Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Igor Vetokele - Relegation Clause = Free Transfer This Summer

1234568

Comments

  • Why they paying 1.5 million i thought it was locked on free transfer......
  • Why they paying 1.5 million i thought it was locked on free transfer......

    The journo who broke that news had got it wrong, apparently misunderstanding vetokele's agent.
  • Scoham said:

    Scoham said:

    Very generous Swisdom when you consider in his first season he was our only goal threat and was a) targeted as such by the opposition b) given absolutely no senior support in the role c) required to play a large part of the season, because there simply was no one else, on one leg.

    The whole episode was a monumental cock up by Meire in failing to support the head coach, the squad and the player at the time. Something for which we have all paid a heavy price - not least the player who effectively has to rebuild his career.

    If he did end up with some mental issue concerning his fitness (as per Danny Haynes) there is only one group of people who put him in that position.

    On what possible basis would you want to a) play for such people b) even consider extending the relationship longer than necessary.

    It has been a major disappointment to see such a bubbling talent at the outset reduced to the player he has become.

    It is precisely the outcome you can expect when you fail to build the appropriate strength and depth of squad placing undue pressure on certain key players to perform no matter their fitness or form.

    It should be a salutary lesson for any young talent considering signing for this regime.

    I sincerely hope the young man can rebuild his career in a more positive and supportive environment.

    Is it Meire or is it Roland? It's his money after all. He thought it was enough to send us Tucudean and spend a big majority of the budget on Vetokele (£2.6m I think was said to be the fee). Peeters didn't rate Church (fair enough really) meaning a 17 year old KAG came in as our 3rd choice striker.
    The obvious degrading of our medical and fitness resources is one they both bear responsibíity for. I fear it is such that they are in breach of their duty of care to the young players
    I don't know, I think they look after some of them quite well.

    Milhail Kennedy for example. Got a few unexpected first team appearances. Rewarded with a 2.5 year contract. Lost his place but we were relegated which will give him another chance in the first team at a lower level.

    Under another ownership he might have been released before he could have achieved all of that.
    Well you seem to have a lot of good insights on the playing side so I am surprised you say that. Some of the signs to me are:

    - Vetokele himself. At the beginning of the season we learnt that there was a dispute within the medical and fitness team about whether he was fit to play. They then played him. I saw a player who, apart from anything else, was at least a stone overweight. And therefore on that basis alone, not fit to play.

    - the departure of well regarded people from the medical and fitness staff

    - the dithering over the diagnosis and treatment of Kashi

    - the vague information about the injury to Bauer

    - the apparently high number of non-impact injuries sustained in the first half of games (Lookman's was one I witnesssed first hand)

    Finally there is the obvious rational conclusion to the regime's overall approach. If on "principle" they have enforced the third lowest playing budget in the division (with remarkably close outcome for league position) why should we not believe that they have cut the health and fitness budget in the same way? Everything else has been obviously cut. And if you cut such a budget, the consequences are serious for the players who rely on it for their careers. That's my point overall.
    Agree with a lot of what you say, but take issue with this. With an Achilles injury the best first step is to rest it and hope it heals on its own. The other option, surgery, has risks of making the injury worse (tearing the tendon during surgery, build up of scar tissue after surgery), and undoubtedly means a longer lay-off.

    There was a stretch under Karel where it seemed like we were making a forced change every match.
  • Roland doesn't do failure just loses we see plenty of them at valley now days.
  • sammy391 said:

    Why they paying 1.5 million i thought it was locked on free transfer......

    The journo who broke that news had got it wrong, apparently misunderstanding vetokele's agent.
    Sorry being thick here... had it wrong that it was a £0 release clause, or wrong that we're talking about £1.5m?

    On a separate note, should take them off at the elbow if they're willing to pay >£1m.
  • sammy391 said:

    Why they paying 1.5 million i thought it was locked on free transfer......

    The journo who broke that news had got it wrong, apparently misunderstanding vetokele's agent.
    Sorry being thick here... had it wrong that it was a £0 release clause, or wrong that we're talking about £1.5m?

    On a separate note, should take them off at the elbow if they're willing to pay >£1m.
    All He said is that he had "misunderstood his agent"
  • Any contract with a "you can get out easy/free/etc if we get relegated" is the work of a club run by fuckwits. Igor comes out of this remarkably well cos he tried his best when he was still clearly a million miles from being anything like fit, he would have been perfectly justified in protecting himself and his future by waiting til he was well and truly healed up and pain free before reappearing for what must have been clear to him was Roly's ever worsening sick pantomime.
  • sammy391 said:

    sammy391 said:

    Why they paying 1.5 million i thought it was locked on free transfer......

    The journo who broke that news had got it wrong, apparently misunderstanding vetokele's agent.
    Sorry being thick here... had it wrong that it was a £0 release clause, or wrong that we're talking about £1.5m?

    On a separate note, should take them off at the elbow if they're willing to pay >£1m.
    All He said is that he had "misunderstood his agent"
    So what is correct ? Is he on a free or not ?
  • sammy391 said:

    sammy391 said:

    Why they paying 1.5 million i thought it was locked on free transfer......

    The journo who broke that news had got it wrong, apparently misunderstanding vetokele's agent.
    Sorry being thick here... had it wrong that it was a £0 release clause, or wrong that we're talking about £1.5m?

    On a separate note, should take them off at the elbow if they're willing to pay >£1m.
    All He said is that he had "misunderstood his agent"
    So what is correct ? Is he on a free or not ?

    sammy391 said:

    sammy391 said:

    Why they paying 1.5 million i thought it was locked on free transfer......

    The journo who broke that news had got it wrong, apparently misunderstanding vetokele's agent.
    Sorry being thick here... had it wrong that it was a £0 release clause, or wrong that we're talking about £1.5m?

    On a separate note, should take them off at the elbow if they're willing to pay >£1m.
    All He said is that he had "misunderstood his agent"
    So what is correct ? Is he on a free or not ?
    No, the journo originally claimed he had a free release relegation clause in his contract which turned out not to be true.
  • Sponsored links:


  • May I suggest it is a simple misunderstanding between Igor being "free to leave" and being able to "leave for free."

    Whether that is due to any contractual clause is open to interpretation as therefore would be any financial terms needed to trigger such clause.
  • It may be he has a no drop clause if relegated his wages remain the same and don't go down proportionally
  • edited May 2016
    £2.5M two years ago on 5 year contract. Value written down over period of contract. Now worth £1.5M. We break even. RD has not failed.

    Still reckon St Truiden will pip Lokeren to the post of this signing once their owner is advised he is available.
  • iaitch said:

    Scoham said:

    Scoham said:

    Very generous Swisdom when you consider in his first season he was our only goal threat and was a) targeted as such by the opposition b) given absolutely no senior support in the role c) required to play a large part of the season, because there simply was no one else, on one leg.

    The whole episode was a monumental cock up by Meire in failing to support the head coach, the squad and the player at the time. Something for which we have all paid a heavy price - not least the player who effectively has to rebuild his career.

    If he did end up with some mental issue concerning his fitness (as per Danny Haynes) there is only one group of people who put him in that position.

    On what possible basis would you want to a) play for such people b) even consider extending the relationship longer than necessary.

    It has been a major disappointment to see such a bubbling talent at the outset reduced to the player he has become.

    It is precisely the outcome you can expect when you fail to build the appropriate strength and depth of squad placing undue pressure on certain key players to perform no matter their fitness or form.

    It should be a salutary lesson for any young talent considering signing for this regime.

    I sincerely hope the young man can rebuild his career in a more positive and supportive environment.

    Is it Meire or is it Roland? It's his money after all. He thought it was enough to send us Tucudean and spend a big majority of the budget on Vetokele (£2.6m I think was said to be the fee). Peeters didn't rate Church (fair enough really) meaning a 17 year old KAG came in as our 3rd choice striker.
    The obvious degrading of our medical and fitness resources is one they both bear responsibíity for. I fear it is such that they are in breach of their duty of care to the young players
    I don't know, I think they look after some of them quite well.

    Milhail Kennedy for example. Got a few unexpected first team appearances. Rewarded with a 2.5 year contract. Lost his place but we were relegated which will give him another chance in the first team at a lower level.

    Under another ownership he might have been released before he could have achieved all of that.
    Well you seem to have a lot of good insights on the playing side so I am surprised you say that. Some of the signs to me are:

    - Vetokele himself. At the beginning of the season we learnt that there was a dispute within the medical and fitness team about whether he was fit to play. They then played him. I saw a player who, apart from anything else, was at least a stone overweight. And therefore on that basis alone, not fit to play.

    - the departure of well regarded people from the medical and fitness staff

    - the dithering over the diagnosis and treatment of Kashi

    - the vague information about the injury to Bauer

    - the apparently high number of non-impact injuries sustained in the first half of games (Lookman's was one I witnesssed first hand)

    Finally there is the obvious rational conclusion to the regime's overall approach. If on "principle" they have enforced the third lowest playing budget in the division (with remarkably close outcome for league position) why should we not believe that they have cut the health and fitness budget in the same way? Everything else has been obviously cut. And if you cut such a budget, the consequences are serious for the players who rely on it for their careers. That's my point overall.
    I agree that our medical team is a mess. However for Igor to be a stone overweight is surely down to the player. To me that showed poor discipline on his behalf
    Kermogant always look too heavy when he came back after the summer break.

    Indeed he did. But shed the excess weight very very quickly...
  • £2.5M two years ago on 5 year contract. Value written down over period of contract. Now worth £1.5M. We break even. RD has not failed.

    Still reckon St Truiden will pip Lokeren to the post of this signing once their owner is advised he is available.

    I'd be amazed if we got £1.5m, considering how ineffective he's been (for one reason or another) for 18 months
  • edited May 2016
    SDAddick said:

    sammy391 said:

    sammy391 said:

    Why they paying 1.5 million i thought it was locked on free transfer......

    The journo who broke that news had got it wrong, apparently misunderstanding vetokele's agent.
    Sorry being thick here... had it wrong that it was a £0 release clause, or wrong that we're talking about £1.5m?

    On a separate note, should take them off at the elbow if they're willing to pay >£1m.
    All He said is that he had "misunderstood his agent"
    So what is correct ? Is he on a free or not ?

    sammy391 said:

    sammy391 said:

    Why they paying 1.5 million i thought it was locked on free transfer......

    The journo who broke that news had got it wrong, apparently misunderstanding vetokele's agent.
    Sorry being thick here... had it wrong that it was a £0 release clause, or wrong that we're talking about £1.5m?

    On a separate note, should take them off at the elbow if they're willing to pay >£1m.
    All He said is that he had "misunderstood his agent"
    So what is correct ? Is he on a free or not ?
    No, the journo originally claimed he had a free release relegation clause in his contract which turned out not to be true.
    Has the journalist (Sven Klaes) retracted anything? If we go back to the start of this thread, it was @Clem_Snide who started it, and he who suggested there was a "relegation clause" However when I checked Klaes Twitter feed (and as I wrote after doing so) "nowhere does he say that there is a "relegation release clause". Somebody else refers to it, they seem to assume that this is what SK means. But SK may simply be suggesting that CAFC are letting him go for free. Possibly because they have doubts about his ongoing fitness"
    So a random Tweeter on Klaes feed (not the journo himself) had introduced the term "relegation clause", which is probably what Clem picked up on. Although Clem subsequently wrote that he was "reliably informed" that Teixeira has a similar clause, without ever backing that up.
  • His medical will be interesting, I am sure he is still hampered by past injuries and most likely, still injury prone.
  • £2.5M two years ago on 5 year contract. Value written down over period of contract. Now worth £1.5M. We break even. RD has not failed.

    Still reckon St Truiden will pip Lokeren to the post of this signing once their owner is advised he is available.

    I'd be amazed if we got £1.5m, considering how ineffective he's been (for one reason or another) for 18 months
    The only idiot stupid enough to pay that would be the clown who bought Polish frigging Pete
  • I hope we do have to give him away still, as any transfer fee goes straight in to Rolands pocket to fund him staying as owner.

    The bigger losses for him, the better for us, as hopefully he decides to get out before he loses anymore when he quickly realises next season that his own atrocious ownership and the incompetent staff he employs have no chance of getting us out of League 1 other then by the trapdoor in to League 2.
  • SDAddick said:

    sammy391 said:

    sammy391 said:

    Why they paying 1.5 million i thought it was locked on free transfer......

    The journo who broke that news had got it wrong, apparently misunderstanding vetokele's agent.
    Sorry being thick here... had it wrong that it was a £0 release clause, or wrong that we're talking about £1.5m?

    On a separate note, should take them off at the elbow if they're willing to pay >£1m.
    All He said is that he had "misunderstood his agent"
    So what is correct ? Is he on a free or not ?

    sammy391 said:

    sammy391 said:

    Why they paying 1.5 million i thought it was locked on free transfer......

    The journo who broke that news had got it wrong, apparently misunderstanding vetokele's agent.
    Sorry being thick here... had it wrong that it was a £0 release clause, or wrong that we're talking about £1.5m?

    On a separate note, should take them off at the elbow if they're willing to pay >£1m.
    All He said is that he had "misunderstood his agent"
    So what is correct ? Is he on a free or not ?
    No, the journo originally claimed he had a free release relegation clause in his contract which turned out not to be true.
    Has the journalist (Sven Klaes) retracted anything? If we go back to the start of this thread, it was @Clem_Snide who started it, and he who suggested there was a "relegation clause" However when I checked Klaes Twitter feed (and as I wrote after doing so) "nowhere does he say that there is a "relegation release clause". Somebody else refers to it, they seem to assume that this is what SK means. But SK may simply be suggesting that CAFC are letting him go for free. Possibly because they have doubts about his ongoing fitness"
    So a random Tweeter on Klaes feed (not the journo himself) had introduced the term "relegation clause", which is probably what Clem picked up on. Although Clem subsequently wrote that he was "reliably informed" that Teixeira has a similar clause, without ever backing that up.
    I can't name the source who gave me the Teixeira info. All I will say is it came from within the club and I have no reason to doubt it.
  • Sponsored links:


  • vff said:

    It is a shame that there was not sufficient forward cover and that the club forced Vetekele to play on an injury. Duchatelet is penny wise and pound foolish. This has ended up a decent player losing value of nearly a million. Vetekele is a very good example of the cluelessness of the Duchatelet penny pinching approach and complete misunderstanding of how football works and how to maximise player value.

    Saw enough of Vetokele in his first two months to realise he is a good player.

    He's been treated very badly and I do not blame him if he wants to go.
  • Herman could write a book about relegation clauses....

    HH went down so many times it seems like his relegation clause was that the club must drop a division during the length of his contract!
  • Scoham said:

    Scoham said:

    Very generous Swisdom when you consider in his first season he was our only goal threat and was a) targeted as such by the opposition b) given absolutely no senior support in the role c) required to play a large part of the season, because there simply was no one else, on one leg.

    The whole episode was a monumental cock up by Meire in failing to support the head coach, the squad and the player at the time. Something for which we have all paid a heavy price - not least the player who effectively has to rebuild his career.

    If he did end up with some mental issue concerning his fitness (as per Danny Haynes) there is only one group of people who put him in that position.

    On what possible basis would you want to a) play for such people b) even consider extending the relationship longer than necessary.

    It has been a major disappointment to see such a bubbling talent at the outset reduced to the player he has become.

    It is precisely the outcome you can expect when you fail to build the appropriate strength and depth of squad placing undue pressure on certain key players to perform no matter their fitness or form.

    It should be a salutary lesson for any young talent considering signing for this regime.

    I sincerely hope the young man can rebuild his career in a more positive and supportive environment.

    Is it Meire or is it Roland? It's his money after all. He thought it was enough to send us Tucudean and spend a big majority of the budget on Vetokele (£2.6m I think was said to be the fee). Peeters didn't rate Church (fair enough really) meaning a 17 year old KAG came in as our 3rd choice striker.
    The obvious degrading of our medical and fitness resources is one they both bear responsibíity for. I fear it is such that they are in breach of their duty of care to the young players
    I don't know, I think they look after some of them quite well.

    Milhail Kennedy for example. Got a few unexpected first team appearances. Rewarded with a 2.5 year contract. Lost his place but we were relegated which will give him another chance in the first team at a lower level.

    Under another ownership he might have been released before he could have achieved all of that.
    Well you seem to have a lot of good insights on the playing side so I am surprised you say that. Some of the signs to me are:

    - Vetokele himself. At the beginning of the season we learnt that there was a dispute within the medical and fitness team about whether he was fit to play. They then played him. I saw a player who, apart from anything else, was at least a stone overweight. And therefore on that basis alone, not fit to play.

    - the departure of well regarded people from the medical and fitness staff

    - the dithering over the diagnosis and treatment of Kashi

    - the vague information about the injury to Bauer

    - the apparently high number of non-impact injuries sustained in the first half of games (Lookman's was one I witnesssed first hand)

    Finally there is the obvious rational conclusion to the regime's overall approach. If on "principle" they have enforced the third lowest playing budget in the division (with remarkably close outcome for league position) why should we not believe that they have cut the health and fitness budget in the same way? Everything else has been obviously cut. And if you cut such a budget, the consequences are serious for the players who rely on it for their careers. That's my point overall.
    I agree that our medical team is a mess. However for Igor to be a stone overweight is surely down to the player. To me that showed poor discipline on his behalf

    That may or may not be fair. Either way though, it was patently obvious to a10 year old, that he was not fit. That's the point
    In Igor's defence English is not his first language - he was only one letter out ...
  • Can't see anyone paying money for Igor given his recent injury history. I'm guessing he'll get a loan move with a view to buy which will never happen because CAFC mismanaged his fitness so badly he's never going to get a long run of games.

    Roland and his regime are hapless.
  • Well said Prague. It’s the same with the endless ‘fat’ and fast food jokes when I can guarantee Igor eats a far, far better diet than most on here.

    Just under 2 years ago he was being lauded as one of the best strikers in the division. As you say, the problem is the regime’s constant failure to diagnose and treat injuries, combined with a lack of depth so we have to play unfit players. Being our most dangerous player he also got lumps kicked out of him.
  • It was yesterday I think Igor Tweeted he had landed somewhere in Africa? (I believe) Thats not to say he's staying or a deals not being done, but he aint in Belgium to sign it.
  • May I suggest it is a simple misunderstanding between Igor being "free to leave" and being able to "leave for free."

    Whether that is due to any contractual clause is open to interpretation as therefore would be any financial terms needed to trigger such clause.

    Or perhaps it was the difference between "free to loaf" and "loaf for free" :smiley:
  • T.C.E said:

    It was yesterday I think Igor Tweeted he had landed somewhere in Africa? (I believe) Thats not to say he's staying or a deals not being done, but he aint in Belgium to sign it.

    Arrived in Luanda, Angola. Home for the holibobs...
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!