Was it a release clause in the original contract or part of the loan agreement with Derby County? I thought from reading this board it was the later. If the later that would have been agreed by City. They could have said no loan if Ince or Derby insisted.
It would have been a business negotiation where I would have expected Ehab to liaise with Bruce on the terms; remembering it was further complicated by the value arbitration. The owners pride themselves on being good businessmen, so I would fully expect them to keep Bruce in the loop on a deal that involves football complications. I think it is important to remember that the is a close family friend; perhaps we should not be too surprised that the owners were advised to accept terms that were remarkably beneficial to Messrs Ince, just as a similarly beneficial contract was given to Inch Wincy' s old playmate. Too many things smell of fish at our club; have Findus become the new sponsors?
Ince and son are both mercenaries and will follow the £££££££££££££££££ wherever it leads. If Tom were the loyal type who really wanted to commit to us he would have agreed a longer contract in the first place. Not a PL player, but we have lost a potential match winner in the championship. No panic here either, let's see who we bring in before the big kick off before we get too pessimistic shall we?
yes I would agree that Bruce is friends of the Ince`s hence why we got him in the first place, I suspect he was hoping that Ince would take the Premiership by storm, but in the brief appearances he had he didn`t, I would also suggest that Ince`s inability to track back and defend went again multiple appearances as he left those playing behind him vulnerable. While on his loan spell at Derby it`s no coincidence that while he did well going forward their form slumped and to a certain degree their system fell down with his inclusion. Not fact, but just my own opinion.
Bruce runs the football, so he runs the players; surely he was in agreement with shipping him out, so how does he avoid scrutiny?
Think Maguire will be vying with junior for one of the 3 backs spots, but from what I saw of him in Wigan's matches, he seems to spend too much time watching things happen rather than anticipating or covering the spaces where forwards subsequently made runs into. He is also not quick enough to recover the situation, but does have size on his side when in the right place. Don't be surprised if Bruce is considering letting him go at another profit, not convinced he thinks he's the long term answer, but will stay if we lose Chester. Why else has the club been talking to suitors, or is it just the case that all our players are for sale at the right price following relegation?
Which ever club Ince jnr end's up at, I guarantee that within a season or two he'll be in conflict with them, always going to be the case when you have Ince snr whispering in his ear that jnr the next Gareth Bale.
You talk about his release clause which supposedly was unique to the loan agreement. If it is indeed unique then city can't really have been forced by the player/agent to put the clause in, he's already signed the contract with us. I imagine it was Derby's idea to put it in there but we shouldn't have agreed to it.
He wasn't in our plans, we were expecting to be in the PL and Ince isn't a PL player so perhaps that is why the clause was inserted? Just guessing like - no evidence but seems a plausible explanation.
I agree, Ehab following in the footsteps of Daniel Levy, hoping for a quick return on a player who wasn't in our plans. At least until relegation was a real possibility and then, oh dear...
He wasn't in our plans, we agree a fee with Blackpool and insert a right to buy clause which doubles his value. We expected to be in the Premier League and losing Tom Ince wasn't a big deal so we put it in the contract. Ehab sat back counting the pennies as Tom Ince started scoring for fun, until we were relegated. We then scrambled around in a panic trying to find a way to stop the sale. All courtesy of tigerev's post, with a little embellishment. Makes more sense then Paul Ince holding us over a barrel to get his son a contract with Derby County. If Derby County sell him on to Newcastle United, will we get more money from a sell on clause? Or did we forget to put one in?
Could one of you making statements about his contract and who said what to who or who did what, please post the copies of the contracts and/or the minutes of said meetings? Just so we know you're not just grinding the same old axes and speculating. Or talking bollocks. Take your pick.
All players in all teams are always available to buy for the right money. I thought the victim thing was purely a Scouse thing. I'm starting to wonder how many of you were Hull Reds until recently.
I wasn't aware at all, you mentioned the option to buy in the loan agreement, which had absolutely nothing to do with with the original contract he signed.
