CONFIMRED - Glenn Murray on loan

[Nameless]

e-p, loads of loan deals have 'with an option to buy' clause, loads of play contracts have a 'option to extend' clause. Neither are firm and fixed on both parties.

And in this case there are 3 parties and it was pretty obvious it was Murray who said no. My reading of it was that we had a deal with Palace that said if the loan went well, and if we wanted to keep Murray , and IF HE WANTED TO STAY we could have him for £3.50 and a packet of wine gums. But Murray didn't want to stay, which killed the deal.

I'd also agree that any deal of this sort is always going to have plenty of wriggle room for any party to decide not to go ahead, but the nature of the deal seems fairly clear along with the possiblity that it may not happen.

[peterroyal76]

Poor old EP, he's had a shocker here!

[Extended-Phenotype]

If Palace can reneg on the deal, it isn't a fcuking deal is it?

Work it out fellas.

How did Palace reneg on any deal?
The deal was if we bid x it's up to Murray. It was up to Murray, and he said no.
You're the one being dim.


Not sure what you don't get?
Much like if a player has a buy-back-clause: if his old club bid x, new club must accept the offer. But the player does not have to move because he's a person, not a commodity, and therefore enjoys some basic human rights*.

*Unless you're in the MLS.*

Then my initial point still stands m8, the club dressing the deal up with this “option to buy” was meaningless!

LOOL at your weird notion a player can sign an option to buy contract and then a few months later be able go “nah, changed me mind” because of “human rights”

Must remember that one when I next want out of a contract obligation!



Seriously, forget about ‘winning’ the argument for a sec: my whole point, clearly, right from the start, in plain English, was that either the “option to buy” was a meaningless bit of dressing or it wasn’t even true. Where exactly am I wrong?! Hammond boasting about the deal being virtually the same as a permanent signing and everyone on here including Ian (who even facing his own quotes still can’t find the dignity to admit fault) banging on about how the decision contractually rests with Reading and Reading only - Palace, player, another club: all concerns beaten away in the scurry to defend such an epic and clever signing – it’s all proven to be pigswill whichever way you look at it.

I’m not even fussed about him tbh. I’m just lolling at all the furious spittle that covered me and TBM at the time when it turns out we totally nailed it.

[Extended-Phenotype]

Poor old EP, he's had a shocker here!

Have I woken up in some bizarro alternate universe where everybody is insane?!

Might have to go and have a lie down.

[P!ssed Off]

Why do you think Murray would be signing a clause that says if Reading bid x, Palace must accept?
That part of the arrangement does not concern Murray.

Clearly right from the start neither E-P nor Ian Royal had much idea what was going on, even now they're still not sure.

The clause wasn't meaningless nor was it a game changer. The club may well have portrayed it as more important than it was:

Frankly for either E-P or Ian Royal to be banging on about how they were right all along is laughable.

[Extended-Phenotype]

Why do you think Murray would be signing a clause that says if Reading bid x, Palace must accept?
That part of the arrangement does not concern Murray.

Clearly right from the start neither E-P nor Ian Royal had much idea what was going on, even now they're still not sure.

The clause wasn't meaningless nor was it a game changer. The club may well have portrayed it as more important than it was:

Frankly for either E-P or Ian Royal to be banging on about how they were right all along is laughable.

Strange thing to laugh about.

M8, just saying that folk can sign a contract for future work. It isn't mental to consider an "option to buy" contract would be agreed and signed by all parties. Its not like players can change their minds in normal transfers, you know, drop out after a week and go back to their old club because they didn't like the food or whatever.

[Pseud O'Nym]

Poor old EP, he's had a shocker here!

Have I woken up in some bizarro alternate universe where everybody is insane?!

Might have to go and have a lie down.

Have to say I agree with peterroyal76 here. "First refusal" and "option to buy" are not some strange concepts invented by RFC, they're pretty common things and it would seem to be just you who doesn't understand them.

[Extended-Phenotype]

Poor old EP, he's had a shocker here!

Have I woken up in some bizarro alternate universe where everybody is insane?!

Might have to go and have a lie down.

Have to say I agree with peterroyal76 here. "First refusal" and "option to buy" are not some strange concepts invented by RFC, they're pretty common things and it would seem to be just you who doesn't understand them.

I didn't say that rfc invented it. I said they are meaningless if any if the parties involved can just pull out when they feel like it.

Dunno why this is causing such a bundle but bring it Psued, I will take you all down

[Pepe the Horseman]

How do 'options for another year' work on contracts? Is it just a matter of the club choosing to activate it? If so, it's not too unreasonable to think 'option to buy' should work the same way.

[TBM]

It is pointless

We have [had] first refusal....ok, so say Derby also wanted him - the player would just say no to us and join Derby so having first refusal means nothing

[Angry Shed Sex]

In the post-bodman era it is the player that generally decides where he goes, not the clubs.

All this rubbish about agreements is irrelevant.

[Extended-Phenotype]

It is pointless

We have [had] first refusal....ok, so say Derby also wanted him - the player would just say no to us and join Derby so having first refusal means nothing

Jesus, where the fcuk have you been?

[Hoop Blah]

It is pointless

We have [had] first refusal....ok, so say Derby also wanted him - the player would just say no to us and join Derby so having first refusal means nothing

But 'having a deal in place' might just as often mean a fee has been agreed as well. In this case we might've agreed a £1.5m deal with Palace which they had to accept and give us 'first refusal'.

After a great loan spell with us his market rate, and the price Derby were willing to pay, had rocketed to £3m.

In this case we'd have been able to get him on the relative cheap. Of course the player would still be able to turn either offer down though.

[Extended-Phenotype]

It is pointless

We have [had] first refusal....ok, so say Derby also wanted him - the player would just say no to us and join Derby so having first refusal means nothing

But 'having a deal in place' might just as often mean a fee has been agreed as well. In this case we might've agreed a £1.5m deal with Palace which they had to accept and give us 'first refusal'.

After a great loan spell with us his market rate, and the price Derby were willing to pay, had rocketed to £3m.

In this case we'd have been able to get him on the relative cheap. Of course the player would still be able to turn either offer down though.

Its not an offer, though. Its a deal that he's already accepted. Unless he hasn't, in which case there was no "option to buy". Its just a standard loan like any other.

[Nameless]

Ep, it's quite clearly a bit different to a standard loan. A loan with an option means that a sale has been talked about and agreed in principle. A straight loan means the player goes back at the end me there is no possibility of a sale. We will NOT sell Tanner to Wimbledon for example.
It would be a little unusual to agree a loan and a definite sale in advance, although it happens. Really can't see why you are struggling with this, it doesn't even appear you are just doing it to wind people up....

[Extended-Phenotype]

But Wimbledon could make an offer at the end of Tanner's loan. We might accept. We might not.

So it would be no different to an option to buy deal, by your definition.

[Nameless]

Of course it's different !

In the Murray situation there was a deal in principle, no need to make an offer, discuss terms etc. clubs both happy, player has final say as in any transfer.

In the Tanner scenario Wimbledon make offer and no one returns the call.

[Extended-Phenotype]

Of course it's different !

In the Murray situation there was a deal in principle, no need to make an offer, discuss terms etc. clubs both happy, player has final say as in any transfer.

In the Tanner scenario Wimbledon make offer and no one returns the call.

Shrugs. Doesn't sound any different to me. Just one scenario they've discussed it a bit beforehand.

[Nameless]

Well if you ask a question to which there is a fairly straightforward answer, and you keep refusing to accept that answer you can't be surprised if you get that answer replayed every time you ask the question !

Clearly this is going nowhere, and probably it matters not a jot. I just wonder if you have considered why the club might have lied, or invented a situation when there isn't benefit in them doing so.

[Extended-Phenotype]

Duno wtf you are banging on about in the first para

Why might they have told a porky? Sex up a shit signing. Save face. Deflect press/fan criticism. Redirect fan focus. Avoid scrutiny of owners. Loads of reasons.

"We got a loan of Glen Murray for a bit" becomes "we've signed Glen Murray on a short term trial with an option to buy and make him permanent if he is successful here."

Which was either a fib, or the concept of 'option to buy' is meaningless bollocks. In which case its just fluff the club used to make the signing sound better. Which is nearly as bad as making shit up.

In a nutshell. But I appreciate you lot disagree for some baffling reason or another.