Wainy316 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 It amuses me that those buyout clauses are still viewed as a negative.In both Benteke and Delph's situations, they were a benefit to us.It doesn't feel like one when as a fan it's dropped on you as a bombshell. We should be given this information when a contract is signed, obviously rival clubs have access to it so no use in not making it public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romavillan Posted October 12, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted October 12, 2015 I'd argue that in Delph's case it was not a benefit, unless it being set at the value was the only reason he signed his last contract with us. He could and should have commanded a higher fee, Man City could have forked out more for a bench warmer. They have in the past.Benteke, 100% benefit yes, it made it clear that the price was set and no haggling would bring it down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YLN Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) I'd argue that in Delph's case it was not a benefit, unless it being set at the value was the only reason he signed his last contract with us. Edited October 12, 2015 by YLN 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Stevo985 Posted October 12, 2015 VT Supporter Popular Post Share Posted October 12, 2015 I'd argue that in Delph's case it was not a benefit, unless it being set at the value was the only reason he signed his last contract with us. He could and should have commanded a higher fee, Man City could have forked out more for a bench warmer. They have in the past.Benteke, 100% benefit yes, it made it clear that the price was set and no haggling would bring it down. Of course it was. Why on earth else would we put it in there?I think we often forget that people in charge of football clubs do, on the whole, know what they're doing. We get caught up in the pantomime of it all.There's no way that clause was put in there for any other reason than Delph wouldn't sign the contract without it. The guys in charge of the contracts at the club didn't just chuck it in there for a laugh.Without it, Delph would have left in the summer anyway. But he would have left for free. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest av1 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 I'd argue that in Delph's case it was not a benefit, unless it being set at the value was the only reason he signed his last contract with us. He could and should have commanded a higher fee, Man City could have forked out more for a bench warmer. They have in the past.Benteke, 100% benefit yes, it made it clear that the price was set and no haggling would bring it down. Of course it was. Why on earth else would we put it in there?I think we often forget that people in charge of football clubs do, on the whole, know what they're doing. We get caught up in the pantomime of it all.There's no way that clause was put in there for any other reason than Delph wouldn't sign the contract without it. The guys in charge of the contracts at the club didn't just chuck it in there for a laugh.Without it, Delph would have left in the summer anyway. But he would have left for free.Why are people still struggling with this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhInTrinity Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 He's a goner for me, he's obviously created this whole charade of blaming Reilly for buying the players, The Mail went as far as listing who had bought which player whether it was Reilly or Sherwood. Alan Brazil (Wilkins mate) this morning mentioning that Sherwood didn't buy the players, there is a huge rift at the club and sooner rather than later think Sherwood is gone, but thing the board are looking at possible replacements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippo Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 He's a goner for me, he's obviously created this whole charade of blaming Reilly for buying the players, The Mail went as far as listing who had bought which player whether it was Reilly or Sherwood. Alan Brazil (Wilkins mate) this morning mentioning that Sherwood didn't buy the players, there is a huge rift at the club and sooner rather than later think Sherwood is gone, but thing the board are looking at possible replacements.Of course he is - the annoying thing is the club have once more pissed about - and the one guy who could really help us has now joined sunderland - I despair...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 The failure lay in allowing Delph to enter the final year of his contract. Once that happened, securing even a greatly reduced fee in the face of a looming bosman move was the best the club could have managed in that situation. Shame that Delph soured his exit as he did because it was a nice gesture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhInTrinity Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 He's a goner for me, he's obviously created this whole charade of blaming Reilly for buying the players, The Mail went as far as listing who had bought which player whether it was Reilly or Sherwood. Alan Brazil (Wilkins mate) this morning mentioning that Sherwood didn't buy the players, there is a huge rift at the club and sooner rather than later think Sherwood is gone, but thing the board are looking at possible replacements.Of course he is - the annoying thing is the club have once more pissed about - and the one guy who could really help us has now joined sunderland - I despair......I don't get the love in for Sam, for one we don't have the players for him IMO. Let's also not forget Fat Sam record post January at West Ham was shocking. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romavillan Posted October 12, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted October 12, 2015 I'd argue that in Delph's case it was not a benefit, unless it being set at the value was the only reason he signed his last contract with us. You're saying I'm handsome right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romavillan Posted October 12, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted October 12, 2015 I'd argue that in Delph's case it was not a benefit, unless it being set at the value was the only reason he signed his last contract with us. He could and should have commanded a higher fee, Man City could have forked out more for a bench warmer. They have in the past. Benteke, 100% benefit yes, it made it clear that the price was set and no haggling would bring it down. Of course it was. Why on earth else would we put it in there? I think we often forget that people in charge of football clubs do, on the whole, know what they're doing. We get caught up in the pantomime of it all. There's no way that clause was put in there for any other reason than Delph wouldn't sign the contract without it. The guys in charge of the contracts at the club didn't just chuck it in there for a laugh. Without it, Delph would have left in the summer anyway. But he would have left for free. Why are people still struggling with this? Apparently because I'm stupid Still, makes the whole big screen announcement all the more bonkers doesn't it? But I guess that's for another thread.Sherwood though! Can't wait for the Chelsea game :S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingman Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 We were almost powerless to stop the mass exodus of the finer players Benteke, Delph, Cleverley, Vlaar etc due to clauses/finance packages offered/implemented either by previous management or the hierarchy.There is not a chance that Benteke or Delph would have signed extensions without a buy-out clause. Cleverley was never going to sign for us. I suspect that Vlaar would only have signed for a massive hike in wages / long contract which given his previous and subsequent injury problems it seemed the right decision.I'm no fan of the current heirarchy but I'm not sure that they could/should have done anything differentLaying any blame on Lambert (for this) seems bizarre in the extreme Think you need to read fully the discussion throughout the thread what i replied to before you cherry pick points to raise that no ones mentioned but yourself! Just a thought Ta! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Sherwoods looking like he'll get sacked according to the bookies. Wondering who is most likely to be replace him. 5/2 on skybet hardly means he's going to be sacked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Richard Posted October 12, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted October 12, 2015 when he is sacked as he most surely will be, I think he'll be the first manager to leave and not keep his trap shut so that may be interesting 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted October 12, 2015 Moderator Share Posted October 12, 2015 That's true but we've also established that we can't believe a word he says, so I'm not sure we'll be able to deduce much other than that he thinks it's everyone else's fault. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Designer1 Posted October 12, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted October 12, 2015 when he is sacked as he most surely will be, I think he'll be the first manager to leave and not keep his trap shut so that may be interestingI've always thought that when he does leave there will be an explosion of shit throwing in all directions except for his own.He hasn't got the class to go quietly imo. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaCas Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 We were almost powerless to stop the mass exodus of the finer players Benteke, Delph, Cleverley, Vlaar etc due to clauses/finance packages offered/implemented either by previous management or the hierarchy.There is not a chance that Benteke or Delph would have signed extensions without a buy-out clause. Cleverley was never going to sign for us. I suspect that Vlaar would only have signed for a massive hike in wages / long contract which given his previous and subsequent injury problems it seemed the right decision.I'm no fan of the current heirarchy but I'm not sure that they could/should have done anything differentLaying any blame on Lambert (for this) seems bizarre in the extreme Think you need to read fully the discussion throughout the thread what i replied to before you cherry pick points to raise that no ones mentioned but yourself! Just a thought Ta!I did read the whole thread but chose to answer that particular pointNot quite sure how you feel that you've been taken out of context? You've been quoted exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YLN Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 when he is sacked as he most surely will be, I think he'll be the first manager to leave and not keep his trap shut so that may be interestingI've always thought that when he does leave there will be an explosion of shit throwing in all directions except for his own.He hasn't got the class to go quietly imo.Bollocks. He'll have confidentiality stipulations written all over his contract. He'd be a very poor man if he opened his mouth about anything with even the slightest importance after he gets the shove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingman Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 We were almost powerless to stop the mass exodus of the finer players Benteke, Delph, Cleverley, Vlaar etc due to clauses/finance packages offered/implemented either by previous management or the hierarchy.There is not a chance that Benteke or Delph would have signed extensions without a buy-out clause. Cleverley was never going to sign for us. I suspect that Vlaar would only have signed for a massive hike in wages / long contract which given his previous and subsequent injury problems it seemed the right decision.I'm no fan of the current heirarchy but I'm not sure that they could/should have done anything differentLaying any blame on Lambert (for this) seems bizarre in the extreme Think you need to read fully the discussion throughout the thread what i replied to before you cherry pick points to raise that no ones mentioned but yourself! Just a thought Ta!I did read the whole thread but chose to answer that particular pointNot quite sure how you feel that you've been taken out of context? You've been quoted exactly? As clean as a squid! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bose Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 In positive news there has hardly been a mention of Sherwood on the OS (that I've seen) for the past week, for example no "manager on Monday" that they usually have. Grasping at straws here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts