So what's with Naismith

[Lessingham Canary 99]

Tettey''s Jig

"We activated his min fee release clause when we bought him."

I believe there would still have been a sell on clause, even though Bournemouth bought him back, might also be a kick back to Rotherham involved.

[nutty nigel 7,533]

[quote user="Tetteys Jig"][quote user="nutty nigel"]Trying to do these sums can be fun but we don''t really know what we are adding up. I would guess that the miraculous increase in Grabbans value would be at least partly down to a sell on clause we had with Bournemouth. Having said that we surely still must have some budget to spend.[/quote]

What sell on clause?

We activated his min fee release clause when we bought him.[/quote]

As I said, it''s a guess because I can think of no reason for his miraculous increase in value. Honestly. As someone said to me today it would be like us buying Bradley Johnson back from Derby for 12m next season.

[Norfolkn Good 7]

So that means that the release clause would have needed to include a sell on clause - i.e. Can be sold if someone bids £3.5m but the sale must include a future sell on clause giving Bournemouth 50%

I seriously doubt this was the case

[Highland Canary 76]

So, it appears somewhat challenging to be competitive with either Bournemouth or Swansea, except in our level of support, which is more significant to our finances in the championship than premier league but, even here, less so since the apparent derogation of FFP regulation.

[Lessingham Canary 99]

Norfolk n good wrote "So that means that the release clause would have needed to include a sell on clause - i.e. Can be sold if someone bids £3.5m but the sale must include a future sell on clause giving Bournemouth 50%"

the % can be any amount depending on what is negotiated at the time of the deal.

[morty 0]

I see rumours are saying Swansea would like to sign Naismith. So much for all that tripe about not liking the area, or not wanting to move because his wife is pregnant.If he does go there, it will just prove it really all was about the £.

[Norfolkn Good 7]

It was just an example Lessingham not a statement of what was there - I don''t believe anyone has a release clause that includes a sell on clause as well - it''s a ridiculous idea (but then this is football so could be possible)

[King Klose 0]

Yep. Off to Swansea he goes because we won''t pay what he wants. Probably over like 5k a week or something.

[King Klose 0]

In addition though, if he does go there, they definitely have an overload of AMs. When you think they already have Ayew, Sigurdsson, Routledge, Montero, Barrow, Emnes and are about to sign De Guzman. All players that play in the 3 behind the striker in their 4231. Too many chiefs not enough Indians perhaps.

[nutty nigel 7,533]

Getting that much for him I think it was a Santa clause...

[FenwayFrank 2,459]

It could be 15k, you don''t know

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

Actually, it''s not so silly is it ?  After all a release clause basically lets a player leave if a club is willing to pay say £3.5m, so the current club might say "that''s ok but they''ve also got to agree a sell-on clause of 20% of any increased fee they get for an onward sale" or whatever.  Then clubs have a choice of agreeing to that, if they want to activate the release clause, otherwise it''s a normal negotiation.  It might make it easier to persuade a club to agree to a release clause.

[nutty nigel 7,533]

So is he going to Swansea now?

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

[quote user="Al Harrington"]Yep. Off to Swansea he goes because we won''t pay what he wants. Probably over like 5k a week or something.[/quote]

 

I wish someone would agree to pay me a piffling amount like £5k a week extra to move jobs.

[King Klose 0]

All relevant though isn''t it when people are already getting paid 30,40,50k a week already.

[ec-p 90]

A complete balls up of negotiations if he signs for Swansea

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

[quote user="Al Harrington"]All relevant though isn''t it when people are already getting paid 30,40,50k a week already.[/quote]

 

Well if it''s 30k, going up £5k is still a 16% pay rise which I also wish I could get.  And it could equally well be £15k, who knows ?  That Charlie Wyett tweet talked about "silly money".  If we''ve reached the limit on what we''re willing to offer for wages and he wouldn''t agree it, what can you say ?  But as has been pointed out, we''re just hoping that we''ve approached this sensibly and not tried to do it the same way that we''d try to pick up a player from the lower leagues.

[Temp the Revelator 0]

Sorry for bringing sanity to the thread, but all I have seen is that Swansea would be interested in signing him. Nothing at all to suggest that they have spoken to Everton or Naismith and nothing at all from that end. Let''s just wait and see what happens before damning the club.

[Chip20 69]

Temp beat me to it. Where is the concrete evidence that he has agreed to sign for Swansea or that they have got further in negotiations than we did?

[FenwayFrank 2,459]

Those last two posts are far too sensible, where are your pitchforks ?

[morty 0]

[quote user="Temp the Revelator"]Sorry for bringing sanity to the thread, but all I have seen is that Swansea would be interested in signing him. Nothing at all to suggest that they have spoken to Everton or Naismith and nothing at all from that end. Let''s just wait and see what happens before damning the club.[/quote]Nobody said otherwise, did they?And nobody was really damning the club either. But earlier in the thread it was implied, by more than a few that Naismith wasn''t sure about relocation, and his pregnant wife was suggested as one of the reasons. He also cited wanting to stay at Everton to fight for his place. Then it came from a reliable source that he would only move if he got a big money offer.So my point is / was, That despite being linked with us since the summer, all that other BS, is just BS, and its all about the £.And I have been to Swansea, I know where I would choose between there and Norwich, if we are talking about quality of family life.

[King Klose 0]

I think it''s more that people are used to what happens in these transfer windows from past experience with us, but point taken.

[nutty nigel 7,533]

Pregnant wife?

Wasn''t McNally was it....

[Essjayess 307]

20 pages....impressive.  Really hope Naismith stays at Goodison  till the Summer, you guys can waffle on with this pointless tripe and make it  longer than Fabio Quags topic. Oh waffle and tripe, reminds me im hungry.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Pregnant wife?

Wasn''t McNally was it....[/quote]Probably Russell Martin........he gets blamed for everything else. [:S]

[morty 0]

[quote user="Essjayess"]20 pages....impressive.  Really hope Naismith stays at Goodison  till the Summer, you guys can waffle on with this pointless tripe and make it  longer than Fabio Quags topic. Oh waffle and tripe, reminds me im hungry.[/quote]You do know that around 98% of what is discussed here about potential transfers / targets is tripe, don''t you?Should we just not talk about stuff like this then?

[Essjayess 307]

By all means, keep it coming, i did say its impressive. But the Fabio topic is over 100 pages so long way to go. Is there enough tripe in the county to get that far? Maybe Mr. Naismith can bring some with him from up north when he signs for us.

[King Klose 0]

[quote user="Essjayess"]20 pages....impressive.  Really hope Naismith stays at Goodison  till the Summer, you guys can waffle on with this pointless tripe and make it  longer than Fabio Quags topic. Oh waffle and tripe, reminds me im hungry.[/quote]

Yeah and the best bit is that you contributed about 10 pages of it.

[Essjayess 307]

True, i more than once said this should end as i was pretty tired of this saga, but it kept  on, so i have joined in with it, albeit light heartedly.

[Aveit 0]

It''s interesting you discount Swansea''s interest, based on a media site, we have no concrete information we have even made a bid, no deal agreed or player having a medical.

No one knows what is going, but one thing it''s not what we assumed.