Remy's "Transfer Clause"

[Johnny Tightlips]

Help me out here boys, I'm a bit confused.

Right. So, at the end of 2012/2013 season that ended in relegation, it was widely accepted that Loic Remy had a clause inserted in his contract that allowed him to move on for a set fee, again widely accepted at around €10m.

Loic Remy and his agent did not manage to secure any permanent move to a desired club despite their best efforts, hence ended up on loan at Newcastle. Given that we are now back in the PL, doesn't this render his "clause" null and void and we have no obligation to sell, and if we do, we can charge what the hell we like?

[Lunar Jetman]

Help me out here boys, I'm a bit confused.

Right. So, at the end of 2012/2013 season that ended in relegation, it was widely accepted that Loic Remy had a clause inserted in his contract that allowed him to move on for a set fee, again widely accepted at around €10m.

Loic Remy and his agent did not manage to secure any permanent move to a desired club despite their best efforts, hence ended up on loan at Newcastle. Given that we are now back in the PL, doesn't this render his "clause" null and void and we have no obligation to sell, and if we do, we can charge what the hell we like?

I think the only thing that is clear is that no-one has a clue....

[californiahoop]

That's how I see it, I don't think Arsenal or Spurs want him anyway, he will be back I suspect.

[Nick]

That's how I see it, I don't think Arsenal or Spurs want him anyway, he will be back I suspect.

That's what I honestly think too. For all the "he 100% wont be here next season" posts, I can just see him staying.... not that I'm complaining.

[ArcticHoop]

if he stays,then hopefully his attitude is right and gives 100%. But you'll never know how things goes with these so called "superstars"

[Ginger Ninja]

I was under the impression that Remy clause was null and void once he went on loan.

[maidstone_hoop]

He's got a clause in his deal that he can be sold for a certain fee. None of us seem to know what that fee is but believe its beetween 8 - 10 m. It was the only way we could entice him to QPR. Harry always told him come to us for 18 months hoping we would stay up and get 1 year out him then promised we would move him on to one of the big boys. As far as we know the only reason he hasnt gone so far is he's holding out for arsenal. Apparently liverpool and spurs both have met the buy out but he wants arsenal.

[qpr]

There clearly isn't a clause or someone would of signed him permeantly last summer. People are guessing & it's got too big for people to drop when reporting

I think Remy will be a QPR player that starts against Hull on the first day & will stay after the window. Tony doesn't want to sell & won't. No clause, let's look at the obvious

[Kevin Mcleod]

There is a clause, one million per cent . He wouldnt of signed for a relegation certainty club otherwise. Clause has no time limit either. Anyone who thinks otherwise is dreaming.

[Tarbie]

There clearly isn't a clause or someone would of signed him permeantly last summer. People are guessing & it's got too big for people to drop when reporting

I think Remy will be a QPR player that starts against Hull on the first day & will stay after the window. Tony doesn't want to sell & won't. No clause, let's look at the obvious

Harry said in a press conference a couple of months back that he "thinks" Remy has a clause that is "not too much more than we paid for him". That is where all the papers have got this 8-10m clause that they keep talking about.

One thing I've learned about Redknapp over the last 18 months is that he isn't as daft as he likes people to think he is. I think he is often very tactical about what he let's slip to the media and at press conferences. He talks about what he "thinks" is in Remy's contract one minute and then 5 minutes later, he wouldn't know cos Phil Beard handles all of that stuff!

I can't think why Harry would want to make people think Remy has a release clause if he doesn't but if he did have an ulterior motive it wouldn't surprise me at all!

[Rangers77]

Don't want him to start and then go in September. That would be the worst of all worlds.

[klonk]

Help me out here boys, I'm a bit confused.

Right. So, at the end of 2012/2013 season that ended in relegation, it was widely accepted that Loic Remy had a clause inserted in his contract that allowed him to move on for a set fee, again widely accepted at around €10m.

Loic Remy and his agent did not manage to secure any permanent move to a desired club despite their best efforts, hence ended up on loan at Newcastle. Given that we are now back in the PL, doesn't this render his "clause" null and void and we have no obligation to sell, and if we do, we can charge what the hell we like?

my uninformed guess...

he had a 'relegation release clause' for about £8m which was valid only for the window immediately after we went down; and
he has a 'general release clause' for a higher amount (£10m?) which is valid for all other times.

i'm sure that, if we stayed up, he would still have had a release clause, just one for a hgher amount

[Kevin Mcleod]

my uninformed guess...

he had a 'relegation release clause' for about £8m which was valid only for the window immediately after we went down; and
he has a 'general release clause' for a higher amount (£10m?) which is valid for all other times.

i'm sure that, if we stayed up, he would still have had a release clause, just one for a hgher amount

Im certain this is corrrect.

[californiahoop]

Im certain this is corrrect.

This maybe true but I just don't think anyone else wants him? We are probably paying him way above the going rate so makes it a bit rich for most medium size clubs, the big boys aren't interested I suspect.

[Jimmy Floyd Rabbit]

Joey Barton said he was 100% not coming back too.