Does £6 mil go a long way when you're shopping for strikers in the current market. Especially when people know you desperately need one.
not really no, like i said before, you cant' start money on the pitch, it's useless unless you actually get player with it, if these rumours are true, he'd probably be getting a 500% pay rise
I think with letting Sagbo go at £6m, we'd be able to get another foreign striker for say £3-4m who's as good or better than him, considering he only cost us £1.5m. But with Long, i think we need to replace him with someone familiar with the PL/english football, as we'd want at least 1 who we know would do well in the PL. Im not sure if that makes sense, but it does in my head.
Maybe a loanee on a wages only deal if we can't get a suitable permanent replacement. Then use the money in January.
More's to the point. Why would anyone agree to put a £5m release clause in the contract of premier league striker. Find it hard to believe.
If my memory serves it took a few days to get over the line and it's something he wasn't willing to sign for us without having in place. I think I remember Brucey saying something along the lines of it's not ideal but he wouldn't sign without it.
Yes but you're surely signing him with the expectation he'd do a decent job. Then £5 mil becomes cheap. Get Sagbo on next months **** thread.
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Hull...annick-Sagbo/story-19578824-detail/story.html "Meanwhile, this morning's Mirror claims City secured the transfer by inserting a £5m release clause into Sagbo's contract which - if true - shows confidence in his potential, if nothing else.
