Have you got any reason to believe that? I can assure you that most contracts have them. They are not a bad thing for any club- that's why they're included. The speed and ease of the transfer (given that I would have thought Croft's signature would be hotly contested by Championship clubs) indicates that Brighton had an exclusive opportunity. Naturally, the fact that Croft's probably liked the club would have helped them come to an agreement, but it doesn't stop there being a clause in the first place. I think the problem is that people assume these clauses are very powerful. They are not. All they say is that if Norwich want to sell, they must go to the previous club first (Brighton). Norwich name a price and if Brighton are willing to pay that and the player is happy, he signs. If Brighton aren't willing, Norwich can then offer elsewhere. so Norwich get the price they want, and Brighton get the player they want without any other parties cocking it up. These clauses really are no big deal
FOR THE LAST TIME READ MY POST. NO ONE CARES BECAUSE THE CLAUSE IS NORMAL. I'm afraid itseems you've fallen for your LUST chairman's trick here.
absolutely right rob. oh and yellowlittle, i don't know for sure but i'd guess it was less than i believe he is worth. i'd say he's a £1m player quite easily but i bet we got half that max
Sorry mate, I got it wrong. For some reason I thought we signed him on a free (god knows why all the undisclosed business probably didn't help), which made me think it couldn't be. I do think there are a lot more of them around then we realise. He could well have had one, I did edit that post by the way that I got it wrong
If you don't care then don't get involved, I'm not trying to start arguments. You can state it's normal, but it came as news to Leeds fans and if you think it's some kind of trick then you clearly don't know what the guy is like, and it would unnecessarily damage their own cause.
No need to apologise- I'm not saying you're wrong! If he came on a free you may well be right- but I though he was signed.
if you're going to deliberately misinterpret what I wrote, there's no point dealing with you. You acted put out that Norwich fans don't see this as news- I explained why we don't care. I need to post in order to explain... It's not that I don't care about the post, it's the clause I don't care about "Trick" is obviously the wrong word, but don't be naive- the LUST Chair is supposed to make supporters feel better. He will say ambiguous things like this to make you feel better, but it's not big deal. Like I said, read my original post because eIve explained it all
I got put out when I was accused of being on the wind up and then told by the same people they don't care anyway. And you clearly don't actually know what LUST do.
The fact that you have a) deliberately misinterpreted (again) my comments about LUST and b)still failed to address anything I said in my original post is beginning to make me think you are WUMMing after all. I didnt accuse you of wumming. I didn't say I didn't care about the thread. I said I didn't care about the clause. I don't. The LUST Chair has every reason to want to give Leeds fans a reason to be cheerful. If you don't see that, with all due respect, you are a little naive. That is not to say the guy doesn't do his best to protect your interests or that he isn't honest with you, just that he also has to protect his.
Ok then, so back to my original question - has anyone ever been aware of anybody ever activating this buy back clause where an agreed amount is set at which the selling club can then rebuy the player as long as they offer the full value of the clause? (because this is what this thread was about, and was what Simon originally claimed, not about what clause Crofts had in his contract)
Just to clarify, do you mean for example: Newtown Rovers (Prem) buy John Smith from Newtown United (Champ) for £1m, but with a clause saying that Newtown United can buy him back for £3m at any time. Newtown United get promoted and then activate the clause and buy John Smith for £3m. No I havent heard of a clause like that. They could exist, but it would be a bit odd. I think it would be a little pointless, given that the new club would be unhappy with the possibility of losing out on the (potential) full market value of the player and the old club is essentially agreeing to make a loss on a player.
And I've never said there no was first refusal clause with Crofts, just that it's quite different from what Simon is claiming. The first refusal clause only takes effect when and if we want to sell someone, Simon was suggesting that Leeds could simply prise him from us I they offered enough which I'm certain was not the case with Crofts
I didn't say you specifically were accusing me of wumming, I was explaining why I was starting to get slightly worked up. I wasn't aware there was anything I haven't been addressing, clearly didn't notice and I haven't been looking back. LUST are actively involved in getting rid of Bates, they actively work to bring to light many of the wrongs of the Bates regime that might not have been immediately apparent, and then they decide to make people think the deal to sell Snodgrass was better than it is I'm afraid that simply makes no sense. If anything he's known for downplaying things, this would be completely out of character and serve no purpose for LUST. What made it interesting to me is that this is not normal for us, we have no such clauses on the Gradel/Howson/Delph etc. deals, so however often your club may use them it's new to us, and I'm sorry for clearly misjudging how much interest it would be to you.
I missed most of all this last night but will step in now and support this claim by Simon. He is not a wum (not by any stretch of the imagination), he really is one of the good guys, cut him slack eh lads
Not claiming that's fact, that's simply what my understanding of a "buy-back clause" is. It could just be first refusal but I was simply taking the wording at face value.
