|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jul 16, 2017 12:29:16 GMT
I'm still wanting to know why we didn't exercise our option to buy? Because, apparently, the option meant Porto could still pull out of the deal even if we wanted him.. clear as mud. Which again if it is the case, the negotiation team/lawyers need to just fuck right off.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jul 16, 2017 12:30:10 GMT
When clubs loan a player, isn't the deal that a future fee is agreed should both clubs agree the sale. When we loaned Ameobi wasn't there an agreed fee for a permanent deal, but on that occasion we didn't want to go ahead? Much as I think our transfer team should be better, I think what has happened here is quite understandable. Had Bruno been rubbish, what would we have been saying had we been forced to sign him at the end of the loan. It's normally the club signing him have the option. Not the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by mattythestokie on Jul 16, 2017 12:37:11 GMT
When clubs loan a player, isn't the deal that a future fee is agreed should both clubs agree the sale. When we loaned Ameobi wasn't there an agreed fee for a permanent deal, but on that occasion we didn't want to go ahead? Much as I think our transfer team should be better, I think what has happened here is quite understandable. Had Bruno been rubbish, what would we have been saying had we been forced to sign him at the end of the loan. It's normally the club signing him have the option. Not the other way around. It makes no sense for the selling club to even have a say in it. As we can see, this is what happens when they do.
|
|
|
Post by GeneralFaye on Jul 16, 2017 12:39:35 GMT
When clubs loan a player, isn't the deal that a future fee is agreed should both clubs agree the sale. When we loaned Ameobi wasn't there an agreed fee for a permanent deal, but on that occasion we didn't want to go ahead? Much as I think our transfer team should be better, I think what has happened here is quite understandable. Had Bruno been rubbish, what would we have been saying had we been forced to sign him at the end of the loan. It's normally the club signing him have the option. Not the other way around. Yep, wasn't it done on deadline day? Not an excuse but I bet we were in panic mode and just signed any deal Porto agreed to.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Jul 16, 2017 12:40:46 GMT
When clubs loan a player, isn't the deal that a future fee is agreed should both clubs agree the sale. When we loaned Ameobi wasn't there an agreed fee for a permanent deal, but on that occasion we didn't want to go ahead? Much as I think our transfer team should be better, I think what has happened here is quite understandable. Had Bruno been rubbish, what would we have been saying had we been forced to sign him at the end of the loan. It's normally the club signing him have the option. Not the other way around. It has to be both, mate. It can't be a one way deal.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jul 16, 2017 12:41:06 GMT
It's normally the club signing him have the option. Not the other way around. Yep, wasn't it done on deadline day? Not an excuse but I bet we were in panic mode and just signed any deal Porto agreed to. It was and seemingly that is what has happened. As Matty says, it makes no sense for the selling club to have any say in it once that clause is in.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jul 16, 2017 12:42:31 GMT
It's normally the club signing him have the option. Not the other way around. It has to be both, mate. It can't be a one way deal. Of course it can. That's what these clauses are usually like! They are an option for the buying club and once that option is taken up it should be binding. If the option runs out then the player goes back.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2017 12:45:33 GMT
Why don't you just piss off. Do us all a favour.
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Jul 16, 2017 12:51:22 GMT
It has to be both, mate. It can't be a one way deal. Of course it can. That's what these clauses are usually like! They are an option for the buying club and once that option is taken up it should be binding. If the option runs out then the player goes back. Spot on the transfer teams failure to put a binding option in place in this deal is inexcusable but,to be honest scholes is never held to account as per the sheik thread on trying to give the club income today the commercial set up is a shambles . Scholes won't care but unless there is a material change in stance from the club on transfers , investment and attitude im deliberating personally giving him some very expensive season tickets back at the Arsenal game amd if we give Arnie away for less than £30m that's another horrendous error from the small time boys operating in the mans world of the premier league .
|
|
|
Post by mattythestokie on Jul 16, 2017 12:52:40 GMT
It's normally the club signing him have the option. Not the other way around. It has to be both, mate. It can't be a one way deal. The transfer price is set at the agreement of the loan, and it's up to the buying club to take up that option. Else what's the point of setting a transfer price if the selling club don't agree to it, only to then demand 5million more? It makes the whole thing pointless.
|
|
|
Post by Bojan Krkic on Jul 16, 2017 15:11:25 GMT
I was pleased to hear MH talking about fake news, this week. I'm assuming that he meant all these rumours regarding Stoke City's negotiations with Porto for BMI . It annoys me when I see and read, on this forum, so many, so called Stoke City supporters taking the opportunity to critcise the club, and certain employees in particular, on the flimsiest of evidence . It becomes like a feeding frenzy and gets out of control. I, like every other supporter, get frustrated when transfer negotiations don't work out quite as quickly as I hoped but I don't condemn the club until I have some facts to go on. I'd like to introduce some more news regarding this BMI deal. Stoke signed BMI on a season long contract. There was an option to buy for 10m euros, provided that either club wished to take up that option. At that point in time non of us knew whether BMI was any good or not so we were trying before buying, which made sense. Obviously BMI turns out to be a very good player and Stoke intimated to the player and his club that they would like to make the move permanent during the January transfer window. Porto say no deal until the end of his loan contract, knowing that if the player kept up his good form they would push for a higher fee in the summer. BMI is willing to make the move permanent and agrees terms. He's so confident that the move will go ahead, he buys a house in Cheshire. Come the end of the season and Porto say they no longer want to sell BMI Then Porto come back to us and say they've changed their mind and he is for sale but at a higher price. Stoke and Bruno are very annoyed by these shenanigans and decide to make a stand against them. Stoke tell Porto that they will only pay the agreed fee of 10m euros and BMI, (unbeknown to Porto), says he won't sign for any other club. As an extra incentive to BMI to go along with this plan, and knowing that they'd be quids in, Stoke have offered him an extra signing on fee that no other club would be able to match. So the ball is now back in Porto's court. To try and put pressure on Stoke (and the fans) they say that other clubs are interested. But we know different. It's just a matter of time now until Porto relent, especially when we announce the signing of Zouma from Chelsea. Of course this is all made up. I've no evidence at all that it's true but lets go with it with the same passion as the negative stories. This makes a hell of a lot of sense and is about 80% of what i was also thinking. You have just added more depth and I believe you could be right
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jul 16, 2017 15:21:05 GMT
I was pleased to hear MH talking about fake news, this week. I'm assuming that he meant all these rumours regarding Stoke City's negotiations with Porto for BMI . It annoys me when I see and read, on this forum, so many, so called Stoke City supporters taking the opportunity to critcise the club, and certain employees in particular, on the flimsiest of evidence . It becomes like a feeding frenzy and gets out of control. I, like every other supporter, get frustrated when transfer negotiations don't work out quite as quickly as I hoped but I don't condemn the club until I have some facts to go on. I'd like to introduce some more news regarding this BMI deal. Stoke signed BMI on a season long contract. There was an option to buy for 10m euros, provided that either club wished to take up that option. At that point in time non of us knew whether BMI was any good or not so we were trying before buying, which made sense. Obviously BMI turns out to be a very good player and Stoke intimated to the player and his club that they would like to make the move permanent during the January transfer window. Porto say no deal until the end of his loan contract, knowing that if the player kept up his good form they would push for a higher fee in the summer. BMI is willing to make the move permanent and agrees terms. He's so confident that the move will go ahead, he buys a house in Cheshire. Come the end of the season and Porto say they no longer want to sell BMI Then Porto come back to us and say they've changed their mind and he is for sale but at a higher price. Stoke and Bruno are very annoyed by these shenanigans and decide to make a stand against them. Stoke tell Porto that they will only pay the agreed fee of 10m euros and BMI, (unbeknown to Porto), says he won't sign for any other club. As an extra incentive to BMI to go along with this plan, and knowing that they'd be quids in, Stoke have offered him an extra signing on fee that no other club would be able to match. So the ball is now back in Porto's court. To try and put pressure on Stoke (and the fans) they say that other clubs are interested. But we know different. It's just a matter of time now until Porto relent, especially when we announce the signing of Zouma from Chelsea. Of course this is all made up. I've no evidence at all that it's true but lets go with it with the same passion as the negative stories. This makes a hell of a lot of sense and is about 80% of what i was also thinking. You have just added more depth and I believe you could be right There should have been no wiggle room though with the clause. It should have been cast iron. That above isn't an acceptable occurrence.
|
|
|
Post by fullmetaljacket on Jul 16, 2017 15:36:39 GMT
Look at Alderwierald (sp?) and his deal at Southampton. They thought that was cast iron until Spurs came in.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Jul 16, 2017 15:44:20 GMT
Look at Alderwierald (sp?) and his deal at Southampton. They thought that was cast iron until Spurs came in. Not the same situation at all as the player decided he wanted to go elsewhere, you can't force someone to sign a contract no matter what arrangement exists between the two clubs.
|
|
|
Post by duckling on Jul 16, 2017 15:47:07 GMT
This makes a hell of a lot of sense and is about 80% of what i was also thinking. You have just added more depth and I believe you could be right There should have been no wiggle room though with the clause. It should have been cast iron. That above isn't an acceptable occurrence. Could it be that Porto were unwilling to loan him to Stoke unless Stoke signed their version of the contract? If Stoke wanted him badly, and it seems that they did, then they had no choice but to accept Porto's terms.
|
|
|
Post by Kjones9 on Jul 16, 2017 15:48:43 GMT
There should have been no wiggle room though with the clause. It should have been cast iron. That above isn't an acceptable occurrence. Could it be that Porto were unwilling to loan him to Stoke unless Stoke signed their version of the contract? If Stoke wanted him badly, and it seems that they did, then they had no choice but to accept Porto's terms. No it's all stokes fault, everything.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jul 16, 2017 15:49:57 GMT
There should have been no wiggle room though with the clause. It should have been cast iron. That above isn't an acceptable occurrence. Could it be that Porto were unwilling to loan him to Stoke unless Stoke signed their version of the contract? If Stoke wanted him badly, and it seems that they did, then they had no choice but to accept Porto's terms. Possibly. And that's the problem with leaving stuff so late and the problem with loan deals as an established Premier League club. It's a false economy and they should be avoided.
|
|
|
Post by greystokie on Jul 16, 2017 15:52:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by scfc75 on Jul 16, 2017 16:03:53 GMT
Could it be that Porto were unwilling to loan him to Stoke unless Stoke signed their version of the contract? If Stoke wanted him badly, and it seems that they did, then they had no choice but to accept Porto's terms. No it's all stokes fault, everything. Climate change.... Cartwright. The VW emissions scandal... Scholes. Hughes was the main man behind the Barings Bank collapse.
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Jul 16, 2017 16:08:18 GMT
Maybe he didn't want to haemorrhage £10k per month renting a place whilst he was here? £10K per month??????? It's a house in Stoke, not a row of houses in Landan!!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2017 16:53:27 GMT
I was pleased to hear MH talking about fake news, this week. I'm assuming that he meant all these rumours regarding Stoke City's negotiations with Porto for BMI . It annoys me when I see and read, on this forum, so many, so called Stoke City supporters taking the opportunity to critcise the club, and certain employees in particular, on the flimsiest of evidence . It becomes like a feeding frenzy and gets out of control. I, like every other supporter, get frustrated when transfer negotiations don't work out quite as quickly as I hoped but I don't condemn the club until I have some facts to go on. I'd like to introduce some more news regarding this BMI deal. Stoke signed BMI on a season long contract. There was an option to buy for 10m euros, provided that either club wished to take up that option. At that point in time non of us knew whether BMI was any good or not so we were trying before buying, which made sense. Obviously BMI turns out to be a very good player and Stoke intimated to the player and his club that they would like to make the move permanent during the January transfer window. Porto say no deal until the end of his loan contract, knowing that if the player kept up his good form they would push for a higher fee in the summer. BMI is willing to make the move permanent and agrees terms. He's so confident that the move will go ahead, he buys a house in Cheshire. Come the end of the season and Porto say they no longer want to sell BMI Then Porto come back to us and say they've changed their mind and he is for sale but at a higher price. Stoke and Bruno are very annoyed by these shenanigans and decide to make a stand against them. Stoke tell Porto that they will only pay the agreed fee of 10m euros and BMI, (unbeknown to Porto), says he won't sign for any other club. As an extra incentive to BMI to go along with this plan, and knowing that they'd be quids in, Stoke have offered him an extra signing on fee that no other club would be able to match. So the ball is now back in Porto's court. To try and put pressure on Stoke (and the fans) they say that other clubs are interested. But we know different. It's just a matter of time now until Porto relent, especially when we announce the signing of Zouma from Chelsea. Of course this is all made up. I've no evidence at all that it's true but lets go with it with the same passion as the negative stories. That isn't an option agreement though, when neither party is bound by it.The club previously said that there was an option agreement, this is the confusion. The reason why people get understandably really fucking pissed off is because this is a multi million pound organisation. There is a player here the manager wants, and who wants to join, and who did well, and we had an option agreement, but the deadline passed and he is missing our pre season.
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Jul 16, 2017 16:57:41 GMT
I was pleased to hear MH talking about fake news, this week. I'm assuming that he meant all these rumours regarding Stoke City's negotiations with Porto for BMI . It annoys me when I see and read, on this forum, so many, so called Stoke City supporters taking the opportunity to critcise the club, and certain employees in particular, on the flimsiest of evidence . It becomes like a feeding frenzy and gets out of control. I, like every other supporter, get frustrated when transfer negotiations don't work out quite as quickly as I hoped but I don't condemn the club until I have some facts to go on. I'd like to introduce some more news regarding this BMI deal. Stoke signed BMI on a season long contract. There was an option to buy for 10m euros, provided that either club wished to take up that option. At that point in time non of us knew whether BMI was any good or not so we were trying before buying, which made sense. Obviously BMI turns out to be a very good player and Stoke intimated to the player and his club that they would like to make the move permanent during the January transfer window. Porto say no deal until the end of his loan contract, knowing that if the player kept up his good form they would push for a higher fee in the summer. BMI is willing to make the move permanent and agrees terms. He's so confident that the move will go ahead, he buys a house in Cheshire. Come the end of the season and Porto say they no longer want to sell BMI Then Porto come back to us and say they've changed their mind and he is for sale but at a higher price. Stoke and Bruno are very annoyed by these shenanigans and decide to make a stand against them. Stoke tell Porto that they will only pay the agreed fee of 10m euros and BMI, (unbeknown to Porto), says he won't sign for any other club. As an extra incentive to BMI to go along with this plan, and knowing that they'd be quids in, Stoke have offered him an extra signing on fee that no other club would be able to match. So the ball is now back in Porto's court. To try and put pressure on Stoke (and the fans) they say that other clubs are interested. But we know different. It's just a matter of time now until Porto relent, especially when we announce the signing of Zouma from Chelsea. Of course this is all made up. I've no evidence at all that it's true but lets go with it with the same passion as the negative stories. That isn't an option agreement though, when neither party is not bound by it.The club previously said that there was an option agreement, this is the confusion. The reason why people get understandably really fucking pissed off is because this is a multi million pound organisation. There is a player here the manager wants, and who wants to join, and who did well, and we had an option agreement, but the deadline passed and he is missing our pre season. Spot on and inexcusable and not the first time we have said others are " hard to deal with
|
|
|
Post by captainmainwaring on Jul 16, 2017 17:18:32 GMT
Glasgowstokie, How do you know what sort of agreement we had with Porto? We all know we had a option to buy at 10m euros but no more than that.
How do you know that we let a deadline pass?
|
|
|
Post by steventaaffe on Jul 16, 2017 21:09:39 GMT
it was an opinion, keyboard warriors wind your necks in!
|
|
|
Post by jeycov on Jul 16, 2017 21:46:44 GMT
Everton being linked now 😲 HITC sport
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Jul 16, 2017 21:51:43 GMT
Everton being linked now 😲 HITC sport Another rehash.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Jul 16, 2017 21:52:01 GMT
Everton being linked now 😲 HITC sport Fake News
|
|
|
Post by hanibal7 on Jul 16, 2017 23:56:01 GMT
Still some are repeating themselves for brownie points, fkn pathetic pontificating
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Jul 17, 2017 8:38:49 GMT
It has to be both, mate. It can't be a one way deal. Of course it can. That's what these clauses are usually like! They are an option for the buying club and once that option is taken up it should be binding. If the option runs out then the player goes back. Nah I agree with March, if Porto had an Arnie situation with one CB forcing a move and their other CB had broken his leg, why should they be forced to sell him to us and buy another CB? Of course they should have a say in it, it would be reckless to give up any control over their player. It's a bit of an arse-holeish thing to do to renege on the gentlemen's agreement on the price, but they should be well within their rights to pull the plug on any deal if they want to.
|
|
|
Post by hanibal7 on Jul 17, 2017 10:07:17 GMT
Usual ones will not let it rest, so so so boring now.
|
|