Rumour: James Harper (talks with Wolves confirmed)

[cavroyal]

Always makes me laugh when people say they "know somebody very well connected with the club/deal" etc but then fail to reveal their source

Basically they heard it from somebody down the pub and if it comes true they look like some sort of well connected dude but if it turns out to be false they slip away into the unknown avoiding all contact with the thread they posted on.

I'd have thought it was more along the lines of their source doesn't want to be named on the web as it will get them into trouble.

More than anything, respect for your friend(s) that give you this information in the first place. If they are a friend, they're surely more important than proving yourself to a host of user names on a football forum.

Exactly correct, thanks for helping to clear that up.

If it goes through, I could probably reveal how I knew, but then again it would not seem that relevant then. However, this is definitely not a rumour 'overheard in the pub', it is 100% true, Wolves and RFC have agreed a fee for Harps.

[Maguire]

I totally believe the both of you. You can usually tell from the tone of the post if there's any substance behind it.

Has he gone yet? *fingers crosses*

[Hoop Blah]

Keown, Ferdinand and Duberry had experience, doesn't mean they benefitted us. We've got plenty of experience with Ingimarsson, Gunnarsson, Tabb and Noel Hunt thanks. Harper can piss off.

There is a vast difference between having experience and being past it like Keown and Ferdinand where. Bringing them in was a bit of a error in judgement to be honest.

The others you list probably shouldn't be getting in our side if we're having a decent season and so they won't really help the team out on the pitch very much. If Rodgers can get Harper anywhere near back to his best we'll have one of the best midfielders in the division in our side.

It sounds like that might not happen though if this rumour is to be believed, and I think it might have some truth to it.

[Thaumagurist*]

I'd have thought it was more along the lines of their source doesn't want to be named on the web as it will get them into trouble.

More than anything, respect for your friend(s) that give you this information in the first place. If they are a friend, they're surely more important than proving yourself to a host of user names on a football forum.

Exactly correct, thanks for helping to clear that up.

If it goes through, I could probably reveal how I knew, but then again it would not seem that relevant then. However, this is definitely not a rumour 'overheard in the pub', it is 100% true, Wolves and RFC have agreed a fee for Harps.

And yet a lot of information turn out to be bullshit. Why bother, even if you believe it to be true because nobody else will believe you.

[tee peg]

There wouldnt be much on U.R.G if that was the case.

[Gandalf Presley]

Call me controversial but my appraise of Harper's role at RFC is as follows:-

2000-2001: goal on debut, clearly MOTM in play-off final defeat v Walsall
2001 - 2002: personally always felt he thought he was the best player on the pitch but never demonstrated it. Ended the season, at best, on the bench
2002-2003: the engine in the Royals midfield. Although Pardew's tactics also brought the best out in Forster, rightly won player of the year
2003-2004: disappointment when compared to the previous season
2004 - 2007: saw the partnership with Sidwell reached fruitio.
2007 - 2008: should have won player of the year again. Commitment and passion were clearly on display along with some key goals (Boro away and the third v Liverpool)
2008 - 2009: ineffective. In retrospect, should have should him in one of the last two transfer windows

Appreciate it is a young squad but RFC need to move on. As does Harper who, despite glimpses, cannot be classified as a RFC legend.

[strap]

I believe Arsenal have a 40% (yes thats forty) sell-on clause.

I always thought sell-on clauses could only be legally applied at the time the registration changed hands, ie only to the first contract signed by the player for his new club. Harper is obvioulsy on his 3rd of 4th contract at the club, (seeing as he's our current longest serving player), so I would have thought the sell-on clause would have elapsed. It would seem odd if it could be applied in perpetuity.

[yappy]

I believe Arsenal have a 40% (yes thats forty) sell-on clause.

I always thought sell-on clauses could only be legally applied at the time the registration changed hands, ie only to the first contract signed by the player for his new club. Harper is obvioulsy on his 3rd of 4th contract at the club, (seeing as he's our current longest serving player), so I would have thought the sell-on clause would have elapsed. It would seem odd if it could be applied in perpetuity.

Pretty sure that can't be true, or wouldn't clubs just try and buy players at knock down values with a high sell-on clause, then make them sign another contract the second they arrive? Remember we still had to buy out Doyle's sell-on clause, and im pretty sure he was on his 3rd contract with us. It was also well reported last year that Arsenal would get 40% had we sold Harper then, and nothings changed since then.

[Thaumagurist*]

I believe Arsenal have a 40% (yes thats forty) sell-on clause.

I always thought sell-on clauses could only be legally applied at the time the registration changed hands, ie only to the first contract signed by the player for his new club. Harper is obvioulsy on his 3rd of 4th contract at the club, (seeing as he's our current longest serving player), so I would have thought the sell-on clause would have elapsed. It would seem odd if it could be applied in perpetuity.

Pretty sure that can't be true, or wouldn't clubs just try and buy players at knock down values with a high sell-on clause, then make them sign another contract the second they arrive? Remember we still had to buy out Doyle's sell-on clause, and im pretty sure he was on his 3rd contract with us. It was also well reported last year that Arsenal would get 40% had we sold Harper then, and nothings changed since then.

I think that there really should be a time limit on those sell-on clauses. Like maybe six years and the clause no longer applies.

[TBM]

I think that there really should be a time limit on those sell-on clauses. Like maybe six years and the clause no longer applies.

Why???

[yappy]

I think that there really should be a time limit on those sell-on clauses. Like maybe six years and the clause no longer applies.

Possibly, yes, but it was just good business from Arsenal at the end of the day. We can't really complain, as we originally did get him for a knock down price and we've had eight years of loyal service, which is surely worth the £800k we'd lose out on if he were to go for £2million.

I'm still doubting this story. Reading Harpers interview in the Evening Post has me in two minds; firstly he may possibly be a little unsettled with all his 'mates' leaving, and being replaced with kids, but secondly if Wolves and Reading have agreed a fee seems a bit odd Harper having an interview with the EP (and talking about whether he'll be fit for Saturday), when surely he should be up in Wolves. Guess only time will tell!

[Dirk Gently]

There is on some, but not on others - there's no standard, because each clause is what is negotiated in the contract of sale between the two clubs, and these are getting more and more complicated and conditional with each contract new negotiated.

But it basically is just what is agreed between the two clubs.

[Hoop Blah]

...if Wolves and Reading have agreed a fee seems a bit odd Harper having an interview with the EP (and talking about whether he'll be fit for Saturday), when surely he should be up in Wolves. Guess only time will tell!

All depends when he gave the interview and when the supposed bid was made and accepted.

Don't forget the EP is now only out twice a week and so the interviews aren't maybe as current as they were previously.

[rabidbee]

I think that there really should be a time limit on those sell-on clauses. Like maybe six years and the clause no longer applies.

Which would only push up the initial fee, wouldn't it?

[RobRoyal]

I believe Arsenal have a 40% (yes thats forty) sell-on clause.

I always thought sell-on clauses could only be legally applied at the time the registration changed hands, ie only to the first contract signed by the player for his new club. Harper is obvioulsy on his 3rd of 4th contract at the club, (seeing as he's our current longest serving player), so I would have thought the sell-on clause would have elapsed. It would seem odd if it could be applied in perpetuity.

Possibly. Wasn't there a similar situation in our promotion year, when we argued that bonuses due to York relating to the Murty deal were no longer payable because he had signed a new contract? If it can be argued with add-ons like that, I don't see why it couldn't be with sell-on clauses. Having said that, I seem to remember we ended up paying them something, even if it wasn't the full amount.

[Ian Royal]

Why should the player's contract with the new club impact on the transfer? The player's contract is a contract between him and the new club, has nothing to do with the old club.

The transfer deal between the two clubs has nothing to do with the player.

So as Dirk says, if it's negotiated into the transfer that there is a time limit to the sell on clause or it expires when the players contract changes that's one thing. If there is no time limit or clauses, then it stays in affect until it is triggered.

[Terminal Boardom]

I will be very sorry to see Harps go. He is one of the few older pros on the books who can comfortably last 90 minutes. His experience would be invaluable to the youngsters coming through.

However, the flip side is reading the article in the Scrote. He refers to having seen so many friends move on. Is he perhaps thinking that there is no reason for him to stay here any more? Is it possible that he sees the opportunity of a big fat pay cheque that would land in his lap if he goes back to the Prem? He is certainly good enough to play there. My wish would be for him to achieve that goal with us.

[Sun Tzu]

Why should the player's contract with the new club impact on the transfer? The player's contract is a contract between him and the new club, has nothing to do with the old club.

The transfer deal between the two clubs has nothing to do with the player.

So as Dirk says, if it's negotiated into the transfer that there is a time limit to the sell on clause or it expires when the players contract changes that's one thing. If there is no time limit or clauses, then it stays in affect until it is triggered.

Are you not arguing against yourself there ?

If the contract between the clubs says that a sell on fee or other clause and it refers to the duration of the player's contract with his new club then clearly there is a link between the two deals ?

As I recall the wording of Murts contract was unclear and required legal clarification as to whether it applied to the life of the original contract or to the entire time Murts was under contract to RFC. Either could have been correct but it was established that it was the latter that applied.

[Stranded]

Why should the player's contract with the new club impact on the transfer? The player's contract is a contract between him and the new club, has nothing to do with the old club.

The transfer deal between the two clubs has nothing to do with the player.

So as Dirk says, if it's negotiated into the transfer that there is a time limit to the sell on clause or it expires when the players contract changes that's one thing. If there is no time limit or clauses, then it stays in affect until it is triggered.

Are you not arguing against yourself there ?

If the contract between the clubs says that a sell on fee or other clause and it refers to the duration of the player's contract with his new club then clearly there is a link between the two deals ?

As I recall the wording of Murts contract was unclear and required legal clarification as to whether it applied to the life of the original contract or to the entire time Murts was under contract to RFC. Either could have been correct but it was established that it was the latter that applied.

As you state in your last paragrpah to an extent, it depends on the term contract. I would be very surprised if any team sells to another club saying theres a sell on fee if he moves under the first contract he signs as all the buying club would have to do is sign said player and then offer them a new contract the next day, freeing them from such a deal.

[Hoop Blah]

Exactly Stranded, and also a lot of law surrounding terms and unfair terms of contracts takes into account the industry norms.

I think RFC just saw a possible loop hole to exploit in the Murty contract and tried it on but unless it's expressly stated in the contract that any clause is time bound I can't see any reason why it would be implied that way.

We've benefitted from sell on clauses, and it's a great practice to protect your investment in young players, and we can't throw our toys out just because Harper has been here so long.