Remy can leave for £8m - Redknapp (Mail)

[easthertsr]

He is a bit injury prone , long periods when he can't play, take the first big offer!

[DeepcutHoop]

It would trigger the bidding.

It would wake up any other clubs who wanted him, but the offer would have to be accepted if it matched the release fee.

Any bidding would be with Remy and his agent, not us.

[jfish]

It would wake up any other clubs who wanted him, but the offer would have to be accepted if it matched the release fee.

Any bidding would be with Remy and his agent, not us.

I've checked this with my mate is an agent he doesn't think that's the case.

I hope he's right.

[DeepcutHoop]

I've checked this with my mate is an agent he doesn't think that's the case.

I hope he's right.

Why would anyone bid more than the minimum required for a bid to be accepted? Why have a clause in that case?

It doesn't make sense.

[brightonr]

Why would anyone bid more than the minimum required for a bid to be accepted? Why have a clause in that case?

It doesn't make sense.

Probably be bidding on the wages.

[DeepcutHoop]

Probably be bidding on the wages.

Agreed, but that's not what jfish is suggesting, I don't think.

[Del]

Probably be bidding on the wages.

Exactly.

Any interested club will offer the amount stated, which then allows them to talk / negotiate with the player.

That said, I'm sure last summer we heard the Clause was only for that window and therefore irrelevant now.....?

[jfish]

Agreed, but that's not what jfish is suggesting, I don't think.

I think what he said is at a certain point it allows negotiations to start with the player but that doesn't stop other clubs coming in.

The purpose being the player can leave if (at least one) club comes in for them and they meet asking price agreed when the contract is written.

[DeepcutHoop]

I think what he said is at a certain point it allows negotiations to start with the player but that doesn't stop other clubs coming in.

The purpose being the player can leave if (at least one) club comes in for them and they meet asking price agreed when the contract is written.

Yes, that's right. It would also mean that any clubs coming in wouldn't be competing over the transfer fee (they would be able to bid the trigger amount and have their bid accepted), but over wages and add-ons with the player's agent.

All of this is usual when a minimum bid trigger is built in to a contract. What we have no real knowledge of is whether Remy has one, and we certainly don't know if it had extra stipulations about the league we were in or time limits like has been suggested.

[stanistheman]

I thought that was a clause only in place for last summer and was part of the deal that saw him sign for QPR.

If that is clause is valid throughout his contract, I can only say that whoever negotiated that is a complete footballing baffoon. Why would you agree to a clause that the player can leave for the same fee you bought him if he goes on to prove he is a Premiership quality striker who can score 15 goals a season?

[MYU]

Can't we put a sell on clause on him then?

I also think that if he had a release clause, he would have been big talk by now.

[stanistheman]

Can't we put a sell on clause on him then?

I also think that if he had a release clause, he would have been big talk by now.

They could, but it might not be worth much, but the time it is activated.

Let;s say he joined Arsenal on a 4 season contract, and leaves after 3, how much will a 30-31 year old be sold for - £8M-10M?

[MYU]

They could, but it might not be worth much, but the time it is activated.

Let;s say he joined Arsenal on a 4 season contract, and leaves after 3, how much will a 30-31 year old be sold for - £8M-10M?

Fair enough but still better than not having one. We could try adding bonuses in there as well.

[DeepcutHoop]

I thought that was a clause only in place for last summer and was part of the deal that saw him sign for QPR.

If that is clause is valid throughout his contract, I can only say that whoever negotiated that is a complete footballing baffoon. Why would you agree to a clause that the player can leave for the same fee you bought him if he goes on to prove he is a Premiership quality striker who can score 15 goals a season?

So he signs for you.

We had little to offer over someone like Newcastle, but a higher wage, and the promise of an easy escape route if things go wrong.

We went into negotiations with the player and his agent holding all the cards. That's why I'd be astounded if there wasn't a clause in the contract to make sure the club couldn't make it difficult for him to leave if we dropped down a league, and/or a fee around the purchase price was offered.

Unfortunately for the player, his personal life meant that no-one could risk making even that bargain offer in the last two windows.

Will be interesting to watch this unfold. If it turns out there is no clause or there was and it expired, we should do well out of this transfer.

[stanistheman]

So he signs for you.

We had little to offer over someone like Newcastle, but a higher wage, and the promise of an easy escape route if things go wrong.

We went into negotiations with the player and his agent holding all the cards. That's why I'd be astounded if there wasn't a clause in the contract to make sure the club couldn't make it difficult for him to leave if we dropped down a league, and/or a fee around the purchase price was offered.

Unfortunately for the player, his personal life meant that no-one could risk making even that bargain offer in the last two windows.

Will be interesting to watch this unfold. If it turns out there is no clause or there was and it expired, we should do well out of this transfer.

Whilst I can see the point in a clause for hi to leave if relegated, I cannot see the point of a clause that allows him to leave at any time during his 4 year contract for the same amount the club paid for him. That is a nonsense.