by Nameless » 06 Mar 2015 10:15
by peterroyal76 » 06 Mar 2015 10:23
by Extended-Phenotype » 06 Mar 2015 10:54
P!ssed OffExtended-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.*
by Extended-Phenotype » 06 Mar 2015 11:07
peterroyal76 Poor old EP, he's had a shocker here!
by P!ssed Off » 06 Mar 2015 11:22
by Extended-Phenotype » 06 Mar 2015 11:52
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.
by Pseud O'Nym » 06 Mar 2015 12:13
Extended-Phenotypepeterroyal76 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.
by Extended-Phenotype » 06 Mar 2015 12:19
Pseud O'NymExtended-Phenotypepeterroyal76 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.
by Pepe the Horseman » 06 Mar 2015 12:38
by TBM » 06 Mar 2015 12:43
by Angry Shed Sex » 06 Mar 2015 12:44
by Extended-Phenotype » 06 Mar 2015 13:38
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
by Hoop Blah » 06 Mar 2015 13:41
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
by Extended-Phenotype » 06 Mar 2015 13:48
Hoop BlahTBM 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.
by Nameless » 06 Mar 2015 14:20
by Extended-Phenotype » 06 Mar 2015 14:46
by Nameless » 06 Mar 2015 14:58
by Extended-Phenotype » 06 Mar 2015 15:45
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.
by Nameless » 06 Mar 2015 15:57
by Extended-Phenotype » 06 Mar 2015 17:11
Users browsing this forum: Armadillo Roadkill, Google [Bot], Hendo, Linden Jones' Tash, WestYorksRoyal and 176 guests