Must be true then. In fact they were probably in the same room at the time the details were being negotiated.
Sorry to intrude, and also apologies if something similar has already been posted (I haven't read any of this thread!), but thought this was a rather fair analysis of your new lad... http://www.fantasyfootballscout.co.uk/2013/07/29/scout-report-yannick-sagbo/ EDIT: Although it does say you have Nicky Maynard
