Summer Transfers Mega-Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
It's also not a purchase in the sense that we understand it. Obviously a shop couldn't not sell goods to someone based on who that person is, say due to racism. This transaction is actually compensation for allowing a player out of a contract. There is no requirement for clubs to "sell" to anyone. Obviously for players with buy-out clause, the club can't choose who activates it. Otherwise the act of not "selling" to rivals is perfectly reasonable.
 
I said earlier on today about the Norwich City official accounts facebook comments and how they are really weird but one I find absolutely amazing is the comments section on the pinkun web stories.

I read it on my lunch break at work and the comments below are becoming more interesting than the stories themselves! they usually end up in a mass brawl or talking about complete bollocks and I mean bollocks. Everything from the weather to prices of riverboats in Holland (I'm NOT kidding, it's like a mental ward)

as this is talking about transfers, heres some examples from recent transfer stories. Bare in mind these people aren't trolls, they are just completely mental.

From Jacob Butterfield transfer story (http://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/jacob_butterfield_departs_for_middlesbrough_on_an_otherwise_quiet_transfer_deadline_day_for_norwich_city_1_2364227)

"…..Yes P.W.!....and we could have saved ourselves £10m+ if we had stuck with Holt, Chris Martin, and Vaughan!...After all the middleman has been cut out with our new tactics!.....But if it will keep the suckers happy, let's spend some money!..... "

"…..Doc! ...Frivolous perhaps, in the eyes of some!...So far this season (3 PL games) 3 goals have been scored by us, one of which is attributed to our new £8m pound striker!. I like the lad and wish him well for the future, but he is not setting the world on fire with goals.... He is receiving service, no worse than Holt, or Martin, so we have almost a stalemate situation..H.M.V could have achieved this. ..Give him time to settle in!...No way!...at £8m he has to be on the money from the first whistle. We need goals NOW!!!....."

"So very sorry, Smoogie. An innocent error which scarcely justifies a tantrum. You try spelling Costessy, Happisburgh, Caistor, Caister or Neatishead without an atlas to hand. I once had a boss who `supported` Middlesbrough, even though he came from British West Harteleypole (sic). I outlasted him easily. Also, are you aware that typographical errors can and do happen? I`ve even seen a journo working for a national daily getting Norwich and Northwich confused. Funny old world, if you see the jokes. "

It's just really weird, just wanted to share with the group lol
 
Bath-Canary said:
It's also not a purchase in the sense that we understand it. Obviously a shop couldn't not sell goods to someone based on who that person is, say due to racism. This transaction is actually compensation for allowing a player out of a contract. There is no requirement for clubs to "sell" to anyone. Obviously for players with buy-out clause, the club can't choose who activates it. Otherwise the act of not "selling" to rivals is perfectly reasonable.
Click to expand...

Actually that's a poor comparison, a shopkeeper can refuse to sell any item on display without giving a reason, what he can't do is charge more than the advertised price! In law it's called an "offer to treat!"
 
I knew that was true of pub landlords didn't realise it was true of all shops. The advertising thing is only based on the majority of customers. For example if the majority of my customers were tradesmen I could advertise and ex-vat price but not if most people will have to pay tax. This is however irrelevant.
 
Superman wears Grant Holt pyjamas in bed said:
this has always happened! it's common sense management to not sell to a main rival and isn't a new trend <laugh>
Click to expand...

I'm sure it has happened on occasions in the past, but the difference now is that there is more at stake, and there are more clubs with something at stake, than ever before. Hence the reason why we are IMO seeing a growing trend. Regarding the legal situation, there are limits to which a club holding a player's registration can treat that player as "an asset". I can quite easily foresee a situation arising in which Club A refuses to sell a player to Club B, but is prepared to sell him to Club C at a certain agreed fee, but the player has overriding reasons for wanting to go to B and not wanting to go to C. If the fact that Club A considers Club B an arch rival is the only reason for their refusal to let the player go to Club B, I think that might well be contestable in court. If it isn't, it should be IMO. <ok>
 
But robbie the player signed a contract with club A. Their desire to join club B doesn't matter and the fact that they don't want to go to club C means they can't be forced to. If the player wants to leave they could by themselves out if the contract but they never want to leave that much.
Your right that they can't be considered assets as we saw when rangers folded.
 
Bath-Canary said:
But robbie the player signed a contract with club A. Their desire to join club B doesn't matter and the fact that they don't want to go to club C means they can't be forced to. If the player wants to leave they could by themselves out if the contract but they never want to leave that much.
Your right that they can't be considered assets as we saw when rangers folded.
Click to expand...

But in my example Club A have agreed to terminate their rights under the contract for a given fee, so releasing the player to sign for another club, just not club B, the only reason being ........ <ok>
 
robbieBB said:
I'm sure it has happened on occasions in the past, but the difference now is that there is more at stake, and there are more clubs with something at stake, than ever before. Hence the reason why we are IMO seeing a growing trend. Regarding the legal situation, there are limits to which a club holding a player's registration can treat that player as "an asset". I can quite easily foresee a situation arising in which Club A refuses to sell a player to Club B, but is prepared to sell him to Club C at a certain agreed fee, but the player has overriding reasons for wanting to go to B and not wanting to go to C. If the fact that Club A considers Club B an arch rival is the only reason for their refusal to let the player go to Club B, I think that might well be contestable in court. If it isn't, it should be IMO. <ok>
Click to expand...

i think you're putting too much effort into finding a problem which isn;t really there. if a club wants a player badly enough they will still buy them. for example, if real madrid really wanted bale they would be prepared to pay £86m... and they did! if arsenal really wanted suarez they could have bid £60m and got him. liverpool's owner said he wouldn't sell to arsenal to get them away - had arsenal stumped up serious money (which they didn't - they pissed them about with their stupid offer) then they may not have been pushed to make that statement. every player has his price, no matter who they are or which club comes in for them, but naturally, clubs are going to be wary of selling to a rival and quite rightly - it could prevent them winning something, a la, van persie. if arsenal had really wanted to stop man utd having him they could have done (and should have done in most peoples opinion) but they were too weak to say no. if a player wants to go somewhere then its down to the club to decide whether they go or not, but more often than not they could end up with an unhappy player so they buckle. it is not going to end in legal action as you suggest. it would be absolute carnage! if you want to buy from a rival - you pay big - everyone knows that and apart from you, everyone has always just got on with it
 
robbieBB said:
We seem to be witnessing a new trend developing of clubs picking and choosing which clubs they will let players go to, even though they have said the player can leave at the right price. Liverpool owner John Henry said recently that, even if Suarez was sold, he would not be allowed to join Arsenal at any price. There were reports yesterday that Chelsea similary refused to let Demba Ba go to Arsenal on loan (though other reports said the deal fell through because Chelsea demanded an absurd "loan fee" which Arsenal refused to pay). IMO this trend is disgraceful and I hope at some point it is challenged in court. <ok>
Click to expand...

Oh come on, you've got to be taking the piss now, no? <laugh>

Did you really think Suarez was going to sign for Arsenal? Did you really?? <yikes> It was never going to happen! He wanted Madrid or nothing, as soon as the Bale deal became nailed on (about three week ago) there was no way he was going anywhere else.

Why on earth would Chelsea loan Ba to Arsenal for nothing? Tell me, when was the last player to move from ManUre to Liverpool, or vice versa?

And as I said earlier, Ozil is an absolutely brilliant player, but as I also asked - is he what Arsenal needed to become title challengers? He was a panic buy from what was available at the last minute to keep the fans happy if you ask me. There is absolutely no way Wenger would have gotten away with not signing at least one world class player this summer. I honestly cannot believe they, and United, didn't do their business earlier in the window, it all just seems bonkers and could definitely cost at least one of them a top four place this season. <ok>
 
Well, that's two contradictory opinions straight away! According to you Munky, Arsenal could never have signed Suarez, but according to Supers they could without question have signed him if they'd been prepared to pay enough! But anyway, my post was not really about Arsenal; it just so happened that the two most recent examples of this particular behaviour involved the Gunners. As for Supers point about everybody accepting it and just getting on with it, exactly that could have been said about player contracts before Bosman took things in his own hands. <ok>
 
robbieBB said:
Well, that's two contradictory opinions straight away! According to you Munky, Arsenal could never have signed Suarez, but according to Supers they could without question have signed him if they'd been prepared to pay enough! But anyway, my post was not really about Arsenal; it just so happened that the two most recent examples of this particular behaviour involved the Gunners. As for Supers point about everybody accepting it and just getting on with it, exactly that could have been said about player contracts before Bosman took things in his own hands. <ok>
Click to expand...

i know what munky is saying though - you've taken him too literally. he means arsenal 'were never going to sign him' because they were 'never going to stump up the required cash' to make any deal happen. suarez definitely wanted to go to madrid, no question - arsenal would have been a distant second choice but arsenal were never really serious about trying to lure him. it was all a bit silly imo.

there is really no case to answer in terms of court of law. it seems to me its just robbie being a bit annoyed that his club didn't sign suarez or ba and is looking for an excuse for why they didn't happen. fact is, they could have signed both players if they really wanted to. £3m for a year of demba ba sounds fairly good to me - he'd have made a big difference to their attacking options. we've paid over a £1m for elmander for the year.
 
I don't really get why people say Özil was a panic buy and not a player they needed. Sure they needed to strengthen other areas more, but If you have a chance to sign a world class player, than you can't say no to that and he will improve Arsenal a bit.
 
Drunky said:
I don't really get why people say Özil was a panic buy and not a player they needed. Sure they needed to strengthen other areas more, but If you have a chance to sign a world class player, than you can't say no to that and he will improve Arsenal a bit.
Click to expand...

very difficult to justify signing a world class player as a panic buy!

but something certainly doesn't sit right with that deal - it does appear to be a signing to appease fans desires for a big money, big name signing rather than actually fixing their issues. he's a brillaint player - i can't wait to see him in action and any player that good will improve any team in the world but even ozil is on record to say he had no plans to leave real madrid and that no offer was on the table until the day before the window closed, so arsenal weren't in for him until very, very late, which is probably why some are saying it was a panic buy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back