Jump to content
mozartfox

Kante 'sell on' Clause

Recommended Posts

I doubt it as we had nothing to bargain with.

 

Why do I see Ruskin's name cropping up a lot in this thread.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were lucky to get what we did 

 

no chance there is a sell on clause. They player will have told Chelsea he wouldn't go elsewhere. We had to sell to a CL club for 20m. What bargaining position did we have? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they activated his release clause (which they did) there would be no reason to include a sell on clause. We've had every penny we're ever going to get from him.


Edited by TiffToff88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, TiffToff88 said:

If they activated his release clause (which they did) there would be no reason to include a sell on clause. We've had every penny we're ever going to get from him.

no they didn't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, stripeyfox said:

I don't think Chelsea are going to sell him anytime soon are they?

PSG have been linked, apparently approx £90mill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know everyone will be pissed off if there isn't one. But the max it will have been if we have is probably 20%

 

£18 million will probably only fund half a player next season.....

 

And with any transfer probably being split over a few years.... it's pretty pointless to worry about the affect it could have on us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sylofox said:

I doubt it as we had nothing to bargain with.

 

Why do I see Ruskin's name cropping up a lot in this thread.

Probably not much.

Rudkin on the other hand...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody knows the answer therefore Rudkin is a useless cvnt.

 

Classic foxestalk.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, there is! rudkin made sure that caen will get 25% of the fee!

 

i love our management!!!!

 

caexg30.jpg


Edited by the fox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there should have been, because everyone knew the player was ambitious and wanted to play for one of the European giants like Real Madrid!. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, foxy boxing said:

there should have been, because everyone knew the player was ambitious and wanted to play for one of the European giants like Real Madrid!. 

Yes, and everybody knew exactly how good he was and how much potential he has. That's precisely why he ended up at Leicester.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

We were lucky to get what we did 

 

no chance there is a sell on clause. They player will have told Chelsea he wouldn't go elsewhere. We had to sell to a CL club for 20m. What bargaining position did we have? 

In that situation, and if he was 100% set on Chelsea, we could have just told them we wouldn't sell without a sell-on clause I suppose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ted Maul said:

In that situation, and if he was 100% set on Chelsea, we could have just told them we wouldn't sell without a sell-on clause I suppose. 

No because he had a release clause.  If a player has a release clause and wants to go to the club that triggers it, there is no negotiation that can be done on our part.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

No because he had a release clause.  If a player has a release clause and wants to go to the club that triggers it, there is no negotiation that can be done on our part.

Chelsea couldn't trigger it though, it was for CL clubs only- we accepted their bid because it was a bit higher that we would have got from other clubs.

 

My point is, if he was dead-set on Chelsea and wasn't going to join anyone else, we did have some bargaining power. Chelsea wouldn't have wanted to run the risk of him going elsewhere either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

No because he had a release clause.  If a player has a release clause and wants to go to the club that triggers it, there is no negotiation that can be done on our part.

 

15 minutes ago, Ted Maul said:

In that situation, and if he was 100% set on Chelsea, we could have just told them we wouldn't sell without a sell-on clause I suppose. 

It was a little more complex. We were under no obligation to sell to Chelsea. They were not CL qualified. We could have refused to sell but then run the risk that Arsenal, united or Man City or European club came in with 20 mill before Aug 31st. We judged that taking the 12 mill extra was the best way out considering the player wanted the move (any move) and would likely go whatever.  Once we played a couple of games in the new season, 20 mill would look like a steal!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Highly doubt it. We lost any bargaining position with him the minute we threw that clause into his contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ted Maul said:

Chelsea couldn't trigger it though, it was for CL clubs only- we accepted their bid because it was a bit higher that we would have got from other clubs.

 

My point is, if he was dead-set on Chelsea and wasn't going to join anyone else, we did have some bargaining power. Chelsea wouldn't have wanted to run the risk of him going elsewhere either.

But Chelsea surely knew this and knew as a result we'd rather sell him to them than say Arsenal. It was probably in our interests to sell him to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dan LCFC said:

But Chelsea surely knew this and knew as a result we'd rather sell him to them than say Arsenal. It was probably in our interests to sell him to them.

That's true, but would they risk losing the best midfielder in the league to one of their rivals over a 10% sell-on clause?

 

Our bargaining power wasn't great, but it was higher than 0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ted Maul said:

That's true, but would they risk losing the best midfielder in the league to one of their rivals over a 10% sell-on clause?

 

Our bargaining power wasn't great, but it was higher than 0.

This is the club who paid £45mil for Slimani and Musa dealing with a side that gets £60mil for Oscar. It's like a negotiating Germany v San Marino lol 

 

I do agree with your point for what it's worth although I suppose it's who caves in first.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, stripeyfox said:

I don't think Chelsea are going to sell him anytime soon are they?

No way, he will retire there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×