Mr.Carrow 376 Posted August 5, 2009 [quote user="NCFC_Thain"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]YY, to be honest if there was evidence of sell-on clauses which benefit the player were widespread in the game i`d be the first to admit old Doomy was right. There really isn`t, and i remember even at the time he made the above quote West Brom were auctioning off 3 players for about £15m which effectively bankrolled their promotion. Look at Leeds- not a sell-on clause in sight for Delph or Beckford.IMO Doomy was more than happy with sell-on clauses because in his spinny little mind he realised he could flog a player off for a profit and then claim there was nothing the club could do about it because of that nasty sell-on clause. I`m confident that with someone who`s actually experienced and knows something about football now in charge we`ll see a clear change- it just obviously should have happened 3-4 years ago.[/quote]Bradford actually got around 650k in sell on clauses after Delph''s transfer to Villa[/quote]That`s not the sort of sell-on clause we`re on about mate, we`re talking about the kind inserted in a contract stating that if an offer for x amount comes in for the player they can go- these usually benefit the player more than the club and it seems to me they are nowhere near the "fact of footballing life" Doomy would have us believe. Doomy did negotiate Hoolihans contract though......[:O] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Green and Yellow 0 Posted August 5, 2009 FFS, it is one thing to sell him, but don''t sell him to a promotion rival Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Green and Yellow 0 Posted August 5, 2009 [quote user="Earlsfield"]Hypothetically of course. What if the board did sell Wes in the Jan transfer window, but softened the blow with bringing Hucks back. Who would be happy with this?As far as i''m concerned we need to build our team round Wes - Hucks is past it, we need to move. Although I would not be adverse to a coaching role for him.[/quote]As much as Huckerby has been a good servent he is the past and Hoolahan is part the future. So I agree with you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pete_norw 0 Posted August 5, 2009 And it realy gives my arse an headache Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCFC_Thain 0 Posted August 5, 2009 [quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="NCFC_Thain"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"] YY, to be honest if there was evidence of sell-on clauses which benefit the player were widespread in the game i`d be the first to admit old Doomy was right. There really isn`t, and i remember even at the time he made the above quote West Brom were auctioning off 3 players for about £15m which effectively bankrolled their promotion. Look at Leeds- not a sell-on clause in sight for Delph or Beckford.IMO Doomy was more than happy with sell-on clauses because in his spinny little mind he realised he could flog a player off for a profit and then claim there was nothing the club could do about it because of that nasty sell-on clause. I`m confident that with someone who`s actually experienced and knows something about football now in charge we`ll see a clear change- it just obviously should have happened 3-4 years ago.[/quote]Bradford actually got around 650k in sell on clauses after Delph''s transfer to Villa[/quote]That`s not the sort of sell-on clause we`re on about mate, we`re talking about the kind inserted in a contract stating that if an offer for x amount comes in for the player they can go- these usually benefit the player more than the club and it seems to me they are nowhere near the "fact of footballing life" Doomy would have us believe. Doomy did negotiate Hoolihans contract though......[:O][/quote] That''ll teach me for only reading half the thread [:P] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lurd 0 Posted August 5, 2009 [quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="NCFC_Thain"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"] YY, to be honest if there was evidence of sell-on clauses which benefit the player were widespread in the game i`d be the first to admit old Doomy was right. There really isn`t, and i remember even at the time he made the above quote West Brom were auctioning off 3 players for about £15m which effectively bankrolled their promotion. Look at Leeds- not a sell-on clause in sight for Delph or Beckford.IMO Doomy was more than happy with sell-on clauses because in his spinny little mind he realised he could flog a player off for a profit and then claim there was nothing the club could do about it because of that nasty sell-on clause. I`m confident that with someone who`s actually experienced and knows something about football now in charge we`ll see a clear change- it just obviously should have happened 3-4 years ago.[/quote]Bradford actually got around 650k in sell on clauses after Delph''s transfer to Villa[/quote]That`s not the sort of sell-on clause we`re on about mate, we`re talking about the kind inserted in a contract stating that if an offer for x amount comes in for the player they can go- these usually benefit the player more than the club and it seems to me they are nowhere near the "fact of footballing life" Doomy would have us believe. Doomy did negotiate Hoolihans contract though......[:O][/quote]Not a sell on fee at all then, you mean a release fee. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Empty Mirror 0 Posted August 5, 2009 If Hoolahan had a release clause (not a sell on clause, that''s something else!) in his contract, the offers would have come in by now. His agent would have been on the phone stirring up bids, pointing out just how much had to be bid. Think of Marshall. The fact that there have apparently been no offers tells us that Wes has no release clause. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr.Carrow 376 Posted August 5, 2009 [quote user="Empty Mirror"]If Hoolahan had a release clause (not a sell on clause, that''s something else!) in his contract, the offers would have come in by now. His agent would have been on the phone stirring up bids, pointing out just how much had to be bid. Think of Marshall. The fact that there have apparently been no offers tells us that Wes has no release clause. [/quote]Yes release clause is the correct term- i think it`s pretty obvious what we`ve been discussing on this thread even if the phraseology was wrong....There are various reasons why there may not have been a bid for him even if he does have a release clause- they may have been concerned about his injury last season, they may have had doubts about his impact last season, they may have felt his wage demands would be too high, or they may believe the release clause is set too high. That doesn`t mean that a club who`ve just sold some players might not look at him and decide he`s worth a shot as a replacement- let`s hope not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snoots 0 Posted August 5, 2009 [quote user=" Baldrick"][quote user="Earlsfield"] Hypothetically of course. What if the board did sell Wes in the Jan transfer window, but softened the blow with bringing Hucks back. Who would be happy with this?As far as i''m concerned we need to build our team round Wes - Hucks is past it, we need to move. Although I would not be adverse to a coaching role for him.[/quote]As much as Huckerby has been a good servent he is the past and Hoolahan is part the future. So I agree with you.[/quote] For Gawd''s sake, no one is suggesting that Hucks is a straight replacement for Hoolahan. Get a grip ! Let''s hope we retain Hoolahan and also get Hucks whose impact upon the team and club can only be positive. As so many have already stated, it would be great to have Hucks on the bench ready and willing to get on the pitch for, say, a vigorous last 20 minutes of a game. Let''s hope he is brought onto the pitch over the Christmas period and the announcement is made that he is joining the club just like happened a few years ago ! And we all know what happened that season ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
