James Tarkowski

[Stagger Lee]

Having come to a thread about 2,000 posts long quite late in the day. Am I to assume that we sold Tarky's sell-on clause before he was sold, thus costing us money?

 

It seems so

 

SC made a bad call that has lost him and OAFC backers a lot of money, and some people on here

(1) think SC should shout about this cock up from the roof tops because they have the right to know everything.

(2) get upset because SC tried to muddy the waters about what has happened, probably from embarrassment.

(3) accuse SC about only being in it for the money and yet ironically don't acknowledge that losing out on this money would have upset SC and company a lot more that it hurts them.

[Hank Kingsley]

 

It seems so

 

SC made a bad call that has lost him and OAFC backers a lot of money, and some people on here

(1) think SC should shout about this cock up from the roof tops because they have the right to know everything.

(2) get upset because SC tried to muddy the waters about what has happened, probably from embarrassment.

(3) accuse SC about only being in it for the money and yet ironically don't acknowledge that losing out on this money would have upset SC and company a lot more that it hurts them.

 

It's not just cock ups though is it? Corney deliberately withheld the information and then used that money against the new stand, that's disingenuous at best, as is the fact that the car park revenue doesn't go to the club but to a company owned in part by him. If Corney truly had the best interests of OAFC at heart he wouldn't have been so evasive, he would be actively informing supporters of his actions mistakes and all, which if he had would've gained him a lot of goodwill, I don't think anyone would slate him for making honest mistakes. Instead we get disinformation and no information, at least finally more fans are waking up to the fact that we're being royally screwed over.

[bluear]

 

It's not just cock ups though is it? Corney deliberately withheld the information and then used that money against the new stand, that's disingenuous at best, as is the fact that the car park revenue doesn't go to the club but to a company owned in part by him. If Corney truly had the best interests of OAFC at heart he wouldn't have been so evasive, he would be actively informing supporters of his actions mistakes and all, which if he had would've gained him a lot of goodwill, I don't think anyone would slate him for making honest mistakes. Instead we get disinformation and no information, at least finally more fans are waking up to the fact that we're being royally screwed over.

You repeatedly slate him for honest mistakes. Boring

[palmer1]

I love how on this board everyone seems to be seperated into a Corney lover or a Corney hater.

 

People on here cant seem to accept that you can look at certain situations and see things differently to them good and bad, these posters have have made their minds up and they dont seem to move away from it no matter what - they are the Corney haters if you are wondering and they are ones who snipe and insult you more often than not if you dont agree with them.

 

Oh and they will tell you all about in every thread at every opperyunity as if being constant will change the view of others. I used to enjoy reading the message board. now its the same old :censored: in every thread worded differently. Roll on actual football match!

Edited February 4, 2016 by palmer1

[singe]

Having come to a thread about 2,000 posts long quite late in the day. Am I to assume that we sold Tarky's sell-on clause before he was sold, thus costing us money?

It is not automatic we lost money, though likely.

It's easy with the benefit of hindsight though.

 

But some people are forgetting that once Tarky refused to play, Brentfords negotiating position was compromised severely.

There may have been rejected higher offers before that, with Brentford selling hoping to get, plucking a figure of say, £4m -we don't know.

And we sold the sell on at the time when his value was higher. And we got a promotion bonus so adding to the statement indication that our sell on was much less than 20%.

 

Of course, it is highly likely to have not worked out like that, it's theoretical, but it is not good to just guess and assume and adopt your position on that basis.

Some people who are getting irate are assuming he went for £3m+, and we had a 20% sell on. The fact is, we do not know for certain any of that information. Only that we sold it.

Sods Law says we did, but only by assumption.

There is even a possibility (however remote) case that OAFC got wind of Tarky's family situation, know he wanted the move and sold higher than he went for. Again unlikely. But it is wrong to assume automatically we did terribly on the deal.

Edited February 4, 2016 by singe

[losesome]

Hindsight is of course wonderful and i can understand in some ways SC selling when once bitten.

 

Can you imagine the outcry IF Brentford just let Tarky see out his contact then let him go for nowt or like Micah Richards they loaned him out for a loan fee.

Then we find out that Latics had the chance to cash in the sell on clause and we had said NO .

 

Cue outcry !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Stevie_J]

Hindsight is of course wonderful and i can understand in some ways SC selling when once bitten.

 

Can you imagine the outcry IF Brentford just let Tarky see out his contact then let him go for nowt or like Micah Richards they loaned him out for a loan fee.

Then we find out that Latics had the chance to cash in the sell on clause and we had said NO .

 

Cue outcry !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Really? Was there outcry when Richards left City and we got nothing? I didn't see it.

 

We know very well that City made an offer to buy out that clause, and of course we'd have been better off taking the money in hindsight, but, as one of the biggest critics of Simon Corney, I think he made the right decision to hold on to the clause.

 

This time around, we went to Brentford asking them to buy out the clause - that does not put you in a position to achieve a good price and certainly nothing like the amount we'd have received if we'd held onto it. For me those clauses are there as a potentially big payday if things work out really well and could be a gamechanger for a club like Latics. Selling them on the cheap is wrong.

[losesome]

Really? Was there outcry when Richards left City and we got nothing? I didn't see it.

 

We know very well that City made an offer to buy out that clause, and of course we'd have been better off taking the money in hindsight, but, as one of the biggest critics of Simon Corney, I think he made the right decision to hold on to the clause.

 

This time around, we went to Brentford asking them to buy out the clause - that does not put you in a position to achieve a good price and certainly nothing like the amount we'd have received if we'd held onto it. For me those clauses are there as a potentially big payday if things work out really well and could be a gamechanger for a club like Latics. Selling them on the cheap is wrong.

Read my comments again - slowly !!!!!!

Didn't say there was an outcry when MC went on loan.

 

Sold on the cheap ? so you know how much we got for it !!!!!

[NewBlue]

Really? Was there outcry when Richards left City and we got nothing? I didn't see it.

 

We know very well that City made an offer to buy out that clause, and of course we'd have been better off taking the money in hindsight, but, as one of the biggest critics of Simon Corney, I think he made the right decision to hold on to the clause.

 

This time around, we went to Brentford asking them to buy out the clause - that does not put you in a position to achieve a good price and certainly nothing like the amount we'd have received if we'd held onto it. For me those clauses are there as a potentially big payday if things work out really well and could be a gamechanger for a club like Latics. Selling them on the cheap is wrong.

The Micah Richards deal is irrelevant here. It should've been judged on its own merits. There were clearly underlying issues which Tarky was dealing with which somebody at Oldham Athletic must've been privy to.

 

Unless we were chronically poor, with virtually nothing to pay the players and the builders, somebody at the club should've had the foresight to resist on the basis that #1 Brentford have consistently sold their best players at the right price #2 several clubs have been publicly interested in Tarky #3 the length of his contract meant a significant fee could've been attained #4 he wasn't settled in London

 

Either we were truly scraping the barrel or our Board are naive and blinkered

[opinions4u]

The Micah Richards deal is irrelevant here...

 

Either we were truly scraping the barrel or our Board are naive and blinkered

The Richards deal is relevant in understanding the mindset of the person reaching the decision to cash in the sell on.

 

I think we were right to sit tight on Richards. I think we were wrong to cash in early on Tarky. But I think the latter decision will have been, in part, driven by the failure of the strategy taken with the Richards clause.

 

Accepting a settlement on any clause seems to me to be bonkers because the player's current club will know their own intentions.

[nzlatic]

The Richards deal is relevant in understanding the mindset of the person reaching the decision to cash in the sell on.

 

I think we were right to sit tight on Richards. I think we were wrong to cash in early on Tarky. But I think the latter decision will have been, in part, driven by the failure of the strategy taken with the Richards clause.

 

Accepting a settlement on any clause seems to me to be bonkers because the player's current club will know their own intentions.

Exactly. I'm sure if we had asked Man City to buy it out in the last year or 2 of his contract they'd have told us to piss off.

 

To take that buy out must have meant there was no option to get the money from anywhere else. Which I find surprising.

Edited February 4, 2016 by nzlatic

[Scapegoat]

There is an interesting thought that one of the recent posts prompts. What if the buy out was good business?

 

Examples are made up in terms of actual £s, but 10% of a fee seems reasonable and often deals have gateway payments or instalments.

 

What if at the time the buy-out was done, Brentford thought they might be able to get a bit of a bidding war going and get £6 million, and thought that £3 million buy-out equivalent was good business? We might not be saying anything now because Brentford don't want to look foolish having potentially bought out a sell-on clause for more than it was worth?

 

What if the deal that Burnley have agreed is payments in instalments over a longer period of time? So we might have been entitled to £300k but over 3 years, whereas we could get £200k now? And this is what has allowed us to fund getting Shez in now and might keep us up? Or it pays the wages of a couple of loan players that Shez brings in next week that keep us up?

 

What if the deal was full of ifs, buts and maybes? Yes it might net Brentford £3.5 million by the end, and therefore £350k for Latics. But what if Tarky gets injured, or is a failure, only netted £150k? And we get £200k guaranteed?

 

 

Its easy to assume that we have been screwed by a deal. When we might not have been. If we are willing to speculate and make up scenarios for how much we have lost out on, is it not fair to do the same the other way round.

 

 

SC's bold decision to take the cash early funded the Great Escape plan 2016 edition......

[NewBlue]

The Richards deal is relevant in understanding the mindset of the person reaching the decision to cash in the sell on.

 

I think we were right to sit tight on Richards. I think we were wrong to cash in early on Tarky. But I think the latter decision will have been, in part, driven by the failure of the strategy taken with the Richards clause.

 

Accepting a settlement on any clause seems to me to be bonkers because the player's current club will know their own intentions.

I know it will have effected the club's decision to take the money, what I'm trying to say is that a businessman with acumen would look to keep contact with the player and objectively assess the situation.

 

For every sting when the player leaves for nothing there is a massive profit. There's probably more of the latter, truth be told.

[deyres42]

I know it will have effected the club's decision to take the money, what I'm trying to say is that a businessman with acumen would look to keep contact with the player and objectively assess the situation.

 

For every sting when the player leaves for nothing there is a massive profit. There's probably more of the latter, truth be told.

I'm still not convinced it was actually sold but IF it was done recently and under the widely reported terms then it really was a brain dead decision.

[Scapegoat]

I know it will have effected the club's decision to take the money, what I'm trying to say is that a businessman with acumen would look to keep contact with the player and objectively assess the situation.

 

For every sting when the player leaves for nothing there is a massive profit. There's probably more of the latter, truth be told.

 

 

I think trusting what a player says will be pretty hard to do for SC after Porter. The player himself might mean what they said when they said it, but time and agents mean that it counts for little these days.

[NewBlue]

 

 

I think trusting what a player says will be pretty hard to do for SC after Porter. The player himself might mean what they said when they said it, but time and agents mean that it counts for little these days.

He's from down the road, been right through the academy at all levels. Surely the club know him and his family well enough to understand he isn't settled down there. There must be somebody at the club who is still in contact with him - he seemed a well-liked member of the side when here.

 

There's no excuses for assessing this situation wrong. It was plainly obvious there was a strong likelihood he wouldn't see out his contract.

[opinions4u]

He's from down the road, been right through the academy at all levels. Surely the club know him and his family well enough to understand he isn't settled down there. There must be somebody at the club who is still in contact with him - he seemed a well-liked member of the side when here.

There's no excuses for assessing this situation wrong. It was plainly obvious there was a strong likelihood he wouldn't see out his contract.

I don't think there's any point maintaining contact with the player.

 

You're always going to be negotiating from a point of weakness.

[singe]

I don't think there's any point maintaining contact with the player.

 

You're always going to be negotiating from a point of weakness.

I know what you mean, but SC has been instrumental in a surprising large number of deals with ex players this season. He might not have been in regular contact, but not inconceivable that he heard abut his family situation. IT's all a bit speculative on my part, but not beyond the realms.

[singe]

There is an interesting thought that one of the recent posts prompts. What if the buy out was good business?

 

Examples are made up in terms of actual £s, but 10% of a fee seems reasonable and often deals have gateway payments or instalments.

 

What if at the time the buy-out was done, Brentford thought they might be able to get a bit of a bidding war going and get £6 million, and thought that £3 million buy-out equivalent was good business? We might not be saying anything now because Brentford don't want to look foolish having potentially bought out a sell-on clause for more than it was worth?

 

What if the deal that Burnley have agreed is payments in instalments over a longer period of time? So we might have been entitled to £300k but over 3 years, whereas we could get £200k now? And this is what has allowed us to fund getting Shez in now and might keep us up? Or it pays the wages of a couple of loan players that Shez brings in next week that keep us up?

 

What if the deal was full of ifs, buts and maybes? Yes it might net Brentford £3.5 million by the end, and therefore £350k for Latics. But what if Tarky gets injured, or is a failure, only netted £150k? And we get £200k guaranteed?

 

 

Its easy to assume that we have been screwed by a deal. When we might not have been. If we are willing to speculate and make up scenarios for how much we have lost out on, is it not fair to do the same the other way round.

 

 

SC's bold decision to take the cash early funded the Great Escape plan 2016 edition......

Exactly what I was trying to say, and it is not more fanciful that we lost an arm and a leg. Speculation on my part, but not not wild.

[NewBlue]

I don't think there's any point maintaining contact with the player.

 

You're always going to be negotiating from a point of weakness.

Not in an official capacity - he must've made a few mates round the club who have maintained contact with him and could've passed on info.

[opinions4u]

Not in an official capacity - he must've made a few mates round the club who have maintained contact with him and could've passed on info.

I've seen him in the lounge pre-match since he left.

 

Knowing Brentford's intentions would be more valuable.

[NewBlue]

I've seen him in the lounge pre-match since he left.

 

Knowing Brentford's intentions would be more valuable.

There's plenty of evidence to conclude that they're more than willing to sell at the right price.

[De_La_Vega]

So we sold the sell-on clause, fair enough.

 

Understand why some would be upset, but it may be that Brentford wouldn't have sold with a 10% clause still active. We can't be sure.

[HarryBosch]

A Burnley fan I know reckons they paid £6m for him.

[astottie]

Not sure if I've misunderstood this or not but isn't the point that it wasn't Brentford who we made the deal with? Didn't Corney sell it to some third party, so Brentford still have to pay up its just that we have to pass the money on?