Howmanheyman 33245 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Silly anyone getting anti club on this. He failed a medical at Stoke, has a fucked knee but this was a gamble that came off. We've had 18 months of a very good player whose main priority is filling his bank in case his knee goes. Not sure if any other club would do this deal. No hard feelings and thanks for a great 18 months. We got Ba PRECISELY because he had one of the clauses we seem to be keen on. We never paid West Ham a penny. Iirc his agents and Demba scored for £2.5M. We got him for 18 months, he did the business now we get £5M but lose his goals and cross our fingers that Cisse or his replacement can replace them. Course Demba held the cards when we pinched him so that's why we gave in to the clause. People should get used to this kind of shit with our owner, I can't understand anyone not thinking the club are a penny pinching shambles to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4725 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Which requires him (and he representatives) to accept a contract without it in. You can argue it both ways, perhaps he wanted far too much money, or wouldn't accept any contract without a release clause in it. If the club hadn't put it there originally maybe he wouldnt have signed for us at all. I'm kind of with CT on this one (though not quite so enthused by it as he seems to be) Mac some its up perfectly well. Mac @2NarMe @MsiDouglas I think we got a good deal. Free signing, essential goals & let’s be honest; many questioned his ability when signing. Mac @2NarMe @MsiDouglas Well no deal’s ever “free”, but we’ve both helped each other out. He got a platform, we got his goals. Gutted to see him go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 The more times he moves, the more times the agents take a fee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10857 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Which requires him (and he representatives) to accept a contract without it in. You can argue it both ways, perhaps he wanted far too much money, or wouldn't accept any contract without a release clause in it. If the club hadn't put it there originally maybe he wouldnt have signed for us at all. I'm kind of with CT on this one (though not quite so enthused by it as he seems to be) I'm sure, after the season he had, it would have been possible to sit down with him and his leeches and at least improve the release fee. I'm sure the agents wouldn't have minded earning 5% of £12m instead of 5% of £5m. I'm also sure that it could have been argues the clubs who he'd want to move to, would still think £12m is a good price for a 1 in 2 striker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4725 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 I think the fact that 'he' obviously demanded a release clause makes 'his' intentions/ motivations pretty clear. exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21924 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Silly comment. If he's wanting £120,000 how can they sort it out? If a player doesnt want to do a deal you cant make them. they could pay him. the owner is a billionaire and he could afford to compete with the top clubs in terms of pay roll ... if he wanted to put more of his own money in he could. he doesn't though, so we're doomed to always lose players that perform well, as gemmil says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10857 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 I understand he wanted a release clause, I'm saying it would have been possible to negotiate a more expensive one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4725 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 We got Ba PRECISELY because he had one of the clauses we seem to be keen on. We never paid West Ham a penny. Iirc his agents and Demba scored for £2.5M. We got him for 18 months, he did the business now we get £5M but lose his goals and cross our fingers that Cisse or his replacement can replace them. Course Demba held the cards when we pinched him so that's why we gave in to the clause. People should get used to this kind of shit with our owner, I can't understand anyone not thinking the club are a penny pinching shambles to be honest. That makes no sense. On the one hand you are saying Demba held the cards and inserted the clause and then blaming the club for Demba using that clause to move on. The alternative is we didnt do this deal and have 18 months of Demba? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobH 0 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) I understand he wanted a release clause, I'm saying it would have been possible to negotiate a more expensive one. Why wouldn't they then? Also how could you possibly know that? You think it would have been possible. Edited January 2, 2013 by RobH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobos 298 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 I'm actually pleased this is happening, following the false alarm this weekend. Whilst he's undoubtedly able to score goals, I reckon Cisse will do just as well once he's a regular centre striker and that Demba has actually been a detriment to the team in the past few months. I've watched too many games now where Ba pays absolutely no attention to Cisse at all, with no attempt to link play and just a greed to score goals; which I suspect is driven by advice to get himself in the shop window and earn as much money as he can before the knee goes. It's worked out for both of us, but as many have said I also agree that Mike Ashley cares only about the bottom line and doesn't give too hoots about the club in respect of anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howmanheyman 33245 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 That makes no sense. On the one hand you are saying Demba held the cards and inserted the clause and then blaming the club for Demba using that clause to move on. The alternative is we didnt do this deal and have 18 months of Demba? No I'm just stating that the club did this on the cheap and have now got themselves in a position where they have to get a replacement in. Do other 'big' clubs do business like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4725 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 I'm sure, after the season he had, it would have been possible to sit down with him and his leeches and at least improve the release fee. I'm sure the agents wouldn't have minded earning 5% of £12m instead of 5% of £5m. I'm also sure that it could have been argues the clubs who he'd want to move to, would still think £12m is a good price for a 1 in 2 striker. But nobody came sniffing in the summer following a great season at 7.5 so it would be hard to agree to put the price up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10857 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Why wouldn't they then? Also how could you possibly know that? You think it would have been possible. Why wouldn't they? A whole heap of reasons, the undoubted demands for higher base wage and a moving away from appearances forming quite as substantial a portion of his income chief among them. You're stating it would be impossible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 I've watched too many games now where Ba pays absolutely no attention to Cisse at all, with no attempt to link play and just a greed to score goals; which I suspect is driven by advice to get himself in the shop window and earn as much money as he can before the knee goes. I think there's a lot of truth in that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44900 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Dont think they will all come with dodgy knees and release clauses. His knee is irrelevant and the release clause is a red herring as its nowhere near as favourable as it seems. He's leaving because he's too good for us to retain under current management. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4725 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 they could pay him. the owner is a billionaire and he could afford to compete with the top clubs in terms of pay roll ... if he wanted to put more of his own money in he could. he doesn't though, so we're doomed to always lose players that perform well, as gemmil says. So who do you think would be knocking on the door the following morning? Cabaye, Tiote, Cisse..... So we then either pay them or have a very unhappy camp. We dont have an Arab with endless billions. Not many clubs can live they way you suggest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigWalrus 0 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Yep, if they can't agree on a new deal with the clause removed, there's not a lot that can be done. It's likely we wouldn't have signed him if the clause wasn't in there in the first place too. The alternative would have been to offer a much higher basic, but for someone with such a dodgy knee, this would represent a huge risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21924 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 it's hard not to be disappointed as we're losing yet another top player. and i have little faith that the board will bring in a better quality replacement or even one at all. they will continue to put driving a hard bargain before paying a fee they consider over the odds. even if it means going into the final bit of the season a striker down, as we saw with the carroll farce. i'm hoping they'll prove me wrong but i'm not confident they will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigWalrus 0 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 they could pay him. the owner is a billionaire and he could afford to compete with the top clubs in terms of pay roll ... if he wanted to put more of his own money in he could. he doesn't though, so we're doomed to always lose players that perform well, as gemmil says. That's not how you run a football club though, unless it's a Chelsea-esque plaything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10857 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 But nobody came sniffing in the summer following a great season at 7.5 so it would be hard to agree to put the price up. Why? It should be his value to us, not the level of interest he's generating from others that dictates his release clause. Also who's to say they didn't come sniffing at £7.5m in the summer? The suitors may have been dissuaded by his wage demands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 His knee is irrelevant and the release clause is a red herring as its nowhere near as favourable as it seems. He's leaving because he's too good for us to retain under current management. I dont think thats completely true otherwise Michu would be leaving Swansea, Fletcher wouldnt be at Sunderland and Lambert would not be at Soton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9431 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 He'll not be getting paid today then if he said 'fuck off I might get injured"? Many ways to skin a cat, his hammy feels tight, he's feels sick etc etc, point stands. No way would agree to play if he knew he was fucking off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobH 0 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Why wouldn't they? A whole heap of reasons, the undoubted demands for higher base wage and a moving away from appearances forming quite as substantial a portion of his income chief among them. You're stating it would be impossible? Right well obviously if you're going to be pedantic then clearly it's possible, well done for pointing that out. The reality is that If Ba says 'I'm only signing a contract with a 7.5mill release clause' then there's little chance of us negotiating otherwise. i Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4725 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 His knee is irrelevant and the release clause is a red herring as its nowhere near as favourable as it seems. He's leaving because he's too good for us to retain under current management. Rubbish. His knee is the reason we got him and not Stoke and his release clause is why he is on his way and approaches for the likes of Cabaye etc were knocked back. (Thats not to say that all players dont have a price. Thats just a fact of modern day football at virtually every club). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9431 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 No I'm just stating that the club did this on the cheap and have now got themselves in a position where they have to get a replacement in. Do other 'big' clubs do business like this? He probably wouldn't have signed if he couldn't have his clause, what choice was there, really ?? Nowt to do with "cheapness". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now