CheekyLatic Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 One of the things to help keep the club afloat this season is to sell on the clause we have with City. £400,000 NOW and a golden hand-shake. This maybe one of the deals Simon mentions in his interview? Agents are also taking to clubs about 2 of ours players, one first team one Youth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 (edited) One of the things to help keep the club afloat this season is to sell on the clause we have with City. £400,000 NOW and a golden hand-shake. This maybe one of the deals Simon mentions in his interview? Agents are also taking to clubs about 2 of ours players, one first team one Youth. Not sure how reliable your source is, but tbh I thought Simon was alluding to player sales too myself - rather than extra investment... Edited November 11, 2010 by oafcprozac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 If we can get a good deal for it then I say go for it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 (edited) Not sure how reliable your source is, but tbh I thought Simon was alluding to player sales too myself - rather than extra investment... It does not look much like a source, more a wild guess. as OAFC0000 says there could be a reason to go for it Richards does not look like he is going anywhere soon. Not sure what happens if he just sees his contract out? No duobt SC will be critiscised whatever he does. He signed a 5 year deal in 2007, so it expires June 2012 I think. Edited November 11, 2010 by singe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 City hold all the cards. They'll know if they intend to sell or let him run his contract down. It will be hard to get a fair deal for Latics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelaticsfan Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 thats the hard thing about the sell on clause, its all about how the other team do and how they want to handle the player, I think city are going to spend big again in january/summer on defence because thats where they seem to slip up, if hes there by the start of next season then we will know he has a part to play in mancini's plans, on the plus side, if city get into champions league and hes still at the club then he can be regarded as a champions league defender and we can get a bit more from him when he decides to go! oh and if his contract runs out, I believe that it goes to a tribunal, if city just let his contract run out then i believe they have to pay us a fee, if his contract runs out and city offer a contract, i believe whoever he goes to has to pay us the fee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 It will be hard to get a fair deal for Latics. As true as that is doesn't it show up football for what it is... Bung us £500k to buy out the clause, secure the short term future of a small club, even take the positive PR from it. Its hardly like they can't afford it. A little bit of wealth redistribution for the good of the game... But like you say, the chances of us getting a good deal would be hard at best... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razza699 Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 I would cash it in , instead of yet again selling our best players sell something we dont own Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelaticsfan Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 As true as that is doesn't it show up football for what it is... Bung us £500k to buy out the clause, secure the short term future of a small club, even take the positive PR from it. Its hardly like they can't afford it. A little bit of wealth redistribution for the good of the game... But like you say, the chances of us getting a good deal would be hard at best... I doubt we will even get that, if we appeal, the FA will look adfter its precious premiership assetts over us any day of the week! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 The only danger is that we need the money for this year and a chunk for next year to allow Failsworth to go ahead. And the outcry if Richards went for bigger bucks later would be unbearable. But I think without the sell on clause he is likely to go for more, than if it s not there. Catch 22 No win situation with the fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 The only danger is that we need the money for this year and a chunk for next year to allow Failsworth to go ahead. And the outcry if Richards went for bigger bucks later would be unbearable. But I think without the sell on clause he is likely to go for more, than if it s not there. Catch 22 No win situation with the fans. Well I will nail my colours to the mast and say sell the clause if possible... We aren't in a position to gamble on it any more it would seem... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlayItLivo Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 £400k..that's like if City sold him for £2m. We know damn well he's going for a lot more than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 Well I will nail my colours to the mast and say sell the clause if possible... We aren't in a position to gamble on it any more it would seem... Perhaps Cheeky would like to add a poll, so see what money people would find acceptable. He's playing quite regularly now. What would be a reasonable expectation of the fee from a Tribunal. Peanuts, obviously. £1m is 200k. £15m is £3m. A few options in between. £200k £500k £750k £1m £1.25m etc Tribunal is likely to be value £5m therefor £1m to us. I struggle to beleive that would happen. Not sure Champions League makes a huge difference. <cough> Micheal Clegg <cough> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlayItLivo Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 (edited) Perhaps Cheeky would like to add a poll, so see what money people would find acceptable. He's playing quite regularly now. What would be a reasonable expectation of the fee from a Tribunal. Peanuts, obviously. £1m is 200k. £15m is £3m. A few options in between. £200k £500k £750k £1m £1.25m etc Tribunal is likely to be value £5m therefor £1m to us. I struggle to beleive that would happen. Not sure Champions League makes a huge difference. <cough> Micheal Clegg <cough> Micah's going for more than £5mil when he's sold. Granted, it won't be the £20mil that wss touted a few seasons go, but it'll be around £8mil-£10mil, he's still a good young defender and he's got his reputation in his favour. ANd when he does go it'll be to someone decent like, Tottenham, Villa or even Arsenal. Under ordinary circumstances I'd say we are crazy to consider less than £1mil because we'd easily get more than that if he was sold. Right now, it'd be hard to turn down £700k. Anything under that and we really would be undervaluing ourselves and letting City well and truly shaft us over. Edited November 11, 2010 by PlayItLivo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 £400k..that's like if City sold him for £2m. We know damn well he's going for a lot more than that. Can the club afford to take the risk if the money was on the table ? When Blitz was still writing cheques I would of said yes. Now everything is a bit different. If we really can afford to gamble and we don't need the money then keep the clause. The opposite seems to be the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlayItLivo Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 Can the club afford to take the risk if the money was on the table ? When Blitz was still writing cheques I would of said yes. Now everything is a bit different. If we really can afford to gamble and we don't need the money then keep the clause. The opposite seems to be the case. But will 400k really go that far, when we're making £1.5mil losses a year? The Richard's money always seemed to be money in the bank, a windfall that would stabilise us for a fair few seasons, maybe even with a bit left over to improve the squad. It'll be gutting if it only goes as far as paying heating bills paid for the rest of the season. But you're right, it's probably a gamble we might not be willing to take. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankly Mr Shankly Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 The Richard's money always seemed to be money in the bank, a windfall that would stabilise us for a fair few seasons, It can never be considered as money in the bank. It's like Ridsdale getting an £80m loan with qualification to the Champions League earmarked to service the loan. The Micah money is a bonus if it ever happens. That's all it is. And even then it's money in Blitz's pocket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattsgrandad Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 The solution is obvious ...... Latics & City agree a player exchange deal that incorporates the settlement of the MR sell-on clause. Neither club needs to disclose the sums involved. Wouldn't like to predict the players involved or who would benefit most but .... I can't see Carlos coming to BP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 It can never be considered as money in the bank. It's like Ridsdale getting an £80m loan with qualification to the Champions League earmarked to service the loan. The Micah money is a bonus if it ever happens. That's all it is. And even then it's money in Blitz's pocket. Good point Hold out for £3m and pay SB back! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 Personally I'd hold out for £3.85 million. I'd also sell the Tom Eaves sell on clause for £479,000. Both these things happened in a very scientific virtual simulation I ran for the current season on my computer. Oh... and Latics were promoted via the play offs too. Happy days. Who needs reality? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macca Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 If we had a financial backer we could sit on Micah's 20% fee but we don't and if we need the money we won't get '20%' of his value. That said £400k if possible is very good for a player who never played for us. Another example though of the club not getting maximum value for a player, product or service which annoys me. If we did we might not be in as much of a financial mess as we are in now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelaticsfan Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 Personally I'd hold out for £3.85 million. I'd also sell the Tom Eaves sell on clause for £479,000. Both these things happened in a very scientific virtual simulation I ran for the current season on my computer. Oh... and Latics were promoted via the play offs too. Happy days. Who needs reality? I work with some bolton fans, tom eaves is doing alright at the mo for their reserves, last game he scored 2 + 1 assist and game before that he scored 1 just thought id let you all know! (: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattsgrandad Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 I work with some bolton fans, tom eaves is doing alright at the mo for their reserves, last game he scored 2 + 1 assist and game before that he scored 1 just thought id let you all know! (: Let's hope his transfer agreement to Bolton included an 'appearance' clause - much more appropriate (and by that I mean an immediate benefit to Latics) IMO than a 'sell-on' clause - and, if that is the case, he starts turning out for the first team pretty soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markoasis Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 400k for someone who never played for Latics and was with us for a year when he was a young teenager. No brainer ... think we've been hanging on far to long hoping for a big pay out on him, is it really deserved!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robboman Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 Deserved no, Needed YES! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.