don't know - whatever he went for is what the market were prepared to pay
You're quite right, subject to one absolutely critical qualification: the malleability of the selling club (in this case, CAFC). If you broadcast to the football world that you're desperate to sell - in our case, it's integral to Duchatelet's whole strategy - and then lack any nous or bottle in the negotiations, don't be surprised if you get a lousy price. Once a price is 'set', interested clubs are hardly going to bid against themselves.
I'm afraid that Charlton are, quite correctly, seen as a soft and easy touch in the market. Why, for example, has Meire reportedly let it be known that Lookman is available for £4million (other than perhaps the obvious one that she wants to achieve her Key Performance Indicator target of player sales of £10million for Roland) ? If she was acting in the best interests of CAFC and had even a short (let alone medium) term view, the correct response would simply be to respond to tentative enquiries by saying that "it's not enough". It is crass to be drawn on a 'maximum' figure prior to any actual, concrete offers being made (according to the latest SLP reports).
In football terms, of course, there's a compelling case to retain Ademola Lookman on the basis that (1) he may help us to promotion and hence another £5-6million a season (ongoing if we avoid relegation) and (2) the strong probability that his value will only increase with more playing time. Unfortunately, our club is not run by football people, so they are blind to all of this.
At least we are nearing the end of the window when clubs will pay more for talent. Not so with Joe who we sold last season, about six weeks ago with no bidding war. There were not even rumours we were looking to flog him.
I think part of the problem also stems from the fact that the likes of Moutinho, Guardiola and Conte are very short sighted when it comes to player recruitment. They're only going to be around for 3-4 years so buying unproven young talent is of no real interest to them.
Arsenal, Spurs, Leicester are slightly different but that's no excuse for KM not ensuring we receive market value for these players.
Maybe things are slowly changing as despite being against the sale of THD, I think 400k plus add ons (if true) is decent value.
don't know - whatever he went for is what the market were prepared to pay
He went for the amount that met the clause in his contract. £3.5m.
Nice one Otto, you got him there.
Like.
Mmm - so that makes 3 mil the minimum and nobody was prepared to pay more I'm afraid smarty pants
Why would anyone pay more than the release clause? The release clause is the minimum fee a club can offer before Charlton have to accept. It's not much of a bidding war when every bid's the same
don't know - whatever he went for is what the market were prepared to pay
He went for the amount that met the clause in his contract. £3.5m.
Nice one Otto, you got him there.
Like.
Mmm - so that makes 3 mil the minimum and nobody was prepared to pay more I'm afraid smarty pants
Why would anyone pay more than the release clause? The release clause is the minimum fee a club can offer before Charlton have to accept. It's not much of a bidding war when every bid's the same
That's the minimum you can offer to trigger the clause, but there have been occasions when teams will bid above that to price others out
don't know - whatever he went for is what the market were prepared to pay
He went for the amount that met the clause in his contract. £3.5m.
Nice one Otto, you got him there.
Like.
Mmm - so that makes 3 mil the minimum and nobody was prepared to pay more I'm afraid smarty pants
Why would anyone pay more than the release clause? The release clause is the minimum fee a club can offer before Charlton have to accept. It's not much of a bidding war when every bid's the same
Quite simple - like selling a house when more than1 buyer has met the asking price - it will go to the highest bidder - u r kidding right?
don't know - whatever he went for is what the market were prepared to pay
He went for the amount that met the clause in his contract. £3.5m.
Nice one Otto, you got him there.
Like.
Mmm - so that makes 3 mil the minimum and nobody was prepared to pay more I'm afraid smarty pants
Why would anyone pay more than the release clause? The release clause is the minimum fee a club can offer before Charlton have to accept. It's not much of a bidding war when every bid's the same
Quite simple - like selling a house when more than1 buyer has met the asking price - it will go to the highest bidder - u r kidding right?
But if a player has a contract with a release clause, then surely the player then has to right to go to any club offering that amount
So if the release clause is £1m, if club A offers £1m and club B £2m, the player can still choose to go to club A if he wants (better club, more wages etc)
For the bidding clubs in a war, giving more money to the player and not the club is the way to win!
don't know - whatever he went for is what the market were prepared to pay
He went for the amount that met the clause in his contract. £3.5m.
Nice one Otto, you got him there.
Like.
Mmm - so that makes 3 mil the minimum and nobody was prepared to pay more I'm afraid smarty pants
Why would anyone pay more than the release clause? The release clause is the minimum fee a club can offer before Charlton have to accept. It's not much of a bidding war when every bid's the same
Quite simple - like selling a house when more than1 buyer has met the asking price - it will go to the highest bidder - u r kidding right?
The clause is 3.5..... It doesn't matter 2 shiney shits if someone offers 20 mil, the clause has already been met.
don't know - whatever he went for is what the market were prepared to pay
He went for the amount that met the clause in his contract. £3.5m.
Nice one Otto, you got him there.
Like.
Mmm - so that makes 3 mil the minimum and nobody was prepared to pay more I'm afraid smarty pants
Why would anyone pay more than the release clause? The release clause is the minimum fee a club can offer before Charlton have to accept. It's not much of a bidding war when every bid's the same
Quite simple - like selling a house when more than1 buyer has met the asking price - it will go to the highest bidder - u r kidding right?
No, it really won't. Let's say Arsenal bid £3.5m and Barcelona bid £30billion. Both bids get accepted, because Charlton are contractually obliged to accept both bids, so both clubs can offer the player a contract. Sure, they can push the player in one direction or the other, but in the end both bids have to be accepted. Asking prices and minimum fee release clauses are entirely different things. Of course, it depends whether it's a good faith release clause or not, which I don't know because Ademola won't let me see his contract, but I'd be surprised if it was.
don't know - whatever he went for is what the market were prepared to pay
He went for the amount that met the clause in his contract. £3.5m.
Nice one Otto, you got him there.
Like.
Mmm - so that makes 3 mil the minimum and nobody was prepared to pay more I'm afraid smarty pants
Why would anyone pay more than the release clause? The release clause is the minimum fee a club can offer before Charlton have to accept. It's not much of a bidding war when every bid's the same
Quite simple - like selling a house when more than1 buyer has met the asking price - it will go to the highest bidder - u r kidding right?
But if a player has a contract with a release clause, then surely the player then has to right to go to any club offering that amount
So if the release clause is £1m, if club A offers £1m and club B £2m, the player can still choose to go to club A if he wants (better club, more wages etc)
For the bidding clubs in a war, giving more money to the player and not the club is the way to win!
Depends on the terms of the contract surely - which would also be affected by who owned us when the contract was signed and possibly the status of our academy
3.5 before Henry or some other pedant picks me up for not QAing my post
You realise that 10 different clubs could have offered 3.5 and we wouldn't have been able to ask for more. That's what a release clause does. It would have meant if 10 were true that Gomez could pick from any one of that 10. For 3.5million.
Probably bring Naive here, but how would a late deal be done for lookman , while he's away on international?
Agents do all the work, a contract can be sent and printed off and scanned from whatever hotel they are staying in, and medicals can be done at a later time, at the base the player is at, or players can even be flown back to have the medical. Big Sam said he'll allow players to leave if they need to regarding transfers, I'm sure it's the same for the youth teams
Probably bring Naive here, but how would a late deal be done for lookman , while he's away on international?
Agents do all the work, a contract can be sent and printed off and scanned from whatever hotel they are staying in, and medicals can be done at a later time, at the base the player is at, or players can even be flown back to have the medical. Big Sam said he'll allow players to leave if they need to regarding transfers, I'm sure it's the same for the youth teams
don't know - whatever he went for is what the market were prepared to pay
He went for the amount that met the clause in his contract. £3.5m.
Nice one Otto, you got him there.
Like.
Mmm - so that makes 3 mil the minimum and nobody was prepared to pay more I'm afraid smarty pants
Why would anyone pay more than the release clause? The release clause is the minimum fee a club can offer before Charlton have to accept. It's not much of a bidding war when every bid's the same
Quite simple - like selling a house when more than1 buyer has met the asking price - it will go to the highest bidder - u r kidding right?
But if a player has a contract with a release clause, then surely the player then has to right to go to any club offering that amount
So if the release clause is £1m, if club A offers £1m and club B £2m, the player can still choose to go to club A if he wants (better club, more wages etc)
For the bidding clubs in a war, giving more money to the player and not the club is the way to win!
Depends on the terms of the contract surely - which would also be affected by who owned us when the contract was signed and possibly the status of our academy
What? Why would academy status have any impact on a professional footballer over the age of 16's contract? Contract terms are led by precedent and agents. Release clauses are becoming more and more common in the lower leagues as a way to get players to sign contracts at clubs they aren't sure they either want to join or stay at. We got Gomez to commit to the club on the basis that he could be transferred away for a mutually agreed reasonable fee in the future. He'd commit his short term future to us and ensure we got a fee for him, while stopping the club from demanding £60m when bigger clubs came in. It'll be the same with Lookman, as it is with most other young players at small clubs.
What will probably end up happening is that Lookman stays and we also fail to get any new midfielders over the line. So we are stuck with our aging midfield trio for the rest of the first half for the season. And Lookman is limited to 20 min cameos between now and next window.
Fair enough - it is what it is I guess - if the clause wasn't in, we may have got nothing as he may have left / run down contract - didn't give him away cheap, just got what we could for him then?
don't know - whatever he went for is what the market were prepared to pay
He went for the amount that met the clause in his contract. £3.5m.
Nice one Otto, you got him there.
Like.
Mmm - so that makes 3 mil the minimum and nobody was prepared to pay more I'm afraid smarty pants
Why would anyone pay more than the release clause? The release clause is the minimum fee a club can offer before Charlton have to accept. It's not much of a bidding war when every bid's the same
Quite simple - like selling a house when more than1 buyer has met the asking price - it will go to the highest bidder - u r kidding right?
The asking price for a house isn't like set in stone though, the clause in a players contract is - A club really wouldn't pay more than the minimum that they had to. Why would they? The selling club haven't got any power if the written in clause is met.
Stating the obvious here, but if more than one team meets the trigger price, the player decides where he goes.Wages, bonuses and the signing on fee will determine where he goes.
don't know - whatever he went for is what the market were prepared to pay
He went for the amount that met the clause in his contract. £3.5m.
Nice one Otto, you got him there.
Like.
Mmm - so that makes 3 mil the minimum and nobody was prepared to pay more I'm afraid smarty pants
Why would anyone pay more than the release clause? The release clause is the minimum fee a club can offer before Charlton have to accept. It's not much of a bidding war when every bid's the same
Yep another one got him there.
"Okay squirrel face I know the release clause is 3.5 million but as your history for transfers is so s*** we'll give you 10 million to make you look a wheeler dealer".
Comments
I'm afraid that Charlton are, quite correctly, seen as a soft and easy touch in the market. Why, for example, has Meire reportedly let it be known that Lookman is available for £4million (other than perhaps the obvious one that she wants to achieve her Key Performance Indicator target of player sales of £10million for Roland) ? If she was acting in the best interests of CAFC and had even a short (let alone medium) term view, the correct response would simply be to respond to tentative enquiries by saying that "it's not enough". It is crass to be drawn on a 'maximum' figure prior to any actual, concrete offers being made (according to the latest SLP reports).
In football terms, of course, there's a compelling case to retain Ademola Lookman on the basis that (1) he may help us to promotion and hence another £5-6million a season (ongoing if we avoid relegation) and (2) the strong probability that his value will only increase with more playing time. Unfortunately, our club is not run by football people, so they are blind to all of this.
Like.
Arsenal, Spurs, Leicester are slightly different but that's no excuse for KM not ensuring we receive market value for these players.
Maybe things are slowly changing as despite being against the sale of THD, I think 400k plus add ons (if true) is decent value.
So if the release clause is £1m, if club A offers £1m and club B £2m, the player can still choose to go to club A if he wants (better club, more wages etc)
For the bidding clubs in a war, giving more money to the player and not the club is the way to win!
The clause is 3.5..... It doesn't matter 2 shiney shits if someone offers 20 mil, the clause has already been met.
Stating the obvious here, but if more than one team meets the trigger price, the player decides where he goes.Wages, bonuses and the signing on fee will determine where he goes.
"Okay squirrel face I know the release clause is 3.5 million but as your history for transfers is so s*** we'll give you 10 million to make you look a wheeler dealer".