Yes, that's exactly it and that's exactly what Simon was claiming when he started this thread
Just edited where I posted early.
Simon has admitted that interpretation is unfounded.
Yes, that's exactly it and that's exactly what Simon was claiming when he started this thread
Yes, that's exactly it and that's exactly what Simon was claiming when he started this thread
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.
By the way it always makes me laugh when Ken Bates gets blamed for ALL of Leeds woes. I can't remember the exact chronology of when he bought the club, but I'm pretty sure they were well up **** creek thanks to Risdale's spending/gambling of their money.
Sure he's a scumbag and I'm not trying to say he isn't, I just don't see how it's ALL his fault.

Just edited where I posted early.
Simon has admitted that interpretation is unfounded.

Yes, that's exactly it and that's exactly what Simon was claiming when he started this thread
I'm aware of what supporters trusts do, but he has every reason to imply that Snodgrass wanted to stay by suggesting there was an odd clause in the contract- this makes the club's owners look even worse.
How do you know those transfers didn't have buy back clauses? I'd be extremely surprised if Leeds did have first refusal on all of them if any of their clubs actively looks to sell.
Well I don't know why thats so unheard of to you (I don't think it is the case in this particular instance) but Robert Koren had a release clause in his contract that if anyone paid 500k then he could automatically speak to that club as does Demba Ba I believe with a figure of around 12m. This is purely to protect the player to stop the club basically holding them against there will and refusing to sell. Now I don't understand why its so tough to believe that lets say a release clause of 5m was in snoddy's contract (obviously thats not a real number) and if a number of clubs were to offer that including leeds, they would get the preference. Also it could be in a case of it being 4.5m for leeds and 5m for all the other clubs and knocking the 20% sell on clause on its head (pretty much every transfer these days has a sell-on clause of around 20% in it) so leeds get a lower transfer of buying the player and Norwich don't get stuffed out of any money (or not any decent amount of money)
By the way it always makes me laugh when Ken Bates gets blamed for ALL of Leeds woes. I can't remember the exact chronology of when he bought the club, but I'm pretty sure they were well up **** creek thanks to Risdale's spending/gambling of their money.
Sure he's a scumbag and I'm not trying to say he isn't, I just don't see how it's ALL his fault.
Well I don't know why thats so unheard of to you (I don't think it is the case in this particular instance) but Robert Koren had a release clause in his contract that if anyone paid 500k then he could automatically speak to that club as does Demba Ba I believe with a figure of around 12m. This is purely to protect the player to stop the club basically holding them against there will and refusing to sell. Now I don't understand why its so tough to believe that lets say a release clause of 5m was in snoddy's contract (obviously thats not a real number) and if a number of clubs were to offer that including leeds, they would get the preference. Also it could be in a case of it being 4.5m for leeds and 5m for all the other clubs and knocking the 20% sell on clause on its head (pretty much every transfer these days has a sell-on clause of around 20% in it) so leeds get a lower transfer of buying the player and Norwich don't get stuffed out of any money (or not any decent amount of money)

I know it's quite common on the continent (for example I think Barcelona have a set price to buy back Bojan from Roma), but it's not something I've heard of in England before, which is what piqued my interest in the first place. I wouldn't imagine, if this is the case, he would just come straight back, I would assume it would simply allow him to open talks if he wanted to, if not he would stay.


I agree, but that wouldn't be a buy back clause. That would be a release clause.
LUST's stance has been that Snodgrass felt he had to leave to get PL football because of the current regime, and was unconvinced it would change, which I think is pretty clear, not that he was forced out. Trying to imply he secretly wanted to stay would go against that, and that's not what he was claiming, simply that it was a tough decision that he's not necessarily 100% sure about.
Well it would technically be considered a buy-back clause because it creates a different scenario to if another club went in for him. Ever thought he may have a release clause in his contract (which is common) ASWELL as a buy-back clause
Well it would technically be considered a buy-back clause because it creates a different scenario to if another club went in for him. Ever thought he may have a release clause in his contract (which is common) ASWELL as a buy-back clause
no no no! sorry, i just can't let that go!!
snodgrass has no say in this - he can't suddenly decide he wants to move back to leeds and open talks with them!!
it is down to the club. to be honest, i think you've jumped on something and interpreted it completely wrongly and now you're just getting confused. if there is a clause, and i have no reason to doubt there isn't, it will purely be a first refusal option. mcnally is not someone to be strolled all over, which if this were the case, he would have been. norwich are run very carefully and are not going to add that leeds can buy him back at a set price - it will be a first option. if snodgrass becomes available for transfer, leeds are the first to know and if they can agree a fee then nobody else gets involved. it really is as simple and boring as that.
you've read way too much into it![]()
You're simply reading something else into it. You're claiming to know exactly what it is despite having as little information as any of us.
What do you think would have happened if the club and/or Snodgrass had insisted that such terms be included in the deal, and if not there would be no move?
Superman the furore is the fact that LUST are trying to imply that Snodgrass wanted to be with Leeds in the Prem all along and have been ambiguous about this clause to supposedly show more evidence. It's no surprise that Leeds fans would then grasp this, but as you say it is not a big deal