It was just a release clause, there was never any suggestion it was relegation related, it was just an amount that could trigger a move at any point.
Diame's done one...
- Thread starter originallambrettaman
- Start date
It was just a release clause, there was never any suggestion it was relegation related, it was just an amount that could trigger a move at any point.
Im pretty sure they did say all the clauses were relegation related. Why would we sign a player who literally the day later would be allowed to leave for less than we paid?
I'm sure it wasn't relegation related and his release clause was obviously more than we signed him for, we made a seven figure profit.
When we got relegated some players had a pay cut and a release clause was inserted to compensate.
In some cases that release clause was set too low.In this case it was triggered and knowing that the capital outlay was too low the player was then able to negotiate a higher salary with his new club.
In some cases that release clause was set too low.In this case it was triggered and knowing that the capital outlay was too low the player was then able to negotiate a higher salary with his new club.
All the players had relegation wage clauses, but the release clauses were limited to a handful of them.
Once you negotiate a reduction in wages should a relegation occur, then the player (player's agent) negotiates a price which the club have to let him speak to other clubs
Whether you call it a relegation clause I'm not
Sure but it is relegation related - and it's usually our most sought after players that have them
Whether you call it a relegation clause I'm not
Sure but it is relegation related - and it's usually our most sought after players that have them
Diame didn't leave until Bruce had already ****ed off.
We sold Diame for more than we bought him for. Both sums were way below his potential value, so it's fair enough really.
And it wasn't a relegation clause, it was just a release clause. We weren't relegated when he left.
We sold Diame for more than we bought him for. Both sums were way below his potential value, so it's fair enough really.
And it wasn't a relegation clause, it was just a release clause. We weren't relegated when he left.
He probably insisted. We bought him for peanuts, he saw us as an opportunity to play centrally (it wasn't even to get game time as he was playing for West Ham, just shoe horned out wide and he wanted to play centrally) so why would he take the risk of coming to a relegation threatened club without a low get out of jail free card.
Some of you think the owners can just snap their fingers and do what they want, and thank **** they can't.
Edit: I misread your post and have just noticed you weren't whining about the figure in the release clause.
It wasn't relegation related, his release clause was £4.5m, anyone could trigger it at any point, what league we were in was completely irrelevant.
I agree. And if he did indeed insist on having a low release clause we should never have signed him in the first place.
it wasn't a "relegation clause" it was a "release clause"
we could have won the european champions cup and if newcastle were willing to pay the release amount he could go if he wanted to
we could have won the european champions cup and if newcastle were willing to pay the release amount he could go if he wanted to
That second sentence was sarcasm. As I said in my post above, we signed him cheap, sold him cheap at a profit. It's fair enough IMO. Everyone's a winner.
