Hull City bid for Shane Long... but they couldn't finance it.

[AKCJ]

If this is true then that's seriously dodgy.

 

Could see a decent fine for unsettling the player.

 

 

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11698/8906494/west-brom-blame-hull-over-shane-long-deal-falling-through

 

West Brom have moved to explain Shane Long's failed move to Hull City and insist he remains a key part of their plan

 

Long came close to a move to Hull on transfer deadline only for the switch to fall through at the 11th hour.

Reports suggested West Brom pulled the plug on the move after losing out to Everton to sign Romelu Lukaku on loan from Chelsea for a second season.

 

However, West Brom's sporting and technical director, Richard Garlick, has denied those suggestions and claims the move broke down because Hull reduced their offer for the Republic of Ireland international.

Garlick said in a club statement: "Hull unexpectedly contacted us on Monday and tabled an acceptable offer for Shane. Given that every player has his price, we discussed it as a club.

"We accepted Hull's offer in principle and gave them permission to speak to Shane, but the deal depended on many other factors - including a real reluctance to sell.

"In a phone conversation with Shane's representative, I informed him that Shane was under no pressure to leave. We were definitely not trying to force him out.

"Hull then informed us they could not finance the deal they had tabled and wanted to reduce it to a level that the club would never have accepted in the first place.

"Given that Shane was not a player we were looking to sell, we ended all negotiations with Hull there and then.

"Contrary to media reports, the decision to keep Shane had absolutely nothing to do with Romelu Lukaku opting to join Everton.

"Shane remains a West Bromwich Albion player and we're delighted he's still here.

"He's played an important role in the club's recent progress and we are sure he will make another big contribution this term."

 

 

 

[Donut]

Get your business done early. Simple as that.

[Jordan]

If that's true, to use an Americanism, that's a real bush league move by Hull. I wonder if West Brom can take any recourse here.

[Strokes]

Like a bit of deadline day drama, do our baggies.

[surrifox]

hardly a surprise though- WBA should refuse to deal with them at any time in the future- !

 

Hull behaving like pikeys- who'd have thought it 

[MrSpaM]

I find it a bit difficult to believe Hull couldnt afford him, especially after they'd had an offer accepted. Feel a bit sorry for Shane Long tbh, must not be very nice playing for a club knowing the only reason youve been kept is because they couldnt get somebody else in to replace you.

[Corky]

I see the name change for international branding purposes has paid off already.

[ruisliptiger]

This story doesn't tally. It was 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. WBA were looking for an excuse to back out of the deal. When we tried to barter on price, something that happens in all deals and is usually met with some kind of reply even if it is pay or do one they walked away. They were clearly expecting to do better business for themselves leaving Long as surplus to requirements. Things were exaserbated by the deadline being so close.

 

Timeline

 

WBA agreed a 6.5 million fee with City for Long.

Long flies over for a medical and to hammer out personal terms.

Long has medical and agrees personal terms.

Hull try and rejiggle the deal a little 5.5 million with the rest as performance related add ons.

WBA pull the deal with no reply, counter offer, nothing.

 

6 of one, half a dozen of the other. That is the unbiased truth.

 

Luckily we already did our business early. That would have just been a few sprinkles on the cake. Not a cherry as we already bought one of them.

[Bryn]

Why did you go to an opposition forum and hunt down a month old thread?

[ruisliptiger]

I have been here before and saw it in passing whilst looking for something else. I would be eternally grateful if you would be so kind as to look at me post in the Hull City Tigers thread.

 

Thank you very much.

[BrummieFOX]

This story doesn't tally. It was 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. WBA were looking for an excuse to back out of the deal. When we tried to barter on price, something that happens in all deals and is usually met with some kind of reply even if it is pay or do one they walked away. They were clearly expecting to do better business for themselves leaving Long as surplus to requirements. Things were exaserbated by the deadline being so close.

Timeline

WBA agreed a 6.5 million fee with City for Long.

Long flies over for a medical and to hammer out personal terms.

Long has medical and agrees personal terms.

Hull try and rejiggle the deal a little 5.5 million with the rest as performance related add ons.

WBA pull the deal with no reply, counter offer, nothing.

6 of one, half a dozen of the other. That is the unbiased truth.

Luckily we already did our business early. That would have just been a few sprinkles on the cake. Not a cherry as we already bought one of them.

That's exactly what WBA said. You made an offer, they accepted. Long spoke to you, then you reduced the offer (quite significantly according to you) and they rejected it and pulled out of the deal. Fair enough.

[ruisliptiger]

That the thing; we made a revised offer in the normal course of haggling out the best deal for ourselves but they never came back to us to say that the revised offer was unacceptable. They just pulled the deal. I smack of a team looking for any excuse to pull out otherwise they would have carried on negotiating. I'm not pointing the finger at them, just a little put out at them placing the blame on us. 

 

My personal opinion is we got lucky with the deal falling through. It's not that Long wouldn't have been a fine addition to our squad. More the fact that 6.5million is an awful lot of money when you consider he only has 12 months to run on his contract. WBA will be lucky to get anywhere near that kind of offer again and he could go on a free.

[Jimothy]

That the thing; we made a revised offer in the normal course of haggling out the best deal for ourselves but they never came back to us to say that the revised offer was unacceptable. They just pulled the deal. I smack of a team looking for any excuse to pull out otherwise they would have carried on negotiating. I'm not pointing the finger at them, just a little put out at them placing the blame on us. 

 

My personal opinion is we got lucky with the deal falling through. It's not that Long wouldn't have been a fine addition to our squad. More the fact that 6.5million is an awful lot of money when you consider he only has 12 months to run on his contract. WBA will be lucky to get anywhere near that kind of offer again and he could go on a free.

I think you have a very odd idea of how transfer deals work. I wouldn't have thought that once a transfer fee had been agreed and the player completed a medical and agreed personal terms, that the buying club would go back with a revised bid. I've heard of clubs haggling over a fee before agreeing to let the player go and talk to another club. I've even heard of clubs having not quite agreed on a fee but being close to it so letting the player go and talk whilst they hammer out a fine details of the fee. But I've never heard of two clubs agreeing a fee, the player completing all the personal stuff then the buyer going back with a revised bid. Why would they? The fee was agreed. Why would WBA agree to £6.5m fee and the accept £1m less later after the transfer was practically completed. Everything was completed bar sending the paper work in, you can't go back with a new bid at that point!

I think what's happened is Hull could never afford the £6.5m but knew that was the least WBA would accept, so went in with it, offered Long a deal, and then hoped WBA would buckle knowing the player wanted to go and would agree to a lower fee.

[Mark_w]

That the thing; we made a revised offer in the normal course of haggling out the best deal for ourselves but they never came back to us to say that the revised offer was unacceptable. They just pulled the deal. I smack of a team looking for any excuse to pull out otherwise they would have carried on negotiating. I'm not pointing the finger at them, just a little put out at them placing the blame on us. 

 

My personal opinion is we got lucky with the deal falling through. It's not that Long wouldn't have been a fine addition to our squad. More the fact that 6.5million is an awful lot of money when you consider he only has 12 months to run on his contract. WBA will be lucky to get anywhere near that kind of offer again and he could go on a free.

 

Why would they need an excuse?

 

[ruisliptiger]

I think you have a very odd idea of how transfer deals work. I wouldn't have thought that once a transfer fee had been agreed and the player completed a medical and agreed personal terms, that the buying club would go back with a revised bid. I've heard of clubs haggling over a fee before agreeing to let the player go and talk to another club. I've even heard of clubs having not quite agreed on a fee but being close to it so letting the player go and talk whilst they hammer out a fine details of the fee. But I've never heard of two clubs agreeing a fee, the player completing all the personal stuff then the buyer going back with a revised bid. Why would they? The fee was agreed. Why would WBA agree to £6.5m fee and the accept £1m less later after the transfer was practically completed. Everything was completed bar sending the paper work in, you can't go back with a new bid at that point!

I think what's happened is Hull could never afford the £6.5m but knew that was the least WBA would accept, so went in with it, offered Long a deal, and then hoped WBA would buckle knowing the player wanted to go and would agree to a lower fee.

 

Funny things happen on deadline day. We could easily afford it, after all our revised offer was 5.5 million with the rest as add ons. It is a case (and always has been with this current regime) of getting value for money. The right player at the right price, who can add value to the club.

[ruisliptiger]

Why would they need an excuse?

 

 

My guess is they were not happy with not getting one of their own targets. Lukaka for example and decided that they could do with Long in the building.

[Jimothy]

Funny things happen on deadline day. We could easily afford it, after all our revised offer was 5.5 million with the rest as add ons. It is a case (and always has been with this current regime) of getting value for money. The right player at the right price, who can add value to the club.

Well you should have put that bid in in the first place rather than conning WBA into thinking you'd be paying £6.5m outright, the moving the goalposts once the ball had already hit the net. I've heard some odd things in transfer deadline day but never anything like this. There's only one team to blame for the deal collapsing and that's Hull.

[ruisliptiger]

Funny, I've been aware of this sort of thing happening many a time. Real Madrid for instance offered a price for Bale and then attempted to reduce it or restructure the way it was paid. That is exactly the same as we did. We didn't reduce the Bid, just tried to barter the small print of how it was going to be paid.

[Jimothy]

Funny, I've been aware of this sort of thing happening many a time. Real Madrid for instance offered a price for Bale and then attempted to reduce it or restructure the way it was paid. That is exactly the same as we did. We didn't reduce the Bid, just tried to barter the small print of how it was going to be paid.

A price wasn't agreed for Bale when they did that though. I mentioned earlier I've heard of clubs letting players discuss terms whilst they hammer out the finer points of the fee, which what Real and Spurs did. What Hull did is offer a figure, let WBA agree it then once the player had agreed terms, change the figure. That's totally different.

[ADK]

Teams do that all the time, especially when it's deadline day.

[Mark_w]

My guess is they were not happy with not getting one of their own targets. Lukaka for example and decided that they could do with Long in the building.

 

My point is that WBA had every right to back out of the deal at any point, they wouldn't need to go around making excuses because they've got every right to do it. It's pretty clear that the deal didn't go through because Hull moved the goal posts, and I'm not even having a go at them for it, they wanted to get a better deal and they tried to do just that. You didn't get the player because you tried to get a better deal after a fee had been agreed, but you're 8th at the moment so I doubt you care. However, your defence of everything Hull is just ridiculous, you're almost as bad as Strovolos Tiger.

[ruisliptiger]

The problem is not with WBA backing out of the deal. You're they have every right to do it. The problem is with them then airing the whole thing in public and painting us as the bad guy's. It was definately 50/50. If WBA wanted the deal to go through they would have rejected the tweaked offer and said it'd 6.5 up front or nothing. As it was they chose to pull the deal. If at that point in the night they still wanted to shift the player on then It doesn't add up.

 

And If I blindly defended everything Hull City then I'd be unlikely to be frequenting a Foxes board. As you guys are the devil as far as our Chairman and many supporters are concerned. I am also a big Pearson fan and understand why he left, which does not tally as a blind defender of the mighty god like Hull propaganda machine.

[Jimothy]

The problem is not with WBA backing out of the deal. You're they have every right to do it. The problem is with them then airing the whole thing in public and painting us as the bad guy's. It was definately 50/50. If WBA wanted the deal to go through they would have rejected the tweaked offer and said it'd 6.5 up front or nothing. As it was they chose to pull the deal. If at that point in the night they still wanted to shift the player on then It doesn't add up.

 

And If I blindly defended everything Hull City then I'd be unlikely to be frequenting a Foxes board. As you guys are the devil as far as our Chairman and many supporters are concerned. I am also a big Pearson fan and understand why he left, which does not tally as a blind defender of the mighty god like Hull propaganda machine.

They didn't want rid though did they. You just met the valuation they had of that player, and they decided at that price, they couldn't turn that down. You than changed that agreed price and went back with a lower figure, they thought they weren't really bothered about selling anyway, and if Hull are going to play games, why bother. They didn't want to sell, but every player has a value, you met that value and then failed to meet. If Hull had done things properly and gone it at a price they were happy to pay initially the. This would never have happened. Instead they went in with a price they never wanted to pay to con WBA, then tried to lower it.