Does anyone think this might have something to do with Fergie's comments about Allardyce's sacking? Or am I being kind and they're just totally clueless?
Phil Jones to United | Transfer to Champions complete
- Thread starter mubarak
- Start date
- Status
Doubt it. I wouldn't read much more than Venky wanting £9 million spondoolies more...
No, sorry, that still makes absolutely no sense to me.
The club doesn't have a say after the clause is met. They can't auction the player away, it's out of their hands.
If all 3 clubs trigger the clause then it's up to the player and the player alone. Them paying the club extra wouldn't result in anything at all.
In the end, no matter what, the player is the one who has to decide, and if he can't then he'll have to flip a coin.
Why would they up their offer if they don't have to? They would just offer the player more money if other teams are interested.
Sorry - Tried my best!
If 3 clubs meet the release clause - someone has to choose. My example was in the unlikely scenario that the player didn't want to choose!
Right I agree - but if in this example/scenario the player wasn't bothered. So who decides? You can't sell one player to 3 clubs!
Yes of course in reality the player would decide. But we have seen in the past where players just wanted the selling club (not Manchester United) to get the best possible deal for selling them. it has happened.
This was just meant to by a hypothetical scenario. Was meant to demonstrate that at the end of the day - the fact that Phil Jones DID want to come to us and the fact that we HAD met the release clause means it would go through no matter what VENKY says.
I was trying to illustrate that only in this HIGHLY UNLIKELY scenario that the player wouldn't make a choice could Blackburn choose to sell at a higher price to someone else.
Storm in a teacup. If Gill and the high priced lawyers made such an elementary mistake, they'd be on their bikes faster than you can say Peter Kenyon.
Because in the absence of a preference by the player and the presence of the other 2 teams they can now establish the market price.
Listen, te player in this hypothetical example doesn't want to choose. He's not bothered. So the power in the negotiations goes back to the selling club.
The release clause in this example just says 'we have to sell now' but as the player isn't bothered he goes to the highest bidder.
The buying club would pay higher if they were trying to ward off other teams.
Note this isn't the case with Phil Jones who HAS stated he DOES want to come to United. Because United HAVE triggered the release clause I was just trying to illustrate that there can be no higher price to us or anyone else!
The only way there could be a higher price is if Jones says "Arsenal, Liverpool, and Spurs were also interested in me. Do you know what - I truly don't know which would be the best team to play for. I've played for Blackburn since I was 3 years old and they gave me a chance. Let's ensure they're really happy and let them choose who I play for!"
I've been reading a thread on blackburn.vitalfootball. These quotes are from two seperate people claiming that they have some sort of inside information, and one of them hinting that he is a journalist of some kind:
This is all likely nonsense, but it might point to yet another strategy that Blackburn's owners are prepared to employ in order to leverage more money for the Jones transfer. It appears increasingly obvious that they are extremely annoyed that Jones was allowed to sign a contract extension with a £16m release clause and that they are prepared to go to great lengths to extract more money from United.
This is all likely nonsense, but it might point to yet another strategy that Blackburn's owners are prepared to employ in order to leverage more money for the Jones transfer. It appears increasingly obvious that they are extremely annoyed that Jones was allowed to sign a contract extension with a £16m release clause and that they are prepared to go to great lengths to extract more money from United.
If he's not bothered most interested clubs would just walk away and focus on other targets.
Gathering dirt to try and extract more money is blackmail, tbf. Illegal > breach of the spirit of rules on a player with a release clause that you intend to meet
Don't believe any of it. United and SAF have been at this too long to go around tapping up a player like Jones.
And NO journalist would put that up on a message board.
Seals the deal for me, this guy knows inside stuff. I have regularly seen truthful articles end with captials LOL's.
Jones is ours, they're just embarassing themselves because he will never put on a Blackburn shirt again. They might squeeze a few millions from us mind, but he's definitely worth it, top top prospect.
Those cnuts would put u off Chicken... temporarily of course. Has to be some element in truth regardin this. Did Wenger not know what his buy-out clause was before he spoke to him? Sure we all knew from the papers, from atleast March what it was. Those feckers should name a stand at Ewood - "Sam Mannella Stand". Englands not a 3rd World Country, u cant feck everyone over like u've been doin. cnuts!
Dear RHD.. I need your advice. My girlfriend recently stated I could do her anally for £16. This was agreed in a contract. I paid her the £16 expecting to see her bend over before my eyes. In fact, she claims the £16 was to pay to have a discussion with her regarding the doing her anally. She has since explained she wants a further £9, bringing the overall total to £25 to have anal sex with her. What do I do?
I do vaguely remember that happening once before a few years ago (not in England). Can't remember the player or club, but basically the club was on the verge of going bankrupt and they had one player who would bring in a bit or money so they were willing to sell him. He loved the club so much he made it obvious he didn't want to go, but if they felt it was the best for the club he'd join whoever offered them the most money. I can't remember if there was a release clause in his contract, but if there was he wouldn't have been interested in using it.
However, that situation is a very very unique one. Nothing like Jones (or anybody else) is in at the moment. Any other time the player will always have a preference, whether because he feels it's a better club, more chance of playing, or simply higher wages. At which case, if three or more clubs have met the release clause, there is no point going above that as it doesn't make any difference to him whether club has offered 18m (the base amount) or 25m.
Sit down with her Avon Agent, explain to her that u know people who know people, that do people. When she dries up - offer her a soggy biscuit & a cup of tea. Deal closed - ass opened!
Talking to the player behind the club's back is not illegal as long as the minimum release clause will be met. We did that with De Gea's agents and Athletico's owners were not pissed off by it. Its basically like checking some information about the product on the internet before actually buying it. Things get messy if the player has no minimum release clause. In that case its illegal since its seen as an unethical way to influence the player and drive the price down.
I wouldn't worry about it - the FA are bound to come down on United's side
have a bad feeling about this now...
Clearly in this case you pay her the £9, and then shag her rotten....
But this has nothing to do with United.
Kinell, here I was thinking this was one of the swiftest transfers in a long time.
I really hope this ends up being a bizarre misunderstanding of their rights (if any of this is true) by the owners leaving them egg faced.
After all I've heard about Phil Jones it would be terrible for this one to go wrong now.
After all I've heard about Phil Jones it would be terrible for this one to go wrong now.
Total nonsense.
United were one of at least two clubs that met the asking price. Blackburn can't accuse United of tapping him up without explaining how the other clubs knew the value of the get-out clause.
That whole exchange sounds like the type of bullshit dreamt up by fans to convince themselves their club somehow has an ace up it's sleeve. The sort of nonsense Glastonspur came out with when Levy embarrassed himself with that "dossier".
We're Man utd, we do things by the book.
Catchy, and also in the main true I think, particularly in regards to transfers.
Catchy, and also in the main true I think, particularly in regards to transfers.
That's wishful thinking bobbins.
Alan Nixon of the Mirror, who originally broke the news of our bid to get Jones, also says Blackburn are mostly stalling while trying to find out how we knew we can get him for a 16m release clause. And also why he chose United so quickly. Illegal approach and all that.
Seeing as united, arsenal and tottenham all offered to meet the release clause there's either a whole lot of "illegal approaching" going on or the clowns in Blackburn have no idea how the transfer system works.
Come to think of it, that would also explain why they keep talking about completely unrealistic signings and repeatedly fail to deliver. Have they successfully signed anyone yet?
Come to think of it, that would also explain why they keep talking about completely unrealistic signings and repeatedly fail to deliver. Have they successfully signed anyone yet?
A decade ago Middlesbrough blamed Liverpool for an illegal approach to Christian Ziege. This was brought up by the fact Liverpool knew they could just match his release clause (5.5m), and Boro were angry that Liverpool got wind of the figure (clearly through the agent/player), when the wording in the contract made it clear details of it cannot be given to a third party. Well, from what I could see, Liverpool were fined 20k.
You could, obviously wonder how clubs know the release clause of a player in another club. But if they don't, what's the use of it for the player? We all know such little bits of information go between clubs and agents. It's possibly a little against the rules, but I think most accept it because it makes the transfer system easier. If everyone went 100% with the rules, it would make things very complicated. Just think how much time clubs would waste discussing terms for a player who then tells them they are not even interested in the move.
You could, obviously wonder how clubs know the release clause of a player in another club. But if they don't, what's the use of it for the player? We all know such little bits of information go between clubs and agents. It's possibly a little against the rules, but I think most accept it because it makes the transfer system easier. If everyone went 100% with the rules, it would make things very complicated. Just think how much time clubs would waste discussing terms for a player who then tells them they are not even interested in the move.
We'll be seeing Blackburn in the lower divisions in a few years.
The Phil Jones release clause wasnt exactly a secret
£16m release clause in Phil Jones' contract with Blackburn Rovers (From Lancashire Telegraph)
before we reportedly made the bid
point being, once the player wants/is ready to leave, the agent will spread the word about the release clause about.
It has nothing to do with United acting inappropriately. Clubs knew about the clause, those who thought he was worth the money made the bid.
£16m release clause in Phil Jones' contract with Blackburn Rovers (From Lancashire Telegraph)
before we reportedly made the bid
point being, once the player wants/is ready to leave, the agent will spread the word about the release clause about.
It has nothing to do with United acting inappropriately. Clubs knew about the clause, those who thought he was worth the money made the bid.
hopefully
Worst thing that could happen in this case - is that Phil Jones get so upset with Blackburn for trying to trick him out of his dream-move. Rest assured that he expects the escape clause to be valid!
We agree to pay Blackburn a couple of million more and he is ours. Not that I think United will pay more - but that imo is the worst case scenario
If Phil Jones feels that he is cheated by his own club - it will backfire on Blackburn as he will refuse to play for them - and they are in a situation where they get no money and a very unhappy player.
We agree to pay Blackburn a couple of million more and he is ours. Not that I think United will pay more - but that imo is the worst case scenario
If Phil Jones feels that he is cheated by his own club - it will backfire on Blackburn as he will refuse to play for them - and they are in a situation where they get no money and a very unhappy player.
Just fecking sell him you slimeballs.
what's new? As soon as United are involved there's the usual outrage. When United were said to be interested in Joe Cole at West Ham, the outrage was unbelievable - the usual "who do they think they are - they'll have to pay 15m" crap was all over the back pages. He went to the Chavs for 6m. Now we 've had l'arse, Spurs and the dippers sniffing around Jones without a problem. Enter United and the $$$$$ signs are rotating in their very eyes.
If United are found to be contravening the rulebook, the FA can deal with Arse, pool and Spurs as well because they've clearly made the same moves with Jones' agent.
If United are found to be contravening the rulebook, the FA can deal with Arse, pool and Spurs as well because they've clearly made the same moves with Jones' agent.
Minimum release clauses are inserted in contracts by agents as an incentive. A given club knows that player X has a minimum release clause Y and if he gives that sum of money then he will have the player without the need of negotiating with the club owners. If minimum release clauses are made secret then it would defeat the scope of making minimum release clauses in the first place.
Okay the thing here is that Blackburn would have to prove how they have missed out here. Manchester United probably went through the agent to get the release clause, and the agent will confirm that Blackburn were happy to speak as long as the release clause was met. The release clause WAS met. So Blackburn were happy to sell at that price and happy for Blackburn to speak to all suitors.
If United spoke beforehand, then it is still of no consequence since they met the release clause - they will argue (and probably win) - there is no detriment to Blackburn here.
Why a young player, born and raised in Lancashire, took little time to choose reigning Premier League champions Manchester United instead of relocating to London or going to Liverpool who won't even be in European competition next season?
Mystery indeed.
- Status