The squad in July

[Stranded]

I don't know, but I did read somewhere that his 3 year Reading deal in the championship wasn't too shabby - but then that article had Hendrick on £50kpw as our highest paid player and presumably we only paid a fraction of that.

Given our predicament, a nominal release clause + a drop due to relegation seems right

We simply weren't allowed to pay more than 8k so any wage published over that would be simply made up.

But yes, anyone thinking the club have gone crazy on this clause is simply choosing to forget where we were last summer.

I don't think your first sentence is true, the 8k figure was for the previous season, this season just gone we just had to stay within a £16m wage budget, of course over a 25 man squad, that's £12.3k on average so while I don't think we were limited to 8k, it probably wouldn't have been far off, especially when you subtract the high earner wages off the budget and work with what's left.

16m was the total bill but there were also agreed (but not published) limits on what any new signing could earn and also an average wage for all new signings had to be under a certain level - that was valid over the entire agreement.

[YorkshireRoyal99]

We simply weren't allowed to pay more than 8k so any wage published over that would be simply made up.

But yes, anyone thinking the club have gone crazy on this clause is simply choosing to forget where we were last summer.

I don't think your first sentence is true, the 8k figure was for the previous season, this season just gone we just had to stay within a £16m wage budget, of course over a 25 man squad, that's £12.3k on average so while I don't think we were limited to 8k, it probably wouldn't have been far off, especially when you subtract the high earner wages off the budget and work with what's left.

16m was the total bill but there were also agreed (but not published) limits on what any new signing could earn and also an average wage for all new signings had to be under a certain level - that was valid over the entire agreement.

There are a few sources that say these players are/were earning £3k a week.

[Stranded]

I don't think your first sentence is true, the 8k figure was for the previous season, this season just gone we just had to stay within a £16m wage budget, of course over a 25 man squad, that's £12.3k on average so while I don't think we were limited to 8k, it probably wouldn't have been far off, especially when you subtract the high earner wages off the budget and work with what's left.

16m was the total bill but there were also agreed (but not published) limits on what any new signing could earn and also an average wage for all new signings had to be under a certain level - that was valid over the entire agreement.

There are a few sources that say these players are/were earning £3k a week.

Some will have been but lets say Ince has taken a drop from 32k at Stoke to 8k. He's 30, probably his last deal we offer him the most we can but that is still less than an average Champ wage and one he can get elsewhere.

Now add in the fact that we were favourites for relegation, it is completely natural for him and his agent to say - look, you are getting him cheap (and his agent is getting nowt), so we need to protect ourselves, so if we do go down Tom needs to be made available for a nominal fee which will keep all his options open.

Not sure where the club could say no, so the fact some are getting pissy about it is a bit off.

[TiagoIlori]

Yeah I really don’t understand the reaction. Only in football do people go on about how bad it’s looking then get surprised things like this happen.

[Vision]

We simply weren't allowed to pay more than 8k so any wage published over that would be simply made up.

But yes, anyone thinking the club have gone crazy on this clause is simply choosing to forget where we were last summer.

I don't think your first sentence is true, the 8k figure was for the previous season, this season just gone we just had to stay within a £16m wage budget, of course over a 25 man squad, that's £12.3k on average so while I don't think we were limited to 8k, it probably wouldn't have been far off, especially when you subtract the high earner wages off the budget and work with what's left.

16m was the total bill but there were also agreed (but not published) limits on what any new signing could earn and also an average wage for all new signings had to be under a certain level - that was valid over the entire agreement.

Bowen was quoted somewhere as saying we could sign someone over the 8k but if we did then subsequent transfers and wages would come under more scrutiny by the EFL. So really you'd only do it in a special case. I guess the manager's son counts as a special case but if he ends up as player of the year then it's probably a good decision to make that player the exception.

I'm not sure at 31 , Ince would demand that much of a transfer fee anyway so if it took a 50k clause to get our best player over the line in terms of signing then I think that's fair enough.

[Elm Park Kid]

Seems unlikely that Ince will be with us next season then. Shame we won't be picking up the £1m or so fee that's been suggested. This is one case where you can't really blame the club for agreeing to the terms.

[Snowflake Royal]

I don't think your first sentence is true, the 8k figure was for the previous season, this season just gone we just had to stay within a £16m wage budget, of course over a 25 man squad, that's £12.3k on average so while I don't think we were limited to 8k, it probably wouldn't have been far off, especially when you subtract the high earner wages off the budget and work with what's left.

16m was the total bill but there were also agreed (but not published) limits on what any new signing could earn and also an average wage for all new signings had to be under a certain level - that was valid over the entire agreement.

Bowen was quoted somewhere as saying we could sign someone over the 8k but if we did then subsequent transfers and wages would come under more scrutiny by the EFL. So really you'd only do it in a special case. I guess the manager's son counts as a special case but if he ends up as player of the year then it's probably a good decision to make that player the exception.

I'm not sure at 31 , Ince would demand that much of a transfer fee anyway so if it took a 50k clause to get our best player over the line in terms of signing then I think that's fair enough.

He also said something along the linesof we couldn’t agree that signing until we'd agreed a second proportionally lower than the average compared to how much above the other one was.
So max we could give Ince was about £16k week, providing we signed the next player on £0 a week

[Royal_jimmy]

That's pathetic. This club is an absolute circus. Full of clowns

[Hendo]

This is people not understanding the Olise release clause again, isn't it?

[Snowflake Royal]

Angry children having tantrums because something isn't perfect.

[Stranded]

This is people not understanding the Olise release clause again, isn't it?

Yep, amazing how people can't grasp that singing a player is a negotiation and usually the player holds the better hand.

[Hendo]

This is people not understanding the Olise release clause again, isn't it?

Yep, amazing how people can't grasp that singing a player is a negotiation and usually the player holds the better hand.

Just baffling.

[Hound]

Ah shame

Wouldn’t be a suprise if Holmes had similar tbh. Even yiadom

[YorkshireRoyal99]

16m was the total bill but there were also agreed (but not published) limits on what any new signing could earn and also an average wage for all new signings had to be under a certain level - that was valid over the entire agreement.

There are a few sources that say these players are/were earning £3k a week.

Some will have been but lets say Ince has taken a drop from 32k at Stoke to 8k. He's 30, probably his last deal we offer him the most we can but that is still less than an average Champ wage and one he can get elsewhere.

Now add in the fact that we were favourites for relegation, it is completely natural for him and his agent to say - look, you are getting him cheap (and his agent is getting nowt), so we need to protect ourselves, so if we do go down Tom needs to be made available for a nominal fee which will keep all his options open.

Not sure where the club could say no, so the fact some are getting pissy about it is a bit off.

Yeah I get why it's frustrating, but obviously the bigger picture is we wouldn't have had him, he'd have just gone elsewhere, regardless of whether he's earning £3k or £8k a week.

I can understand why it's so low, so he could pretty much guarantee a move, it's just a bit disappointing that it couldn't have been higher from our perspective but obviously the situation just dictates in this scenario.

[Elm Park Kid]

From the player's perspective - They know that every £1 that a club has to spend on a fee is a £1 that they could otherwise have received as a signing on bonus or in higher wage. Ince wasn't going to sign a multi-year deal that restricted his freedom to explore other options - and didn't need to. He's one of the few players in the squad that would get into other Championship teams.He had absolutely no leverage over him. Sure, a multi year contract gives him some security of income in case he gets injured or suddenly loses form. But he knew that we needed him more than he needed us.

[Clyde1998]

Tom Ince apparently has an active £50k relegation release clause in his contract.

£50,000? Who the hell agreed to such a small release fee like that?

The only way around that now is to offer him a new improved contract, but they'll be a few Championship clubs lining up when they learn he's available for peanuts.

We had no leverage at all and Ince may well have got a better deal elsewhere, adding a clause like that was likely one of the only ways to sign him. No problem with it to be honest given the circumstances we were working in.

I've got no problem with Ince going regardless of the fee. We're in a better position to get players in and I'd rather we had players who have the right attitude.

One of our big issues since Madejski sold the club has been us signing players with the wrong attitude for a club like ours (even before the transfer embargoes) - Guthrie, Drenthe, Meyler, Joao all spring to mind as players who wouldn't give everything to the club and all underperformed as a result. Our most successful teams have been filled with players who would give everything - even if they weren't technically or physically the best players.

[Ascotexgunner]

I don't know, but I did read somewhere that his 3 year Reading deal in the championship wasn't too shabby - but then that article had Hendrick on £50kpw as our highest paid player and presumably we only paid a fraction of that.

Given our predicament, a nominal release clause + a drop due to relegation seems right

Baba Rahman was on 80k pw and he was the highest paid player in the EFL .....but we only paid 2k a week apparently. Chelsea pay the rest.
Ironically Adrian Durham did say on radio we were paying 30k a week to Hendrick....it couldn't be true because of the restrictions we were under.

[Clyde1998]

I don't know, but I did read somewhere that his 3 year Reading deal in the championship wasn't too shabby - but then that article had Hendrick on £50kpw as our highest paid player and presumably we only paid a fraction of that.

Given our predicament, a nominal release clause + a drop due to relegation seems right

Baba Rahman was on 80k pw and he was the highest paid player in the EFL .....but we only paid 2k a week apparently. Chelsea pay the rest.
Ironically Adrian Durham did say on radio we were paying 30k a week to Hendrick....it couldn't be true because of the restrictions we were under.

£30k for Hendrick was probably how much Newcastle were paying him (he was on loan, which Durham obviously didn't know), rather than how much we were paying him.

[Mid Sussex Royal]

£50,000? Who the hell agreed to such a small release fee like that?

The only way around that now is to offer him a new improved contract, but they'll be a few Championship clubs lining up when they learn he's available for peanuts.

We had no leverage at all and Ince may well have got a better deal elsewhere, adding a clause like that was likely one of the only ways to sign him. No problem with it to be honest given the circumstances we were working in.

I've got no problem with Ince going regardless of the fee. We're in a better position to get players in and I'd rather we had players who have the right attitude.

One of our big issues since Madejski sold the club has been us signing players with the wrong attitude for a club like ours (even before the transfer embargoes) - Guthrie, Drenthe, Meyler, Joao all spring to mind as players who wouldn't give everything to the club and all underperformed as a result. Our most successful teams have been filled with players who would give everything - even if they weren't technically or physically the best players.

Agree but pretty sure Brian signed Guthrie when SJM was still in charge

[Orion1871]

We had no leverage at all and Ince may well have got a better deal elsewhere, adding a clause like that was likely one of the only ways to sign him. No problem with it to be honest given the circumstances we were working in.

I've got no problem with Ince going regardless of the fee. We're in a better position to get players in and I'd rather we had players who have the right attitude.

One of our big issues since Madejski sold the club has been us signing players with the wrong attitude for a club like ours (even before the transfer embargoes) - Guthrie, Drenthe, Meyler, Joao all spring to mind as players who wouldn't give everything to the club and all underperformed as a result. Our most successful teams have been filled with players who would give everything - even if they weren't technically or physically the best players.

Agree but pretty sure Brian signed Guthrie when SJM was still in charge

Nope, the penniless Russian was "in charge".