It's a funny one this as I don't like Ince or his dad particularly but he is an effective player at the Championship level, whoever draws up the contracts is to blame for him going and surely that isn't Bruce. They shipped him out for a reason last year so getting a load of money for him and buying a decent player or two who don't think they should be playing for Inter Milan might be a good thing
Spot on, judge the squad when all business has been completed. This might be a massive mistake, it might not, the lad obviously had a good loan spell with Derby but he's small piece of a large jigsaw, if we have a capable squad come the end of the transfer window then I'll be happy.
The issue I have is that we haven't doubled our money on him. You are not taking into account any sign on fee to Ince, any fees to an agent (his dad), any wages we have paid him. The cost of Ince isn't just the transfer fee involved. We then have to replace him which is going to us more in money to agents, to players etc.... From a business point of view, the clause made very little sense. As if they wanted to make use of it, its clear he has done well for them, and surely we would want to keep him them. From a football point of view it makes even less sense considering what a goalscoring attacking midfielder would cost you now.
I am a little surprised that many posters seem to think this is a club decision to sign him on a two year deal and have a release clause inserted into the contract. In this day and age the players and agents determine these things, or they don`t sign.. simple. Do many of you think that INCE would have been a loyal asset, and wanted to sign for us for a lengthy period. The deal was done with a view to enhancing his reputation with us in order to get a move to a much `bigger` and high profile club, its crying out for all to see. Pop and jnr have tried to use us as a stepping stone to the top, nothing new in that in todays game, we were given the opportunity to have him for a couple of years but it hasn`t worked out for any number of reasons, he like many others is a mercenary driven by the promise of gold, and pushed along by his father acting for what he believes is his sons best interests. Campbell was the same before this, and I`m sure there will be others to follow. I for one am not going to start pissing my pants blaming all and sundry at the club over a player and agents demands, its football.. get a grip.
It is worrying he wants to leave, which does throw questions marks over what is happening inside the club. However he joined to get EPL football and didn't really get a run in the team, and the fact that when he went out on loan with a buy option, didn't really give him the feeling that there was any future for him at City, so can understand his attitude. So all in all to make a few million profit and moving on it's probably the best outcome for both sides, but you have to question the handling of his situation, which frankly doesn't look well managed.
Hernandez was leaving anyway. For a minute I thought you meant the injury was to our Abel. Now that would be cruel. Not been able to sell him or play him.
If Ince was really that good how come Derby didn't even make the playoffs? Just confirms to me Bruce intends playing 3 CB's and wing backs ie to our strengths, not worried unless any of our best back 5 go and Snodgrass is going to be the man anyway.
The terms of his contract with us will obviously have been agreed between the club and the player(via his agent), but I don't expect the player had much input in the terms of his loan agreement, other than actually agreeing to go on loan in the first place.
Assuming he has gone, more likely the fact that we didn't play him last season and preferred players we had brought in on loan.So surely we didn't 'let him leave', he wanted to. And who can blame him. I really wouldn't assume any method in the madness.
I wasn`t referring to the loan agreement, I was referring to the original contract, as I`m sure you are well aware, and I`m still not pissing my pants !
Does Bruce run the football? Isn't the football tied in with contract terms (regarding movement)? Who shipped him out? Who wanted him back in? There are many questions that could be asked, about Bruce, his decisions, his relationships and why he is still here.
Hull City wanted to keep both Quinn and Ince and ended up with neither. I thought most of our contracts were for two years so we didn't repeat the same mistake we made with Bullard. The only problem is keeping the players we want when their contract ends. The club (presumably Ehab) gambled on us still being in the Premier League and Tom Ince not wanting to leave. Unfortunately he lost the bet. The profit from Ince will help fund the next instalment on the £10m we paid for Hernandez.
I would suggest it wasn`t the clubs idea to insert the release clause, which allows him to pick and choose, and offers him the chance to leave.
Quinn on the other hand had an offer of a contract and chose to move on, so be it, he has secured a longer term deal good for him. The club moves on
