Slash Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 The number of hits on here over the last 5 years over a potential move must mean we've made a couple of million out of him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmer1 Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 (edited) So City will receive a large loan fee and we get nothing as its a loan move. He will move somwhere for a large fee until his contract ends and just because of the wording in the paperwork they get away with screwing us. The rich get rich and the poor get :censored: on from a great height. :censored: you City and :censored: you Premier league! Edited August 29, 2014 by palmer1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 So City will receive a large loan fee and we get nothing as its a loan move. He will move somwhere for a large fee until his contract ends and just because of the wording in the paperwork they get away with screwing us. The rich get rich and the poor get :censored: on from a great height. :censored: you City and :censored: you Premier league! We don't really know whether the clause covers a loan fee though, do we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmer1 Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 We don't. Let's hope it does, I doubt it though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlayItLivo Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 Yeah I'd say it's highly unlikely. It would have been fantastic foresight to cover that base. We'd probably have assumed that if he turned out to be a quality player then he'd just get bought outright by one of the bigger clubs. City weren't rich back then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losesome Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 Richards should have gone out on loan last season so he could have pushed for an England place in Brazil. Ooops sorry - you need a little ambition to do that !!!!!!!!!!! IF he had of done there was a chance somebody would have bought him now. But then again who wants to buy an injury prone , ambitionless lazy player ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 Yeah I'd say it's highly unlikely. It would have been fantastic foresight to cover that base. We'd probably have assumed that if he turned out to be a quality player then he'd just get bought outright by one of the bigger clubs. City weren't rich back then. Indeed but if it's drafted to say that Latics receive 20% of transfer fees received by City for him, rather than specifying that it only relates to a permanent move, (arguably) that should cover loan moves too. I know it's more hopeful than likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticMark Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 We don't really know whether the clause covers a loan fee though, do we? Matt Chambers @Matt_Chambers_ 2h Looking bleak on the Micah Richards sell-on fee front, sad to say. Seems loan deal most likely. #oafc Steve Simpson @stesimpson1973 2h @Matt_Chambers_ do we not get part of loan fee? Matt Chambers@Matt_Chambers_ @stesimpson1973 Nope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midsblue Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 If City get a fee for a loan transfer then surely we get 20% of that? It's a fee in relation to a transfer of employment to which City are gaining financially. If City was receiving £0 then can understand but if they receive say £2 million for the duration of loan then we get £400k. I'm confident we have legal grounds for a claim on any incoming transfer fee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latics_Fanatic Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 If City get a fee for a loan transfer then surely we get 20% of that? It's a fee in relation to a transfer of employment to which City are gaining financially. If City was receiving £0 then can understand but if they receive say £2 million for the duration of loan then we get £400k. I'm confident we have legal grounds for a claim on any incoming transfer fee. Most probably "20% of any future sale." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stanley30 Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Really? Because I'm not! That's why there called sell on clauses not loan on clauses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 (edited) Based on his wages that looks about right..by loaning him City would be saving a vast amount of money so Latics should still benefit. Edited August 30, 2014 by BP1960 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticMark Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Unless there is a final twist to this long and drawn out saga, it looks like Latics are going to get 20% of zilch! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz_Oafc Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Pellegrini says no offers received for any players at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Really? Because I'm not! That's why there called sell on clauses not loan on clauses Doesn't matter what it's called, it's what's in the contract that counts. I'd be disappointed if the contract didn't cover a loan fee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepingthe Faith Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Might have a case if by loaning the player for a fee, it was considered to be a way around paying up on a sell on clause....................................Still hope yet with a few clubs still interested in him for a last minute sale lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl_oldh Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 David gold to announce top signing before today's match... Could it be???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latics_Fanatic Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 David gold to announce top signing before today's match... Could it be???? Alex Song, apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magic Mikey Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Newcastle let in 3 at home to Colin and Palace. They need a quality defender. Ashley, get jerking that knee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Richards in talks with Sunderland with a view to moving there on loan. City looking for a similar clause to the one that got them a fee out of Barry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latics_Fanatic Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Richards in talks with Sunderland with a view to moving there on loan. City looking for a similar clause to the one that got them a fee out of Barry. Sounds hopeful. Although you can guaruntee after a year of having hope, Sunderland won't want to buy him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC0AFC Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 rumour has it, nottingham forest are after him... not on loan but for a fee! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deyres42 Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Doesn't matter what it's called, it's what's in the contract that counts. I'd be disappointed if the contract didn't cover a loan fee. I'd be amazed if any clause agreed more than a year ago included anything relating to loans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticMark Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Richards in talks with Sunderland with a view to moving there on loan. City looking for a similar clause to the one that got them a fee out of Barry. http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/manchester-citys-micah-richards-set-4135517? Does this also mean that this thread could run for another year?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L1onheartNew Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/manchester-citys-micah-richards-set-4135517? Does this also mean that this thread could run for another year?? Oh Dear God! 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.