BP1960 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) Micah Richards was reportedly subject to a £20 million deadline day bid, which would have netted £4 million for the Latics. Would it be a good idea for the Latics to renegotiate with City now and and settle for £2 million on the basis a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush ? Edited February 4, 2011 by BP1960 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macca Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Do you think OAFC would get any of it or would it pay the loan we have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted February 4, 2011 Author Share Posted February 4, 2011 Do you think OAFC would get any of it or would it pay the loan we have? It could keep the club going a bit longer maybe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slurms mckenzie Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Micah Richards was reportedly subject to a £20 million deadline day bid, which would have netted £4 million for the Latics. Would it be a good idea for the Latics to renegotiate with City now and and settle for £2 million on the basis a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush ? Rumours were a couple of years ago they offered a couple of hundred grand. Unfortunately, they hold all of the cards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted February 4, 2011 Author Share Posted February 4, 2011 Rumours were a couple of years ago they offered a couple of hundred grand. Unfortunately, they hold all of the cards. A £2 million saving for City might sound attractive to them, especially if there's a possibility he will go at the end of the season for maybe more than £20 million. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macca Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 It could keep the club going a bit longer maybe. Not got a problem with the owners themselves. I do think they have had the best interests of the club at heart but it's got too big for them. They're entitled to their money back but they need to sell to new people and if £2 million Micah money was to help with that then so be it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 City know whether or not he'll be sold - or at least the likelihood. It would be like playing poker against somebody who has a royal flush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcmetty Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Did anyone pick up on this? Micah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancy lad Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Did anyone pick up on this? Micah We might aswell write a sign saying "hungry and almost homeless"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 (edited) its so gay one of the ritchest owners in the world spends £30 million on each player etc and there holding out for a couple of million Edited March 10, 2011 by qwerty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_bro Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 its so gay one of the ritchest owners in the world spends £30 million on each player etc and there holding out for a couple of million The present owners of City were not their when they made the offer. Richards now seems to be a regular in the 1st team and therefore there is no chance he will be sold unless he demands a move. If he's playing he will be happy, as long as his earnings are brought up to the level of the newcomers. Lets face it City don't need the money any more, but they will still hold out for the best deal they can negotiate, which would probably be £500,000. Should we accept that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueInAus Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 It would be a really bad bit of business by City to negotiate a buyout of the clause if they have no intentions of selling him. The only reason they would buyout the clause is because either they do want to sell him (so the better deal for us would be to wait - assuming we are still in business), or they can get the clause for a song (in which case Oldham would be looking at a very small amount). </!OLD RUMOUR ALERT!> I have heard that this clause is partially securing the directors loan, so the money would not be seen by the club in the event of a buyout or activation of the clause. I cannot vouch for this personally as I don't have any direct contacts on the board. Maybe someone on the board could confirm or deny this........ not mentioning any names :p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldhamSheridan Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 If you are City you just wait a couple of seasons (or weeks). Hey presto! No club left to take the 20%. They'd be mad to make any offer beyond a few buttons and a peice of string. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hometownclub Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 If you are City you just wait a couple of seasons (or weeks). Hey presto! No club left to take the 20%. They'd be mad to make any offer beyond a few buttons and a peice of string. Exactly what I thought, just wait for us to go out of business, sell on clause ceases to exist. That'll cost em nothing, thay don't need the money and he is playing regularly and has no desire to leave. We'll be lucky to ever see a penny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted March 11, 2011 Author Share Posted March 11, 2011 Exactly what I thought, just wait for us to go out of business, sell on clause ceases to exist. That'll cost em nothing, thay don't need the money and he is playing regularly and has no desire to leave. We'll be lucky to ever see a penny. Times change quickly in football, its not long ago he looked to have no future at City, who is to say it won't happen again ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 We just need to survive long enough for City's comedy rollercoaster to reach another trough, Sheikh Loadsamoney to leave, and Richards to be sold to Tottenham for a "cut price" £10M. The only reason City would settle on an agreement to buy out the clause now would be pure altruism. I wouldn't completely rule that out if the Sheikh was negotiated with directly, but any involvement of Garry C®ook would end any hope completely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaskedOwl Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 i doubt we will see any money from this deal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 We just need to survive long enough for City's comedy rollercoaster to reach another trough, Sheikh Loadsamoney to leave, and Richards to be sold to Tottenham for a "cut price" £10M. The only reason City would settle on an agreement to buy out the clause now would be pure altruism. I wouldn't completely rule that out if the Sheikh was negotiated with directly, but any involvement of Garry C®ook would end any hope completely. I'm not sure you have been involved in many negotiations with Arabs... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longtimeblue Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 <!--quoteo(post=465121:date=Feb 4 2011, 19:08 PM:name=BP1960)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BP1960 @ Feb 4 2011, 19:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=465121"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It could keep the club going a bit longer maybe.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not got a problem with the owners themselves. I do think they have had the best interests of the club at heart but it's got too big for them. They're entitled to their money back but they need to sell to new people and if £2 million Micah money was to help with that then so be it. No they're not, they're entitled to try and make it back. It was a business venture, they go tits up all the time.... Some you win, some you lose. Are they entitled to their money back if it is at the expense of Oldham Athletic? I relaise they've ivested alot and genuinely hope they get some return but they're not entitled to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 I'm not sure you have been involved in many negotiations with Arabs... Haha, true, true. It just crossed my mind he's so ridiculously wealthy he might just think "what the hell" and write a cheque. No? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Haha, true, true. It just crossed my mind he's so ridiculously wealthy he might just think "what the hell" and write a cheque. No? There's a first time for everything I suppose.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Haha, true, true. It just crossed my mind he's so ridiculously wealthy he might just think "what the hell" and write a cheque. No? If I had to take my last fiver down to Ladbrookes and place a bet on whether or not HH Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan had ever heard of Oldham Athletic, I would put it on No . If rumour be true you might have a better chance asking his oldest brother when he is :censored:faced Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 The only reason City would have to pay off the clause would be if they expect to sell him. In otherwords if we accept a payoff we will inevitably get screwed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobOAFC Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 £500k - £750k with us being allowed to sign their best young prospects from youth etc on loan, with it the deal lasting a few years (obviously not same players..) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldhamSheridan Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Cloud cuckoo land. We won't get 50p. NB. Do City do youngsters any more? 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.