Just a forte Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 There was a sell on and we accepted Cash to buy it out....let's see the club confirm our windfall....bet they don't!!! If they do I will happily apologise but I've heard from within the club and elsewhere it's gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midsblue Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 I don't believe that Corney sold the sell-on clause Tarkowski and Richard are entirely different. Tarkowski played a large number of games for the club, worked closely with the current owners and management. They would have gauged the situation that Tarkowski would improve and undoubtedly be sold for a decent amount of money in the future. They were also involved the the sale of Tarkowski and would have negotiated the clause with the aim of cashing in when he was sold again. Richards on the other hand was sold to City before playing any competitive games for the club and sold when he was too young to be assessed as to whether he would come good or not. Clubs like City acquire players at that age all the time and bin the large majority who don't deliver. The sell on clause for Richards was a gamble IF he succeeded at City. Corney insisted on the sell-on clause because he knew it would be exercised in the future... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmer1 Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 (edited) How can they be so thick to not see he wasn't happy in London? When it's such a big call you have to cover all the bases. There were big bids in for him ages ago. Unless we flogged the fee immediately after we sold him it's absolutely farcical. That Nixon is reliable but I don't trust the club to do things competently. Reliable!? Wasnt he wrong about his last few tweets regarding Latics? Thick? How the :censored: would I know if he's unhappy in London? I'm not a sad :censored: who stalks ex Latics players. News broke very recently he was unhappy due to family issues only after Burnly came in for him. Before that he was riding high! Let's be honest you don't have a clue if the clause is gone or not. Edited February 1, 2016 by palmer1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueatheart Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 :censored:ING.............. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deyres42 Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Nixon writes for The Sun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueatheart Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Nixon writes for The Sun. Sums up my opinion of the bloke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlayItLivo Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 (edited) I don't believe that Corney sold the sell-on clause Tarkowski and Richard are entirely different. Tarkowski played a large number of games for the club, worked closely with the current owners and management. They would have gauged the situation that Tarkowski would improve and undoubtedly be sold for a decent amount of money in the future. They were also involved the the sale of Tarkowski and would have negotiated the clause with the aim of cashing in when he was sold again. Richards on the other hand was sold to City before playing any competitive games for the club and sold when he was too young to be assessed as to whether he would come good or not. Clubs like City acquire players at that age all the time and bin the large majority who don't deliver. The sell on clause for Richards was a gamble IF he succeeded at City. Corney insisted on the sell-on clause because he knew it would be exercised in the future... Not to mention that Brentford aren't City. We got bummed by an event no one could have predicted, City being bought by rich Arabs and becoming the powerhouse they are, to the point where they need not sell a guy who was at one point their biggest asset. Had that not happened we probably would have benefited from the sell on clause. There's no reason to fear that the same would happen with Tarky barring career derailing injuries. He's been linked with other clubs for well over a year now, with that in mind there's no reason for it to be cashed in. We'd source necessary day to day finance from elsewhere before cashing that in, given the likelihood of the profit the clause would return. Edited February 1, 2016 by PlayItLivo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disjointed Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Nixon writes for The Sun. Nuff said Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzlatic Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 I don't believe that Corney sold the sell-on clause Tarkowski and Richard are entirely different. Tarkowski played a large number of games for the club, worked closely with the current owners and management. They would have gauged the situation that Tarkowski would improve and undoubtedly be sold for a decent amount of money in the future. They were also involved the the sale of Tarkowski and would have negotiated the clause with the aim of cashing in when he was sold again. Richards on the other hand was sold to City before playing any competitive games for the club and sold when he was too young to be assessed as to whether he would come good or not. Clubs like City acquire players at that age all the time and bin the large majority who don't deliver. The sell on clause for Richards was a gamble IF he succeeded at City. Corney insisted on the sell-on clause because he knew it would be exercised in the future... This is why selling it wouldn't make sense. Unless the money from selling the clause was preventing a major disaster and wasn't available from anywhere else. There would be enough links to him and his family to have a good understanding about whether he was likely to move in the next 12 months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
super_blue Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 This is why selling it wouldn't make sense. Unless the money from selling the clause was preventing a major disaster and wasn't available from anywhere else. There would be enough links to him and his family to have a good understanding about whether he was likely to move in the next 12 months. Would not being able to pay people a major disaster? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 I'm looking forward to seeing Tarky's mum cartwheeling onto the Turf Moor pitch during the build up to Saturday's game, before sprinting a couple of laps of the pitch, followed by a hundred press ups in the centre circle, then unveiling a t-shirt that reads 'Sean Dyche owes me a tenner!' Ha ha brilliant well played sir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzlatic Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Would not being able to pay people a major disaster?Possibly, but surely as has been said, get the money from elsewhere as you know it'll be coming back. And in greater numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yarddog73 Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 5 Live reporting the fee for Tarky as £3.5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
super_blue Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Possibly, but surely as has been said, get the money from elsewhere as you know it'll be coming back. And in greater numbers. They didn't know for sure it was coming back though...rumours maybe, but loads of those did the rounds with the Richards deal. No one is loaning you that kind of money based in the repayment terms being 'if Brentford sell our ex player I'll pay you back'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pk200 Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Public apology downboated ......post 401 mean,t to downboat Stevie J for his flippant,uncaring remarks re Tarky's mother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deyres42 Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/10/oldham-athletic-news/96098/athletic-up-for-tarkowski-windfall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy-latic Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Alan Nixon on Twitter reckons we have sold it. What does he know? All I see is rumours as usual Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Public apology downboated ......post 401 mean,t to downboat Stevie J for his flippant,uncaring remarks re Tarky's mother. No one gives a :censored: about down boating so don't worry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeylandLatic Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 5 Live reporting the fee for Tarky as £3.5. Maybe we should have sold the sell on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/10/oldham-athletic-news/96098/athletic-up-for-tarkowski-windfall Nah that car salesman knows more..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stanley30 Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Let's see who we bring in and therein will be the answer to the sell on clause Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzlatic Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 They didn't know for sure it was coming back though...rumours maybe, but loads of those did the rounds with the Richards deal. No one is loaning you that kind of money based in the repayment terms being 'if Brentford sell our ex player I'll pay you back'.Blitz? Makes no business sense to sell that clause especially if they want to recoup as much of their money as possible! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
super_blue Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Blitz? Makes no business sense to sell that clause especially if they want to recoup as much of their money as possible! Blitz cut his losses on the money a while ago I'd imagine so wouldn't have thought Corney would have gone cap in hand! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddySmoker Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Ha ha brilliant well played sir Pillock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Sinnott Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 As mentioned earlier, we cashed our for 150k... 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.