Billy Sharp

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Don't know if It's been mentioned on the Billy Sharp thread but unlike you lot that sit on here all day I don't have much time, that's not the point I'm making though,

Apparently he has a £1.8m release clause but will only move to places that will let him live still in sheffield. Surely we'd do that and surely we'd manage that sort of money. Whether this is true or not I don't know but the amount of times I've heard it I am inclined to believe it's true. I can't see why we wouldn't bid for him apart from no funds which I don't believe.
 
Would make sense to at least put in the minimum 1.8m - if the striker really wants the move here, the £3 million offers from the likes of Leicester wouldn't matter, and even if they do, at least we would know we tried, rather than have questions being asked
 
See the existing Billy Sharp thread - John Ryan denies the release clause of 1.8m exists and that the going rate is 3m
 
Aye, I don't mind you merging, just don't have the time to read all the posts on the other one. Was just enquiring, sorry I didn't know whether there was truth in the release clause. Guess we'll see in due course.

UTT COYH!

Happy new year tigers by the way.
 
I find it hard to believe that so many clubs are reported to be lining up £3M+ bids if there's a release clause below that. FA rules about not speaking are pretty unenforceable when players share agents. It would be common knowledge within football at minimum at the clubs his agent had other players and I'm sure it would have been in the papers before this window.
 
Seems to me that a release clause would mean that if another club offered over that amount of money then the player could leave.
After that it's up to the player where he wants to go and that would depend on location of club, length of contract, and weekly salary etc etc.
Donny can't hold out for more money, thats what a release clause means, they have to release him. Now Mr Sharp might have some good feelings about Donny and want them to get the best deal in which case that could come into it but I doubt it. Why would the release clause be there in the first place if that was the case?
Hammill was sold to Wolves last year for 500 k which was way too cheap but Barnsley had to let him go for a similar clause, they could'nt ask for more because the only reason he signed for them in the first place was on the understanding that if a prem club came in for him Barnsley could'nt ask for silly money and hold him back.
The signing fee is'nt an issue here at all it's the contract that will be offered and which club is offering it that matters.
 
Davies was Nick's No.1 target and he was keen to come, but Bolton picked up some injuries and he got back in the starting XI and has done well, so it looks like that ship has sailed.

The player on a permanent doesn't currently play in red and white.
 
originallambrettaman said:
The keeper is imminent, I have no idea about the timing on the others, but I'd assume we'll try and get them in as soon as possible(the permanent may take a bit longer than the others).
Click to expand...

I wouldn't expect anyone else but the keeper before the weekend. We are hopeful of at least one in next week, but others might be later in the window as they are out of our control to a certain extent.
 
could donny butt in andreject a bid if say we offered to pay them 3 million over a hundred years, where as someone else offered them cash straight up. surely they could reject us and accept the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back