Agreed - a very good performance against a much vaunted Spanish side after a not so good one against Oz will do his CV no harm at all. The problem for us is if he has a definite release fee in his contract, we wont get any more than that. It'll just allow him to negotiate better personal terms if more clubs are after him. I can't believe we'd have agreed a release fee for less than we'd paid for him, but remember who was doing the deals at the time. Anything is possible if Campbell had just £800K as his.
Seeing as we only paid £650K for him - I would have thought £800K release clause was reasonable. Change the record, please.
Whiffle - it's my record and I wont change it. You have your say and I'll have mine OK? Some of the deals struck by the Malky/Moody combo were a touch extravagant and lacked realism to say the least. They were rightly removed by Tan because of a clear lack of business prudence on their part. If you don't agree, fair enough, but don't slag those that hold views opposite to yours.
No argument. That was amateur financial management. Whether that was plain stupid or borne out of desperation to make some "big news" signings, we may never know. From time to time Caulker has looked his worth and Medel was absolute class last night. Provided any sell on clauses ensure we get back what we paid that is the situation we are in and can't change it. However, this argument has run and run so perhaps it is time to let it go until such time as the players are transferred - when we might or might not be given details of the deals (probably not) and can then draw comparisons.
Dai - thanks for the decent question. The opinion about an £800K release clause for Fraizer being OK because he only cost us £650K is ludicrous (just and opinion of course). It's been said that Fraizer's father who acts effectively as his agent insisted on it before he let Fraizer sign. The deal for £650K looked so good that Malky/Moody caved in although Sunderland were more than prepared to let him go at the price which was a steal. His prospective value subject to us achieving the Premier league that season would have rocketed and should have been recognised with a release clause set far higher than £800K - probably a couple of mill at least after playing regularly in the Prem again for a season. That release figure negotiations were one-sided because those calling the shots for the club at the time were inept. That was proved to an even greater extent when the same pair were given a pot of money for our Premier campaign - they failed miserably to utilise the resources effectively.
Am I missing something here? What have a chief scout and manager got to do with negotiating contracts? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the chief scouts job identifying talent & then recommending them to the manager - then the manager tells the board which players he wants - isn't it then up to the board to negotiate transfer fees & contract details? Anyway our Premiership campaign was looking OK until you know who got the hump.
Whiffle - you are forgetting the one person who appeared to get away blamelessly until last week, good old Teflon, Simon Lim, our now ex-CEO. It is he has VT's man on the spot who would have signed off on all of this and authorised payments. Whether he did so out of ignorance or stupidity who knows? However, a stronger, more clued in CEO, like his predecessor would not have let these things happen.
In the absence of any credible "football" person at the club (Dalman has emerged since), the budget was left to the "football" persons who were at the club at the time - viz the manager and his chief of recruitment. The presence of Lim at the club has been a joke. He had no idea about the business of football and relevant values within the game - he was signing off something he knew nothing about. Tan has as good as admitted that and in a sideways sort of way also admitted he was foolish allowing the scenario to develop.
And still the Malky abuse carries on long, long, long after he's gone. Even though it is neither proven or unproven that he did anything wrong.Posters on this site seems to be trapped in a time wharp. This article should never be about Malky. Medel played really well last night.
the reason for the low release clause was simple, fraizer saw us as a stepping stone in getting his career back on track, and we agreed to it as the fee for him was so low. as for medel, he's playing centre back, and not really impressing me much as he doesn't have the height to play there. i did laugh to myself when the commentator referred to him as pit bull though….. nothing could be farther from the truth, pussycat would be more apt, we'll be lucky to get half what we paid for him.
The subject of Medel being worth more as a result of his performance warrants a discussion about how we will not benefit from it due to a specific release clause figure being written into his contract by those responsible. The only bone of contention was just how much it would take to trigger that release clause and why it should be any less than we paid for him from Sevilla. Reasonable discussion on a thread about the perceived value increase in Medel. Thread is right on track. Maybe those that thought Malky was hard done by are reluctant to accept the possibility that he wasn't really the Messiah. Proof is another matter either way - it doesn't and shouldn't stop discussion on the subject. Yes, Medel played very well last night as already said.
if there is a release clause for medel, it will be close to, if not higher, than the £9-11m we paid for him, we will not get bids near that so its irrelevant reallyâ¦â¦..
So where do you stand on these two comments Spark? Helpful to the current subject matter? Comment#4 Ok, i think that the unofficial blue shirt is immature and serves no purpose Comment #14 My thoughts exactly, the supporters trust making money on the back of the club and TyHafen. Are these helpful to the debate?
Threads tend to wander off track Bob, and this one was taken there by someone telling me to change the record when I made a perfectly honest reply the thread subject title. I suspect the posts you highlight were made in a similar vein as a response to someone bringing up the Tan/Malky issue yet again. Maybe they were posted as an example of what shouldn't be done to point out the issue eh? You can believe and discuss what you want on here. If I do see a thread being deliberately derailed for no good reason, then I'll attempt to do something about it if others see it that way too. Otherwise as has been said many times before, this is an open forum and ALL issues surrounding the club are fair trade.
