Exactly. That's why Spurs appear to have inserted a clause where they pay the full amount in instalments, with the condition that if another club want to sign him in this window, then they negotiate with Levy over the sum of that £100k that is picked up by them. It makes sense for Spurs to do it this way, rather than just pay up the for the full term of the remainder of his contract up front. That is exactly what is being reported.
And I've repeatedly explained to you why it makes absolutely no sense. I'm not going to continue to tell you the obvious, so you just carry on believing what you want to believe.
It's not what I believe, it's what is being reported by the Telegraph, Independent and various other media outlets. You don't like what you're hearing, so you're trying to argue the opposite, but it makes complete sense for it to happen this way.
I've already explained why it doesn't make any sense and the media reporting bullshit shouldn't be new to you. The next time that a media source claims something unfavourable to Arsenal, it'll be interesting to see your reaction. The Sun claims that Wenger is a twat? Must be a twat, then.
You're just being silly now. It makes complete sense, because Spurs would have been liable for the full term of the remainder of his contract when they terminated it. What they appear to have done is inserted a clause where another club can pick up some of that bill should he sign for somebody else. The story I linked to was written by Jason Burt, the chief football correspondent for the Telegraph, he has a wealth of knowledge and experience and is brought in to work for the BBC and Sky sports because of his knowledge. He regularly interviews premier league footballers, managers, chairmen, the FA, agents. He has travelled overseas with the England team for the last decade. He has reported on numerous exclusive football stories and he is renowned and respected for his expert knowledge in football. But he's wrong and you're right ?
He's clearly wrong or you've misrepresented what he's said. What would be the point in paying off Adebayor and terminating his contract, only to include an unenforceable clause? It either reduces the amount that the player's paid by Spurs if he signs for someone else or it doesn't do anything. We don't hold his registration, so we'd have nothing to negotiate with a new club with. This has been explained to you repeatedly, but you insist that it's still right anyway. Burt claimed that Grzegorz Krychowiak was on his way to The Emirates in the last window. How's he been getting on since he signed?
It all depends on the terms of the severance package. If Adebayor and Spurs have an agreement that if he plays for another club, then that club have to meet some or all of that £100k, then they could well insert that and it would be enforceable. It makes sense for Spurs to do so, otherwise they are liable for the full amount anyway because they have terminated his contract. The registration doesn't matter, because his playing contract has already been terminated. It appears to be all about the legal binding of the severance package. That is what is being reported.
And it makes no sense. Adebayor could agree to play for that club for £0-£100,000 and it wouldn't affect his pay. Anything that he agreed to would come from the new club and go straight to Spurs. Under those circumstances, why wouldn't he agree to play for nothing?
Probably because they aren't the circumstances. According to reports, Spurs are obliged to pay him £100k per week until the summer, but they have inserted a clause where another club to negotiate the amount of that £100k they will pay. If that club say 'we'll pay him £0 because you're paying it' then according to the terms of the severance package, there is no deal. There might well be a baseline figure in that clause, that's acceptable to Levy. It doesn't sound like Spurs will receive any money from the 'buying' club, simply that they will negotiate how much of the £100k they will pay direct to Adebayor, with Spurs picking up the remainder.
It doesn't matter about the registration. His contract has been terminated. The only legally binding agreement seems to be the severance package, which could well have this clause inserted in it.
The clause agreed with Adebayor? That couldn't affect any club trying to sign him. It could cause his agreement with Spurs to be terminated, but couldn't compel any new club to do anything.
it all depends on the terms of that severance. It seems to be a clause agreed between Adebayor and Spurs regarding his pay off, with a stipulation that Spurs will reduce the £100k per week by an amount that is met by another club.
Apparently Crystal Palace are in negotiation to sign Adebayor and the £100k equation has been raised again On BBC Radio 5 live's weekend preview show, the guests discussed whether Palace should sign the striker. The Daily Telegraph's Jason Burt revealed the club would need to negotiate with Spurs, who still pay him £100,000 a week. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/35330009 It will be interesting to see what happens and whether that clause is enforced.
That's the same bloke. You're literally repeating the same source and other people quoting that source, over and over. As I said before, how's that Polish bloke that you signed from Sevilla doing? Burt said he was joining, so it must be true.
Now he doesn't know everything? Oh, I'm very disappointed. It's almost like he's a normal journalist who talks crap all the time and makes stuff up, isn't it?
PNP, mate! It's like a never ending broken record. Nobody knows the truth apart from The Club & The Player - certainly not this Burt bloke...
No, he could have been right when he said it was 'likely' that our next signing would be Krychowiak. The deal might have been in progress and fallen through.
