[Archived] Nicko's January Rumour Mill

[Lathund]

Surely not? A clause like this says that any bid that meets the clause must be accepted. None of the bidding clubs would gain an advantage by going higher than that, so why would they do it?

[trueblue]

Surely not? A clause like this says that any bid that meets the clause must be accepted. None of the bidding clubs would gain an advantage by going higher than that, so why would they do it?

But does it actually say that? that the club MUST accept the first bid to reach the figure.... or does it mean he won't be allowed to leave for LESS than the quoted figure?

[Lathund]

Well I've obviously not read the fine print of RSCs contract, but these clauses usually work like I said. The club can accept a lower bid than the clause if they wish. They're something that the players put in to be able to have a greater say in where they'll get to play; allowing the selling club to pick and choose would defeat that purpose.

Perhaps it's best illustrated by Spanish football. By law, all players must have a minimum release fee in their contract, and so they do. But they're set to ridiculous sums like £120m etc, and yet Spanish players move for a lot less than that all the time.

[trueblue]

Well I've obviously not read the fine print of RSCs contract, but these clauses usually work like I said. The club can accept a lower bid than the clause if they wish. They're something that the players put in to be able to have a greater say in where they'll get to play; allowing the selling club to pick and choose would defeat that purpose.

Perhaps it's best illustrated by Spanish football. By law, all players must have a minimum release fee in their contract, and so they do. But they're set to ridiculous sums like £120m etc, and yet Spanish players move for a lot less than that all the time.

You miss my point bud.. you said that he would go to the first club to meet the release figure, I argue that with not if there are others bidding too.. surely he would go to the highest bidder (above the release clause)

[MCMC1875]

Surely not? A clause like this says that any bid that meets the clause must be accepted. None of the bidding clubs would gain an advantage by going higher than that, so why would they do it?

To get their man and beat off the opposition?

[waynerovers]

it wouldnt make a difference, the club still has to accept any bid at 18 million

[MCMC1875]

it wouldnt make a difference, the club still has to accept any bid at 18 million

Let's suppose 3 clubs bid £18m, £18.5m and £20m. The player will have his say methinks.

[tony gale's mic]

Let's suppose 3 clubs bid £18m, £18.5m and £20m. The player will have his say methinks.

No. Any bid which reaches £18 million would have to be accepted. There's no reason for any clubs to bid more than £18 million.

[The Prof.]

Let's suppose 3 clubs bid £18m, £18.5m and £20m. The player will have his say methinks.

Once over 18m you deal with the player. It's the players side who put the clause in. Just makes the wages bigger. Players has the say and won't care if we get 18 or 25m if his wages are 3m more at the 18m club he's off there.

[Lathund]

You miss my point bud.. you said that he would go to the first club to meet the release figure, I argue that with not if there are others bidding too.. surely he would go to the highest bidder (above the release clause)

No you're the one missing my point

I've never said he would go to the first club to meet the release clause, but the club has to accept every offer that meets the release clause. The player then chooses which of the clubs he wants to go to. The only way the size of the transfer fee would matter is if the player himself decided he wanted to go to the highest bidder. But usually all clubs would bid the same anyway in a situation like this.

To get their man and beat off the opposition?

They wouldn't beat off the opposition though. The club bidding £18m would get to talk to the player just as a club bidding £3bn would, if the clause was set to £18m or less.

[cruz]

Proof that the BBC, Sky and the internet sites could not live without newspapers.

Don't know why because the papers only make stuff up anyway and if two papers think of the same lie they agree to contradict each other

[tony gale's mic]

Yep £18m release clause, why would any club bid £20 million?

[S15]

Because if Santa Cruz gets a percentage of the fee, bidding more would increase the chances of him joining them.

[tony gale's mic]

Because if Santa Cruz gets a percentage of the fee, bidding more would increase the chances of him joining them.

It's a percentage though and an extra 2 million won't end up being more than 200k extra for Santa, players regularly get signing on fees of 500k upwards to a million and even more, can be made up for in wages too....I think he'd still pick the club he wants to go to more in terms of prestige, manager, wage offered etc.

[Lathund]

Because if Santa Cruz gets a percentage of the fee, bidding more would increase the chances of him joining them.

Or they could just offer him a bigger signing bonus and/or higher wages?

[Iceman]

18 mill plus Gago and Cruz can go.

[S15]

I'm just throwing in a potential answer.

The clause doesn't really tie in with suggestions of Rovers wanting over £20m for the player.

Personally giving the bloke a new contract seems like a huge error, especially if he leaves now. Why must we give any player who has a decent 6 months a fat new contract with a clause. History has shown it's never worked for us.

[Lathund]

I'm just throwing in a potential answer.

The clause doesn't really tie in with suggestions of Rovers wanting over £20m for the player.

I'm no stranger to playing devil's advocate either

Anyway, who can we really trust? Maybe the clause is £20m and not £18m, maybe it's not true that we want £20m, maybe some of the "facts" being reported are just more or less well-supported speculation? Personally I won't think too much on the details. Whatever will be, will be.

[PAFELL]

Proof that the BBC, Sky and the internet sites could not live without newspapers.

Same could have been said about the chippie years ago, they needed newspapers - until we joined Europe and the politically correct bunch of plonkers. It was once said that yesterdays news was todays fish and chip paper.

[Majiball]

Personally giving the bloke a new contract seems like a huge error, especially if he leaves now. Why must we give any player who has a decent 6 months a fat new contract with a clause. History has shown it's never worked for us.

Sorry RSC with 18 months left is not worth 20M, giving him a new contract helped push his price up.

[S15]

He originally signed a four year deal..

Hence, giving him more money was a waste of time, and was done for no other reason than to raise fan moral, and perhaps this will cost us quite alot of money in the long run, especially if the clause has been added.

[Oklahoma]

Nicko, italian press are reporting that Hull and WBA are interested in 34 year old midfielder Olivier Dacourt from Inter Milan.

Any truth in this?

I think that, despite his age, he could be a good short term option for our midfield.

[Iceman]

We have just released a has been in Fowler, and you mention Dacourt. We need a very good midfielder in central mid with Dunny injured AGAIN! It seems we have forgotten that Steven Reid still gets paid,yet he hasnt been playing for the last 25 years now lol

[philipl]

Well for the sake of clarity (and you can believe it or not), but Nicko said £18m release clause and Santa gets £2.5m.

I do not know whether that adds up to a £20.5m release clause but a lot of papers have been talking about £20m for Santa.

Citeh have just lost out to Real on Diarra. If Real are for real on Santa, I wonder if City will do what they did with Berb in the summer and decisively bid above the competing offer (remember City had £35m accepted by Spuds before Fergie met his man at Ringway and City settled for paying £32m for Robinho- didums- whilst Spuds cried over Berb and got £30.5m from the Mancs)?

Anyway Real Madrid coming in for RSC is one of the very few circumstances that I could see the price getting bid up above the clause number- whatever it is and if it exists.

Just a hunch by the way but the LT said no clause exists in January. Perhaps the clause has a time stipulated like Bellamy's did?- if only Cisse had waited another week to have broken his leg, Bellamy's clause would have lapsed!

[Scotty]

And I've got a wee belter about Wigan that will come out in the morning.

Cheers...

Was that the story about Zaki coming back late from a break in Egypt? The one where you said he'd been fined two weeks wages and dropped for today's game? Because I couldn't help noticing he started for Wigan today.