|
Post by hanibal7 on Jul 17, 2017 10:14:57 GMT
Have Westham got a Tony Scholes M 2, not signed Arnie yet, how slow, how pathetic, should be easy.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Jul 17, 2017 10:31:31 GMT
Usual ones will not let it rest, so so so boring now. Just like our transfer activity. If you want to read that everythings's peachy, perhaps a forum of differing views isn't the place for you and you could just follow the club on Twitter instead?
|
|
|
Post by hanibal7 on Jul 17, 2017 10:43:04 GMT
Usual ones will not let it rest, so so so boring now. Just like our transfer activity. If you want to read that everythings's peachy, perhaps a forum of differing views isn't the place for you and you could just follow the club on Twitter instead? Different, last 10 pages is a couple of people trying to be right, pathetic, rinse and repeat
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Jul 17, 2017 11:16:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by SamB_SCFC on Jul 17, 2017 11:38:36 GMT
If it's true and we end up paying more than £8.5m whoever is responsible for letting the option elapse needs the sack instantly. Amateur hour stuff. £8.5m is a bargain these days.
|
|
|
Post by GeneralFaye on Jul 17, 2017 11:41:22 GMT
I know our transfer team are a bit wank but would they really let the option just run out? something must have gone on behind closed doors between the 2 clubs, it can't be as simple as it's being made out to be.
|
|
|
Post by mattador78 on Jul 17, 2017 11:41:40 GMT
If it's true and we end up paying more than £8.5m whoever is responsible for letting the option elapse needs the sack instantly. Amateur hour stuff. £8.5m is a bargain these days. Perhaps though indi wasn't keen on joining before the deal elapsed
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Jul 17, 2017 12:18:54 GMT
If it's true and we end up paying more than £8.5m whoever is responsible for letting the option elapse needs the sack instantly. Amateur hour stuff. £8.5m is a bargain these days. Perhaps though indi wasn't keen on joining before the deal elapsed Oh don't mate. This has been done countless times. Haters gonna hate no matter how plausible the explanation.
|
|
|
Post by johnnysoul60 on Jul 17, 2017 12:21:47 GMT
Perhaps though indi wasn't keen on joining before the deal elapsed Oh don't mate. This has been done countless times. Haters gonna hate no matter how plausible the explanation. I'm sure that you are right but the lack of communication on the issue in terms of any meaningful information often fuels the fire .
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Jul 17, 2017 12:31:27 GMT
Oh don't mate. This has been done countless times. Haters gonna hate no matter how plausible the explanation. I'm sure that you are right but the lack of communication on the issue in terms of any meaningful information often fuels the fire . Trouble is mate Stoke is a multi million pound company and it must be difficult as it is to keep your deals secret from competitors. As much as we like to think we own the club or that they ought to keep us informed we don't and they can't for commercial reasons. I know we've seen apparent fuckups on this scale before and as a result we've become very cynical but I bet other mid table clubs have the same fuckups we just don't get to hear about them.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2017 12:33:53 GMT
Oh don't mate. This has been done countless times. Haters gonna hate no matter how plausible the explanation. I'm sure that you are right but the lack of communication on the issue in terms of any meaningful information often fuels the fire . If the deadline passed because Bruno, or maybe his wife, wasn't sure whether they wanted to commit to joining Stoke, I wouldn't expect the club to announce it. Maybe if he ends up going elsewhere, the truth might come out. Just guesswork on my part, but I've always had the feeling that this was the case. But then if the rumours of him buying a house in the area are true, then who knows? Not us, clearly.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2017 12:34:17 GMT
It appears that this "option" was only enforceable if all parties agreed.
But if all parties agreed, no "option" was required.
The "option" was just a bit of meaningless crap inserted in the contract. A bit like "A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on".
|
|
|
Post by milky on Jul 17, 2017 12:39:58 GMT
We've been told by the club itself on more than one occasion over a period of time that we want BMI and he is keen to join us.
Why it still hasn't been sorted is anyone's guess..but you can bet your life we will blame Porto and they will blame us !
I still think he will be a Stoke player before the Everton game.Maybe that's just blind optimism more than anything though.
|
|
|
Post by johnnysoul60 on Jul 17, 2017 12:48:49 GMT
I'm sure that you are right but the lack of communication on the issue in terms of any meaningful information often fuels the fire . Trouble is mate Stoke is a multi million pound company and it must be difficult as it is to keep your deals secret from competitors. As much as we like to think we own the club or that they ought to keep us informed we don't and they can't for commercial reasons. I know we've seen apparent fuckups on this scale before and as a result we've become very cynical but I bet other mid table clubs have the same fuckups we just don't get to hear about them. I can see your point but still think they can issue statements to clarify more than they do for example they are getting stick about this alleged clause so they could say if there was a clause or not . I also agree its not just us and that transfers are a murky business but in the silly season without clarity rumours and accusations will fly round
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2017 12:56:39 GMT
Trouble is mate Stoke is a multi million pound company and it must be difficult as it is to keep your deals secret from competitors. As much as we like to think we own the club or that they ought to keep us informed we don't and they can't for commercial reasons. I know we've seen apparent fuckups on this scale before and as a result we've become very cynical but I bet other mid table clubs have the same fuckups we just don't get to hear about them. I can see your point but still think they can issue statements to clarify more than they do for example they are getting stick about this alleged clause so they could say if there was a clause or not . I also agree its not just us and that transfers are a murky business but in the silly season without clarity rumours and accusations will fly round Deny one rumour and they'll be left having to confirm or deny them all. It's a slippery slope. I'd love to know what's cracked off as much as everyone else, but I can understand why they wouldn't want to go into the details.
|
|
|
Post by jezzascfc on Jul 17, 2017 12:57:09 GMT
It appears that this "option" was only enforceable if all parties agreed. But if all parties agreed, no "option" was required. The "option" was just a bit of meaningless crap inserted in the contract. A bit like "A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on". Legally an option is usually enforceable unilaterally by one party - it looks like this was not an option, but more a right of first refusal: i.e., if Porto want to sell before a certain date, Stoke will get first dibs on him at a set price. What seems to have irked us is that Porto seem to have said that he was not for sale anymore, then turned round a couple of weeks later, after the right of first refusal had lapsed (not right context for word "elapsed", Sentinel!!), and told us they had changed their mind, but that the price would be 5 million higher now! It seems we could not enforce the option as there really was not one. The fault is not in what we did this summer, but seems to be what we did last summer in not securing an option which we could enforce without further recourse to Porto.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2017 13:02:34 GMT
It appears that this "option" was only enforceable if all parties agreed. But if all parties agreed, no "option" was required. The "option" was just a bit of meaningless crap inserted in the contract. A bit like "A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on". Legally an option is usually enforceable unilaterally by one party - it looks like this was not an option, but more a right of first refusal: i.e., if Porto want to sell before a certain date, Stoke will get first dibs on him at a set price. What seems to have irked us is that Porto seem to have said that he was not for sale anymore, then turned round a couple of weeks later, after the right of first refusal had lapsed (not such word as "elapsed", Sentinel!!), and told us they had changed their mind, but that the price would be 5 million higher now! It seems we could not enforce the option as there really was not one. The fault is not in what we did this summer, but seems to be what we did last summer in not securing an option which we could enforce without further recourse to Porto. Stoke were happy to sign Bruno with, or without an option to buy, last summer.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jul 17, 2017 13:10:01 GMT
I'm sure that you are right but the lack of communication on the issue in terms of any meaningful information often fuels the fire . Trouble is mate Stoke is a multi million pound company and it must be difficult as it is to keep your deals secret from competitors. As much as we like to think we own the club or that they ought to keep us informed we don't and they can't for commercial reasons. I know we've seen apparent fuckups on this scale before and as a result we've become very cynical but I bet other mid table clubs have the same fuckups we just don't get to hear about them. Having worked in differing industries and foreign companies, it's my experience that businesses know to a large degree what each other are doing and there is a lot of "mutual respect" not to "step on each other's toes", which sounds like restrictive practices and in a way it is. I think if a club "pulled a fast one" on another club, they know they could be made to pay for it in the long run by other clubs not dealing with them. It's nice to think there are auctions taking place for players behind closed doors, but I suspect it rarely happens. At the risk of sounding xenophobic, I imagine difficulties can arise with foreign clubs as their understanding of fair game is different to our's. Many of the discussions have gone on for months before the transfer windows, and like house buying chains, I'm sure there are lots of deals in place waiting to be triggered by "events", which may or may not happen. Most of us, including the media don't know what is going on and a lot put 2 and 2 together and make 5. Those ITK, I'm sure only spill the beans when it is safe to do so, if they have any sense.
|
|
|
Post by slother on Jul 17, 2017 13:35:32 GMT
If you were Bruno and you knew Stoke had a deadline to get you in for 8.5m, you might crank up your wage demands because you know they're under a time pressure to get you signed. Maybe that's why Stoke let it lapse, to get Bruno to be more reasonable in his terms.
Just a theory. I don't believe it myself.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jul 17, 2017 13:44:22 GMT
Legally an option is usually enforceable unilaterally by one party - it looks like this was not an option, but more a right of first refusal: i.e., if Porto want to sell before a certain date, Stoke will get first dibs on him at a set price. What seems to have irked us is that Porto seem to have said that he was not for sale anymore, then turned round a couple of weeks later, after the right of first refusal had lapsed (not such word as "elapsed", Sentinel!!), and told us they had changed their mind, but that the price would be 5 million higher now! It seems we could not enforce the option as there really was not one. The fault is not in what we did this summer, but seems to be what we did last summer in not securing an option which we could enforce without further recourse to Porto. Stoke were happy to sign Bruno with, or without an option to buy, last summer. That's probably true. And, to be fair, even though we have not managed to buy him (yet!) we could have been looking at Championship football next month if we had not brought him in on loan - or signed someone equally talented.
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Jul 17, 2017 13:51:19 GMT
"Elapsed" is a word.
|
|
|
Post by skelman on Jul 17, 2017 13:56:27 GMT
I know our transfer team are a bit wank but would they really let the option just run out? something must have gone on behind closed doors between the 2 clubs, it can't be as simple as it's being made out to be. Correct. If it was simply a case of us putting pen to paper at £8.5m then I'm sure it would have been done. This may just possibly be 'third party ownership situation'.No-one can force Porto to sign. They clearly feel they can get more for BMI, following a good season in the PL window. Sounds like they've then been difficult, let time run down and have then claimed 'time has elapsed.' Stoke have said little or nothing about what's going on, probably so as to try NOT to piss Porto off! - while Porto have continued to play games. Seems that Porto also may have 'third party ownership', 'economic rights' situations that make it difficult for any club in negotiations with them over the sale of a player. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/26/what-is-third-party-ownership-in-football-and-why-is-it-controve/ Porto’s business model over the last 10+ years has been based largely on buying "cheap" players and then selling them after 1~3 years. Porto buys a player and sells 40-70% of his economic rights immediately to a fund to lower the investment. Despite sales reaching 10s of millions over recent years, Porto apparently haven't made a huge profit from transfers as the club only has 50% of the economic rights of many of its players. Porto sometimes buy back a % from these funds from the best players, but the cost is huge. Then also factor in agents fees etc and this may help to explain the prolonged situation. So perhaps the trickiest part of this negotiation is in Stoke trying to 'buy out' any third party ownership so that if/when BMI signs, he actually becomes a 100% Stoke player
|
|
|
Post by Sfance on Jul 17, 2017 13:58:06 GMT
It is, but it doesn't mean the same as lapsed.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jul 17, 2017 15:32:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Jul 17, 2017 15:40:55 GMT
That just reads like they're speculating that we want to sign either Zouma or Martins Indi and not both.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2017 15:45:29 GMT
That football London is about as reliable as football whispers.
|
|
|
Post by southwalesstokie on Jul 17, 2017 15:47:05 GMT
We want both and I'm confident that we'll get both.
...and Delph!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2017 15:51:24 GMT
We want both and I'm confident that we'll get both. ...and Delph! Just a hunch, or have you heard something?
|
|
|
Post by southwalesstokie on Jul 17, 2017 15:56:21 GMT
We want both and I'm confident that we'll get both. ...and Delph! Just a hunch, or have you heard something? Heard that we're on the verge of signing all three. BMI - Don't know what hold up is for sure. My personal guess is Porto and issues with third party ownership. Been told that it's almost done though. Player set on joining us and we obviously want him in asap. Zouma - everything signed our end. Player needs to sign off on Chelsea contract and then will be announced. Delph - told that everything agreed between us and player. Personal guess is hold up because of player and City. Nothing wrong from what we've done. All about players and their clubs. Be patient, they will come.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Jul 17, 2017 16:01:05 GMT
Just a hunch, or have you heard something? Heard that we're on the verge of signing all three. BMI - Don't know what hold up is for sure. My personal guess is Porto and issues with third party ownership. Been told that it's almost done though. Player set on joining us and we obviously want him in asap. Zouma - everything signed our end. Player needs to sign off on Chelsea contract and then will be announced. Delph - told that everything agreed between us and player. Personal guess is hold up because of player and City. Nothing wrong from what we've done. All about players and their clubs. Be patient, they will come. Let's hope so would give us a decent first 11 if they all join Jack Edwards Indi Zouma Eric Fletcher Delph Allen Shaq Sobhi Berahino
|
|