Wan-Bissaka for sale | joins West Ham

Status
Not open for further replies.
Doracle said:
Sure. We can banish him to the reserves/not play him and he might not be able to get as good a deal with another club. We still pay him £4.5m and miss out on any transfer fee though, so a loss to us of £20m essentially.
Click to expand...

Yes. But we're setting precedent.

Dont feck around when your time is up. We're ruthless and we can treat you like shit until you throw up
 
Aren't payoffs pretty standard for a player leaving a club in football, if it's the club that want the player to leave?
 
Lash said:
Nothing wrong with it at all. Also hard to expect someone to be loyal to a company that's actively trying to get rid of you.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

The moment a player form drops, fans and clubs move to get rid of them.

Players have every right to try and extract as much money as they can.
 
Seen this before, with us and other teams.
We'll separate them from the first team squad in the hope that they'll get the message that they're surplus to requirements, only to see them wander back into the full team squad when we're unable to move them on when the window shuts.
 
What looked on the face of it as a very straight forward transfer to complete seems to be dragging on. Shouldn’t be surprised though, it’s the same old story when it comes to us shifting players on.
 
TsuWave said:
Exactly.

The moment a player form drops, fans and clubs move to get rid of them.

Players have every right to try and extract as much money as they can.
Click to expand...
Lots of rumours about him wanting to move back to London and not wanting to extend. So it's not so cut and dried. He can be a back up all season for all I care, his fee etc will all be amortised so 10 million or whatever he gets isn't vital. I'd expect West Ham to buy someone else so that's 1 less club that'd be interested in him next summer.
 
Also, it's a huge risk as he can get a career threatening injury and be flippin' burgers at McDonald's for the rest of his life. The risk/reward is not as favorable as it sounds.
 
Adisa said:
We want him out.
He knows we want him out.
He’s going to start next weekend.
Then we wonder why players play with a poor attitude.
Click to expand...
WHy though? He still gets paid. And he needs to play well for his next contract, whether with us or other Club.
 
Judas said:
It's not AWB fault we have been run by absolute idiots. He's simply doing what most would in this situation.
Click to expand...
It’s The Glazer’s fault that we’ve been run by absolute idiots.

It’s Wan-Bissaka’s fault that he’s not done enough to warrant a spot at United, and it’s his fault if he want’s to hang around watching games to collect money without helping the club or the supporters doing so.

If you would have done the same, that’s on you, not everybody else.

It’s my fault if I was annoyed at both of you and stared booing at you every home game.
 
Should be sent to the reserves. We need to be ruthless, anyone who is refusing to be sold(and in turn blocking our necessary incoming transfers) need to be made an example off.
 
I really cant stand another season of AWB and his dreadful on the ball play. Goddamn I was hoping we would get some proper footballers in.
 
Red_toad said:
Lots of rumours about him wanting to move back to London and not wanting to extend. So it's not so cut and dried. He can be a back up all season for all I care, his fee etc will all be amortised so 10 million or whatever he gets isn't vital. I'd expect West Ham to buy someone else so that's 1 less club that'd be interested in him next summer.
Click to expand...

Nothing you said changes anything I said. So yeah, pretty cut and dry. I'd be doing the exact same thing he is, and I have a feeling most - or at the very least a substantial amount of professionals - would be doing the same.

The rage on these forums is often over the top.
 
Adisa said:
We want him out.
He knows we want him out.
He’s going to start next weekend.
Then we wonder why players play with a poor attitude.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter, he has never been good at going up front. He has almost always done a decent job at the back, but no matter his attitude, he is atrocious going upfront.
 
DutchSerb said:
7m is insane.
Click to expand...
If such a clause does exist (and it still doesn’t make sense to me, especially not at 50%), then Woodward and his pals’ incompetence is even worse than I thought it was. Staggering. Investment bankers my arse. Woodward was so far out of his depth and incompetent in running a football club, it’s not even funny.
 
Ish said:
If such a clause does exist (and it still doesn’t make sense to me, especially not at 50%), then Woodward and his pals’ incompetence is even worse than I thought it was. Staggering. Investment bankers my arse. Woodward was so far out of his depth and incompetent in running a football club, it’s not even funny.
Click to expand...
That's what you get when you run a football club purely off a balance sheet and see players as 'assets'.
 
Crimson King said:
I think it's written into the contracts that if the +1 is activated and then they're sold before it ends then they're entitled to a % of the transfer fee.

Apparently that's what happened with Fred too.
Click to expand...
That sounds pretty fair if that’s in his contract. Otherwise clubs just activate the +1 to sell for more. Now they activate the +1 and both parties benefit from it. But he should have been sold way before the +1 so we could have gotten the full transfer fee. But that’s because of the old regime i guess. We need some years to get all these shit decisions from the past out.
 
Crimson King said:
That's what you get when you run a football club purely off a balance sheet and see players as 'assets'.
Click to expand...
Even then, it’s absolutely fecking staggering (sorry for the language, Woodwards name just triggers me). He knew how to sign up a noodle partner but had little to no clue as to how to run a football club.
 
roonster09 said:
Click to expand...


Imagine if a big part salary was tied up to number of games in squad or starting eleven somehow. We would have so much more leverage in these situations. Same with Sancho. Yeah, you make £300k a week if you are in the squad 38 PL games. If your in the squad none it is one third of that. Half? £200k.

We would be able to pay the ones who actually play alot more. It would not be to save money, some players would have contracts that was potenially a lot more worth than today. Just have some sort of controll when we want players to leave.
 
I mean if its in his contract then i guess you pay it. Realistically you probably just dont sell him and deal with it in a years time.
If its not in his contract then you send him to the reserves, he'll regret it when hes looking for a contract elsewhere after being out of the game for a year.
 
RedRocket9908 said:
Someone is telling lies here, how can a player with less than a year in his contract be demanding 7m to leave when his current contract is worth 90k per week which means his total wages for the time left on his contract is less than 4.6m.
Click to expand...
Probably owed a sizable loyalty payment.
 
Ish said:
If such a clause does exist (and it still doesn’t make sense to me, especially not at 50%), then Woodward and his pals’ incompetence is even worse than I thought it was. Staggering. Investment bankers my arse. Woodward was so far out of his depth and incompetent in running a football club, it’s not even funny.
Click to expand...
I would say he was actively sabotaging us. First handing out contracts to "preserve the value" and then by adding batshit contract clauses like these.

What a fecking moron!

What were the Glazers doing when all this was happening? Allowing this buffoon to piss money down the drain which they could've taken out as dividends.
 
The clause kind of makes sense. Why would I want my employer to have sole right in extending my contract without some sort of reward for giving away that right?

The foundation of this problem is the idea of “protecting resale value”. The only thing that protects a players value is performances. How could a multi-billion dollar club not realise this?
 
Adisa said:
The clause kind of makes sense. Why would I want my employer to have sole right in extending my contract without some sort of reward for giving away that right?

The foundation of this problem is the idea of “protecting resale value”. The only thing that protects a players value is performances. How could a multi-billion dollar club not realise this?
Click to expand...

50% of the fee is kinda insane though. He can go for a free and still not make that in sign-on.

+1 that some amount of incentive is needed if the club has the option (e.g., a flat fee of a year's wages or whatever)
 
Insanity said:
I would say he was actively sabotaging us. First handing out contracts to "preserve the value" and then by adding batshit contract clauses like these.

What a fecking moron!

What were the Glazers doing when all this was happening? Allowing this buffoon to piss money down the drain which they could've taken out as dividends.
Click to expand...
Shows you how fecking stupid and incompetent the lot of them are. All appointments just based on a network of who you know, and feck all to do with anyone actually being qualified for the role. Comes right from the top, doesn’t it.
 
dubplate warrior said:
I don't blame him. But he absolutely should be excluded from the squad.
Click to expand...
This. Treat him like we treated Sancho, no coming near the training centre and stuff. Harsh, but needs to be done. Too many jokers in the club, happy to take a wage and do the bare minimum.
 
Highfather_24 said:
This. Treat him like we treated Sancho, no coming near the training centre and stuff. Harsh, but needs to be done. Too many jokers in the club, happy to take a wage and do the bare minimum.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The problem I have is that we have a lot of players who know they'll be on their way out or that the club doesn't want them and we won't be able to move them on. What happens then? People stop running and clock out, it's one of the things that happened in Ole's third season.
 
We are fecking idiots if he’s not sent to the reserves. Don’t give him a single minute all season.
 
I get the "send him to the reserves" posts. However, we don't have full-backs to save our lives as is. Shaw is doubtful and can get injured any moment, Malacia is still MIA. We can't put Lindelof on to left back, he is not good enough or injured. We've tried Amrabat over there, the same outcome. While he is a club asset, he will be utilized.
 
Hold on a mo, I haven’t been following this.
This “buy out” clause is written into his contract?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.