Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Michael Bates

Bid accepted for Nelson Oliveira fro reading?! Surely not...

Recommended Posts

[quote user="lappinitup"]Did your mind go blank wcc? [;)][/quote]Blank is it''s natural state; it''s the odd filled bits that cause me concern! [:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From Reading Tilehurst End Supporters site:

However club sources have informed TTE that the transfer is a non-starter, in spite of HITC''s and local media reports that the deal was as far along as an agreement between the clubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oliveira will NOT be joining Reading this summer.

''The Tilehurst End'' pours cold water on the rumour.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And some people are creating facts (like an 8mill release clause) to fit the narrative of these *** merchants.
That actually is YOU making that up. All that has been said is if a player has a release clause set at a certain sum the club cannot refuse a move.  All players will have a similar clause, that is standard practice. No one, bar you, is stating that it is £8mIf we were to have a release clause it would certainly be above the

10mill mark. No way we''d put it in at 8mill. There''s no evidence of a

release clause anyway.  People are speaking as if the release clause is

fact, but it is an imaginary construct, created to fit the narrative of a

story off a rumour mill website. I think we need a sense of perspective

here.
Again that is you making things up. No one knows anything about the amount or any other conditions - merely comments on what a release clause and how it would impact on the club.A release clause is NOT "an imaginary construct,". The imagination is coming from you claiming that you know, when you don''t.As far as I can see it is nothing more than a rumourIf, again repeat IF City were to sell Oliveira that might, note the word MIGHT, be due to a release clause thereby obliging the club to honour that part of the contractthat''s all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a point of order I believe Liverpool successfully managed to resist a release clause in the case of Suarez arguing it only required them to consider an offer not accept it! May, however, have been down to the wording of the specific clause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I''ve read something earlier from Jaap Stam saying Reading fans shouldn''t expect them to be spending ''millions and millions'' on players. That suggests they won''t be able to meet our valuation, which I assume (and hope) is higher than £5m.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Other than higher wages what would he gain ?At the moment it is working here for him. He looks to be the first choice and better the devil etc...Still, it was a handy stick for someand a way of keeping the farm hands in an excited state - given how there is far call going on at poorman road

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Captain Haddock"]And some people are creating facts (like an 8mill release clause) to fit the narrative of these *** merchants.
That actually is YOU making that up. All that has been said is if a player has a release clause set at a certain sum the club cannot refuse a move.  All players will have a similar clause, that is standard practice. No one, bar you, is stating that it is £8mIf we were to have a release clause it would certainly be above the

10mill mark. No way we''d put it in at 8mill. There''s no evidence of a

release clause anyway.  People are speaking as if the release clause is

fact, but it is an imaginary construct, created to fit the narrative of a

story off a rumour mill website. I think we need a sense of perspective

here.
Again that is you making things up. No one knows anything about the amount or any other conditions - merely comments on what a release clause and how it would impact on the club.A release clause is NOT "an imaginary construct,". The imagination is coming from you claiming that you know, when you don''t.As far as I can see it is nothing more than a rumourIf, again repeat IF City were to sell Oliveira that might, note the word MIGHT, be due to a release clause thereby obliging the club to honour that part of the contract
[/quote]
I think you were the first to mention a release clause actually, and others chiming in with this being considered as plausible. Probably OTT with my assessment of the situ re: fact invention etc, but that doesn''t change the fact that there is nothing to support that supports that train of thought.
I never said release clauses are an imaginary construct by the way, I said in this case it is an imaginary construct as there is literally nothing pointing to that conclusion. 
If it were any of the plausible scenarios that this is anything other than rumour mill nonsense (ie Agent stirring the pot etc) and there was a release clause, it would have come out in the wash. If there really was a bid accepted via that route, it would have said "release clause met" in the "news" about it, not "bid accepted". If it were NCFC trying to soften the blow to the supporters by leaking the news (leaving aside that it would have presumably dropped from Mashiter) then they would have focused on the release clause aspect, if it was the agent trying to stir the pot, then presumably he would also leak the release clause in a bid to draw out interest from a bigger club than Reading. There is no scenario where there is a release clause that has been met, but not reported/leaked, that makes any sense.
I get the "might" and "if" bit, but I also refer back to the fact that there is absolutely nothing suggesting Nelson even has a release clause, let alone has one that has been triggered, so I don''t understand the point of bringing it to the discussion when it''s pretty much implausible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was inferred that City were selling..... again, fire sale etcI merely added that IF Oliveira was sold it could be that it was due to there being a release clause triggeredIf numpties then choose to misread this there''s nothing I can do about thatmy point still standsit is not necessarily ''wicked unambitious'' clubs selling, merely in some cases they have no option but to allow the player to movethat''s all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Diane"]Just another silly rumour someone made up grrr[/quote]they mostly arein can be fun when one ''gets legs'' so to speak... or so I have been reliably informed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...