Donut Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 If that were the case then why'd no one move for him in January? Suppose in January, there was no release clause at all, but the player and agent were mooting they wanted to move on. The club knows from that point, its going to be hard to keep him. So they negotiate a contract thats decent for them, that helps the club achieve the objective of winning the league, plus offers the player an escape route that without, hes probably going to start kicking off and become a duff asset in the squad. If no bids materialised, the player still has a decent wage increase to keep playing here. The club are losing money on the transfer, but they have gained a league title, and the best year they can realistically expect of a 29, going on 30 year old.
MCaineFOTT Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 Whoever sorted the improved contract out wants sacking for that release clause.
Viva Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 Suppose in January, there was no release clause at all, but the player and agent were mooting they wanted to move on. The club knows from that point, its going to be hard to keep him. So they negotiate a contract thats decent for them, that helps the club achieve the objective of winning the league, plus offers the player an escape route that without, hes probably going to start kicking off and become a duff asset in the squad. If no bids materialised, the player still has a decent wage increase to keep playing here. The club are losing money on the transfer, but they have gained a league title, and the best year they can realistically expect of a 29, going on 30 year old. It's amazing how many people can't understand that's the kind of thing that probably happened. Nothing stupid from the club. Just common sense with such an important season.
hornyhollthefox123 Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 Look back in this thread. I'm not explaining it again. So the fact he might be 'unhappy' and want to leave in January to a big club meant us then paying him more and lowering his release clause? He couldn't have gone anyway in January. If we knew he was going anyway we'd have just had an unhappy player for 5 months and would have saved wages and sold for a bigger fee. Can't see how you can't accept it's bizarre logic what you're saying.
Viva Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 So the fact he might be 'unhappy' and want to leave in January to a big club meant us then paying him more and lowering his release clause? He couldn't have gone anyway in January. If we knew he was going anyway we'd have just had an unhappy player for 5 months and would have saved wages and sold for a bigger fee. Can't see how you can't accept it's bizarre logic what you're saying. So you would have preferred to save on wages, take a bigger fee, but probably lose the league? Think about that again and let me know your answer.
FireFox Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 We are all too simple to understand that the release clause made Vardy super happy and a better player and guaranteed we'd win the league. Without it, Vardy would have been awful... although he wanted a big move, which he then wouldn't have gotten.
Donut Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 So the fact he might be 'unhappy' and want to leave in January to a big club meant us then paying him more and lowering his release clause? He couldn't have gone anyway in January. If we knew he was going anyway we'd have just had an unhappy player for 5 months and would have saved wages and sold for a bigger fee. Can't see how you can't accept it's bizarre logic what you're saying. This is all assuming there was dialog that the player was interested in a move. It was used as a sweetner most likely. To negotiate a contract that at the end of the season, you can leave. But also kept him happy that he was going to GET his move, and that he wasnt going to be held here against his will. At which point he starts to become a useless commodity. By keeping him here, and happy, until the season ends, the club has a much better chance of landing the title. The club did land the title as it happens.
Donut Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 We are all too simple to understand that the release clause made Vardy super happy and a better player and guaranteed we'd win the league. Without it, Vardy would have been awful... although he wanted a big move, which he then wouldn't have gotten. No, thats being far too extreme. But i can see that could have well been the thinking, it kept one of our top assets happier, that increased ourchances of winning the league. If he had have sulked, that would have had a detrimental effect on him, and the team. As it happened, IF this was the thinking, it worked.
Donut Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 And lets not forget This is a player that has had the best season of his life. A dream season. Season before, he scored what, 5 goals? Hes 29, so arguably going past his best now. If he scores 24 more goals the next two seasons, a massive fair play to the player. But youd also have to weigh up, could he repeat that level of form again? It would be very very hard. And 120k a week at 32, thats a lot of dough.
WengersWingMan Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 Ofcourse it could be the club wanted to sell for 20m in the first place and replace with players costing less, thus registering a profit while having confidence in it's scouting process.
hornyhollthefox123 Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 So you would have preferred to save on wages, take a bigger fee, but probably lose the league? Think about that again and let me know your answer. No! I didn't say leave in January did I. I said leave in 5 months. As in at the end of the season. Christ above. He was never leaving in January. And how would we have lost the league if we hadn't given him a release clause? Haha You're deliberately ignoring my point. We clearly wouldn't let him go in January even if there were offers.. If he was unhappy about that we wouldn't pay him more wages and lower his release clause. Logic would've been to say thanks but I'm not doubling your wages now but we will let you go in the summer for an amount that's right for the club. It's not the Jamie Vardy show mate. He was required to play for us under contract. I can't imagine in January when we were top of the league and having supported him for 4 years he would throw all his toys out the pram and demand to leave. That was a big moment for us but also by far the biggest thing he'd done to date. Clearly your fixed on your views so let's move on. Fact remains his agent has taken Leicester for mugs and Rudkin for me is largely responsible for allowing us to be taken to the cleaners IF the fee is genuinely only £20m in today's market given how valuable he is to us.
Sublime_Coatsworth Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 I'm not sure how that's the case ? He was under contract and if he was going this summer which it's always looked likely then surely an auction in our favour was best way to go ? I still don't understand why he was given a contract when it's clear his agent was going to hawk him to everyone I doubt Vardy was looking to leave when the last contract was negotiated. However his agent would quite rightly have wanted the OPTION of him leaving if the right offer came in (and remember from their perspective the right offer is the package, not the selling price). Players always have release clauses in their contracts and it's always in their interest to have these as low as possible since it effectively allows them to opt out of lengthy contracts that actually provide them with great protection. Clubs on the other hand want high release clauses since it protects their interests (since effectively binds the player to the duration of the agreement) - so what happens is both sides haggle until they reach a compromise. People shouldn't blame the club. They got the highest release clause the player was prepared to accept. You'll probably find that the previous release clause from his first Leicester contract was £5m. THATS why the club was so disparate to give him a new contract a few months back.
Viva Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 No! I didn't say leave in January did I. I said leave in 5 months. As in at the end of the season. Christ above. He was never leaving in January. And how would we have lost the league if we hadn't given him a release clause? Haha You're deliberately ignoring my point. We clearly wouldn't let him go in January even if there were offers.. If he was unhappy about that we wouldn't pay him more wages and lower his release clause. Logic would've been to say thanks but I'm not doubling your wages now but we will let you go in the summer for an amount that's right for the club. It's not the Jamie Vardy show mate. He was required to play for us under contract. I can't imagine in January when we were top of the league and having supported him for 4 years he would throw all his toys out the pram and demand to leave. That was a big moment for us but also by far the biggest thing he'd done to date. Clearly your fixed on your views so let's move on. Fact remains his agent has taken Leicester for mugs and Rudkin for me is largely responsible for allowing us to be taken to the cleaners IF the fee is genuinely only £20m in today's market given how valuable he is to us. I'm not ignoring anything. You said we'd have had an unhappy player for 5 months, but then got a bigger fee. So we could have saved ourselves money. In my opinion that would have been a stupid thing to do. Fact remains that you know nothing about the negotiations of his new contract, but are happy to slate the club.
hornyhollthefox123 Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 I'm not ignoring anything. You said we'd have had an unhappy player for 5 months, but then got a bigger fee. So we could have saved ourselves money. In my opinion that would have been a stupid thing to do. Fact remains that you know nothing about the negotiations of his new contract, but are happy to slate the club. I don't know the inside scoop on Jamie Vardys contract no but I do know he's worth more than £20m and therefore someone has cocked up if he is now leaving for that fee. You must agree with that
Viva Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 I don't know the inside scoop on Jamie Vardys contract no but I do know he's worth more than £20m and therefore someone has cocked up if he is now leaving for that fee. You must agree with that You can't just look at it in simple terms though as i've said before. We don't know what happened in the negotiations of the contract and whether Vardy was pushing for a move or not. If the £20m clause meant that we kept him in January then it was well worth it. The club would know the true value of players and wouldn't put low figures without reason. Kante for example supposedly has a £20m clause, which also seems low. If we had not put that in though, he might have not signed for us.
FireFox Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 If the £20m clause meant that we kept him in January then it was well worth it.Umm, do you not realize that the new contract happened after January?
Viva Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 Umm, do you not realize that the new contract happened after January? Oh clever research boy! So you think there was no contract talks or negotiations in January? You just think they happily went through Jan with no talk from agents, no contact from other clubs and a perfectly happy Vardy as well? Then a few days later the club suddenly thought, hey let's double his money and put in a nice low release clause!
Sublime_Coatsworth Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 I don't know the inside scoop on Jamie Vardys contract no but I do know he's worth more than £20m and therefore someone has cocked up if he is now leaving for that fee. You must agree with that No, you are incorrect. £20m was the MAXIMUM Vardys agent was prepared to accept as a release fee. If the club had INSISTED a higher amount, say £30m then the agent/Vardy would've simply declined the new deal. The release fee on his previous contract would have been around £5m, which is why the club HAD to renegotiate a new deal to protect themselves. The player was always in a stronger position than the club, since if necessary Vardy could've remained on the old deal - but would have been pretty confident that competing offers would come in from other clubs over the summer since his original release clause was so low.
Donut Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 Umm, do you not realize that the new contract happened after January? Umm, with all respect, theres dialogue over many weeks you know, they dont just shove a contract under a players nose, and then he signs 10 mins later
TeamRocket Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 I really hope hes doesn't go and if am honest i dont see him going but and i mean a big but if he wants to go to Arsenal i dont think we should stop him he clearly doesn't care much for club if he leaves us for them. It will definitely be sad to see him in there kit on and definitely hard to watch him play against us and if am totally honest with myself i dont think i could watch him play ever again but my main issue would be is what would happen to the Band of Brothers will it make a ripple effect and we see more leave or would they be good luck but f*** you and move on and go on to winning stuff?? I dunno but I still see him with a lcfc kit on come next season doing what he does for us for the foxes
I blame Wellens Posted 4 June 2016 Posted 4 June 2016 I really hope hes doesn't go and if am honest i dont see him going but and i mean a big but if he wants to go to Arsenal i dont think we should stop him he clearly doesn't care much for club if he leaves us for them. It will definitely be sad to see him in there kit on and definitely hard to watch him play against us and if am totally honest with myself i dont think i could watch him play ever again but my main issue would be is what would happen to the Band of Brothers will it make a ripple effect and we see more leave or would they be good luck but f*** you and move on and go on to winning stuff?? I dunno but I still see him with a lcfc kit on come next season doing what he does for us for the foxesNail on the head mate.
Wymsey Posted 5 June 2016 Posted 5 June 2016 It's regrettable the Vardy lookalike is released to tell the public who he is. Should be kept indoors and have his phone and laptop confiscated until the Vardy speculations is over.
waylander Posted 5 June 2016 Posted 5 June 2016 We should just give them the Steptoe lookalike and keep vardy .
hornyhollthefox123 Posted 5 June 2016 Posted 5 June 2016 No, you are incorrect. £20m was the MAXIMUM Vardys agent was prepared to accept as a release fee. If the club had INSISTED a higher amount, say £30m then the agent/Vardy would've simply declined the new deal. The release fee on his previous contract would have been around £5m, which is why the club HAD to renegotiate a new deal to protect themselves. The player was always in a stronger position than the club, since if necessary Vardy could've remained on the old deal - but would have been pretty confident that competing offers would come in from other clubs over the summer since his original release clause was so low. That's a sensible suggestion but do you actually know that? I only say that because he signed a new deal at the end of last season when he was getting an England cap etc and very much doubt we'd have had a £5m release clause in that one.. If so then the same principle applies as he was clearly worth more than that and given we paid £1m for him you can't suggest his contract two seasons ago had a clause for lower than £5m surely
mozartfox Posted 5 June 2016 Posted 5 June 2016 Out of interest, how many of us would be happy at the Club offering a similar contract to that is reported to a player that is 30 next January? A player that had possibly a one off brilliant season which may or may not be repeated next season. Life for LCFC will continue, trust management teams to replace JV with hopefully a younger version that is hungry to play for the EPL Champions. The same goes for Kante and Mahrez.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.