Both Hudd and Jelavic no doubt have release clauses. Can see the club willing to sell Huddlestone with only a year left in his contract. Will be a big loss though, and very difficult to replace
It must be great knowing the inner sanctum of the club and all its dealings like you do. Why, oh wise leader, have we not paid the 7m then, considering it's been reported that our second bid was for 7m + add ons?
Hopefully this means that either Huddlestone doesn't have a release clause or one that's high enough that West Ham aren't willing to match it
Since you thought the Huddlestone story was BS, OLM, I'm sure you'll be surprised to hear the Hammers offer for him is an improved bid - that means they've made one before.
Blackpool FC @BlackpoolFC The club can confirm that a compensation package has been agreed with @hullcity for Tom Ince, without the need of a tribunal. Face-palm that.
I reckon we should let Wet Spam have Jelavic and Huddlestone if they offer our valuation and then build the team around Meyler
So why was it so widely reported that the fee would be settled at a tribunal? And why has everyone, including you, counted the profit for Ince as the 4.75m less the 2.2m?
I don't believe we've offered £7m for hiim, or we'd have got him. And knowing more than you really isn't much of an achievement.
Ermm http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-2m-Blackpool-Tom-Ince-transfer-tribunal.html. Give me some credit. I'm on the other side of the world and still making you look foolish.
Yes, because the Daily Mail know more about the deal than the club who sold him. Jesus wept, you're a ****ing moron.
I don't mind you as a person OLM, though you seem to have been pissed off by me for seemingly thinking Maloney could be anything less than our saviour, but you really do think the sun shines out of your own ass sometimes.
Build the team around Meyler? Seriously? Although I quite like Meyler he's one of the most consistent members of the squad. He's definitely not the type of player to build a team around.
So the clubs went to a tribunal, for a hearing, and the tribunal set a 2m fee. The clubs then independently decided that they wanted to change the structure of the fee. The tribunal was still involved, and the amount we paid them was certainly more than 1.5m. Otherwise not sure why you repeatedly have used the 2.2 as a cost base when determining the profit we made on him.
I'm sure this is ****ing tedious for everyone else, but what part of Blackpool's statement "The club can confirm that a compensation package has been agreed with @hullcity for Tom Ince, without the need of a tribunal." do you not understand?
The fact that they had gone to a tribunal a week earlier. You're kind of missing my 'they felt the need to restructure the deal on their own' comment. Yes I was wrong that the ultimate deal was not struck using the tribunal. I can admit that. I'm not sure why you feel the incessant need to hunt down people like you do. You still haven't answered my question about why you have incorrectly used 2.2m as his cost base given you were so obviously well aware of the fact we only paid 1.5m for him. Would give us a 3.25m profit on him, not the 2.5m everyone has been quoting.
Thud will have a release clause I would expect. If he doesn't then we would have to take a decent fee if he is refusing to pen a new deal. Or we make him sign a new deal! It isn't looking good and I think we will see one or two go yet that none of us want out the door. And that's not including the strikers...
Stand corrected, just found old posts which suggest the fee was 1.5m in the end. Didn't realise we also put a 15% sell-on clause in Ince's deal, and it could rise to 5.75m. Good business. Apologies for getting it wrong.
If Diame and Hudd go we're back in a bit of peril in regards to CM. Really need to pull the finger out and get a few more signed if that's the case.
