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.
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'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. And I agree with Thai- as I said in my first post,both Simon and Josh are always welcome on here.
When Ken Bates "saved" us in 2005 we were in danger of going into administration... ... in 2007 we went into administration.
Not until post 120 though, took him some time. If he'd have said that earlier I'd have given up on this thread ages ago
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)
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.
I've always said everything that goes wrong at the club isn't always his fault equally as everything that goes right at the club isn't his fault. Some fans do like to point a finger and since he is the reason fans are protesting, its him the finger gets pointed at normally. Not to say he hasn't done his fair share of faulty work at the club. And you are right, we were in the **** when he took over but things could have gone considerably better since he has taken over, lets put it that way
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
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
It's all semantics, but that in no way is incompatible with wanting to imply he has a specific contractual chance to come back. I wasn't saying it was secret- it was shouted loud and clear many times to us that Snodgrass apparently wanted to stay. The statement you reported implied that Snodgrass wanted to be with Leeds in the Prem, which this clause would supposedly allow. That is precisely in line with LUST's stance on the saga. Probably, the clause does nothing of the sort, but LUST were not lying despite having every reason to be ambiguous.
That's just pure speculation. All we know is that Snodgrass has a buy back clause. That's normal. And you're being taken for a ride if you think this is anything special. He may even have a release clause, but that would also be (now) not particularly unusual
norwich do not know how much snodgrass will be worth in twelve months time. they are not going to put a future value on his head at a stage where we could potentially swap divisions by that time with the team in question. that would be business madness! he could be worth £15m this time next year but what, we have to sell to leeds for £4.5m if they want him back? get serious! honestly, this is an incredibly basic clause which is inserted in many players deals, which is why i cannot understand all the furore over it!
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
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?
No, we're just saying it more likely to be a normal clause than an abnormal one, which is logical. Of course, there is a chance it might be unusual, but that would be... Unusual... The difference is that we actually know what a normal clause would say. As for your second question, then there would be no move.
He's said before himself that being in the PL with us would be his ideal situation, he clearly felt that wasn't going to happen and I don't disagree with him.
