Football League launch probe into Matty Taylors transfer

[Roger Red Hat]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Is a release clause always legally binding though?

I seem to recall Arsenal bidding for Suarez triggering release clause- it later emerged he had one, but Liverpool just refused to sell him.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/mar/02/liverpool-john-henry-luis-suarez-clause

Maybe Suarez wasn't interested in the move.

[42nite]

So, if United offered say £10 million for him, and we only offered £300k,  if MT chose to stay local and sign for us, the Sags would miss out on £9.7 million?

 

 

Ah well, never mind eh.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

I assume / assumed so Mr P otherwise why does it exist at all but the article does raise the question

Have to say I don't actually know the answer but someone on here will tidy that up

I thought so as well Bob, but again I'm no expert.

My understanding is once it is triggered the selling club has no power over it anymore.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, Roger Red Hat said:

Maybe Suarez wasn't interested in the move.

Yeah perhaps- things have worked out well for him since!

[Roger Red Hat]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Yeah perhaps- things have worked out well for him since!

Yep. Once the clause is triggered, the player is totally in control.

[BobBobSuperBob]

Just now, Mr Popodopolous said:

I thought so as well Bob, but again I'm no expert.

My understanding is once it is triggered the selling club has no power over it anymore.

Yes , and me

Spud has clarified a couple of Q on here but , as you my understanding is that any club meeting the clause , or above can speak to the player, who doesn't have to move of course

 

[EstoniaTallinnRed]

55 minutes ago, Marina's Rolls Royce said:

This is all getting very technical but doesn't need to:

Q :Exactly what sort of Clause was it?

A: Santa

 

 

 

No it was the sanity clause, but unfortunately BRFC don't have any!

[Taz]

This made me laugh when I saw it on Facebook last night. This supposed £300k release fee has been banded about on here, asschat  (from what others have said), and has been all over the media.

The only way the monkies down the road would have a case, is if the £300k was a red herring, and the actual fee was higher. We then bid the exact higher amount the first time of bidding. 

Just making them look bitter and stupid.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, Roger Red Hat said:

Yep. Once the clause is triggered, the player is totally in control.

This case seems pretty clearcut absolutely. In Spain the system is more complex but that's Spain.

As for this, all we need to do in defence if it even gets that far which it won't is cite an article which states his buyout clause which will be pretty funny! Will be funny to see them embarrass themselves once again.

[COACH2]

So the Daily Mail are reporting a story saying Bristol City must have had inside knowledge of the transfer release clause.
This is ironic as on Jan 24 the Mail reported the following

Prolific lower league scorer available for just £300,000
SAMI MOKBEL: Bristol Rovers hotshot Matt Taylor is available this month for just £300,000.

So of course City new the price the DailyMail told them...........  

[EstoniaTallinnRed]

Just now, Mr Popodopolous said:

This case seems pretty clearcut absolutely. In Spain the system is more complex but that's Spain.

As for this, all we need to do in defence if it even gets that far which it won't is cite an article which states his buyout clause which will be pretty funny! Will be funny to see them embarrass themselves once again.

Their very good at doing that.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

The amount has been in the public domain for months, Jesus what a whinging bunch of tarts they are FFS.

[Major Isewater]

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I thought so as well Bob, but again I'm no expert.

My understanding is once it is triggered the selling club has no power over it anymore.

Would seem right ' release ' being the operative word . 

release Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

dictionary.cambridge.org › dictionary › r...

release meaning, definition, what is release: to give freedom or free movement to someone or something: .

 

End of , rather amusing , story .

[Super]

1 minute ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

The amount has been in the public domain for months, Jesus what a whinging bunch of tarts they are FFS.

They have been let down again by an inept joke of a board and yet it's someone else's fault.

[42nite]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

This case seems pretty clearcut absolutely. In Spain the system is more complex but that's Spain.

As for this, all we need to do in defence if it even gets that far which it won't is cite an article which states his buyout clause which will be pretty funny! Will be funny to see them embarrass themselves once again.

 

Do they really fancy their chances against SL?

 

[phantom]

Reported by the Daily Mirror 23rd November 2016

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/bristol-rovers-braced-january-battle-9318760

[Esmond Million's Bung]

3 minutes ago, Super said:

They have been let down again by an inept joke of a board and yet it's someone else's fault.

Yep, just like the act of god at Wycombe, their relegation to the NON LEAGUE, the pitch invasion and subsequent violence and horse punching because was 'not us it was those shitheads', what a bunch of sad losers.

PS:- I missed out Sainsbury's broke their contract.

 

[italian dave]

3 hours ago, Monkeh said:

counter sue for deformation of character 

Not sure if you can further deform anything that's already that ugly......

[italian dave]

10 minutes ago, COACH2 said:

So the Daily Mail are reporting a story saying Bristol City must have had inside knowledge of the transfer release clause.
This is ironic as on Jan 24 the Mail reported the following

Prolific lower league scorer available for just £300,000
SAMI MOKBEL: Bristol Rovers hotshot Matt Taylor is available this month for just £300,000.

So of course City new the price the DailyMail told them...........  

But your forgetting that in Daily Mail world, like Gas world, the truth should never be allowed to get in the way of a good hate filled and hate fuelled rant.

[Marina's Rolls Royce]

6 minutes ago, phantom said:

Reported by the Daily Mirror 23rd November 2016

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/bristol-rovers-braced-january-battle-9318760

Nice spot, Phantom.

I can see it now-

" Yes, your Honour, it is indeed my client's contention that Mr Lansdown couldn't possibly have known about the clause  other than by illegal means because no one at BCFC reads the Daily Mirror, Daily Mail , Twitter, Facebook and/or any football related forums ".

[spudski]

Regardless of all the speculation...this situation boils down to the fact, that Rovers and Taylor agreed a sum of £300K to release him. Both parties agreed to it. If Rovers don't like it, it's their problem, they should never have agreed to such a low figure. Even if we had bid £400K it would still be below market value.

It's obvious £300K was set by Taylor and his agent. They wanted a move...and were just waiting for the right team to come along and trigger it. Rovers knew this would happen eventually if Taylor continued with his scoring.

It's obvious Taylor wanted a Championship move.

It may not have been reported...but for all we know, other teams MAY have triggered it, but it just hasn't come into the public domain. Even if it's been reported that it never was. We just don't know that.

There are two types of release clause. The one that Taylor had...which enables him to go for that 'set fee'.

The other...is a 'Good faith' release clause...which sets a minimum figure, allows discussion between clubs, and then negotiation on a selling fee.

[Kid in the Riot]

3 minutes ago, spudski said:

Regardless of all the speculation...this situation boils down to the fact, that Rovers and Taylor agreed a sum of £300K to release him. Both parties agreed to it. If Rovers don't like it, it's their problem, they should never have agreed to such a low figure. Even if we had bid £400K it would still be below market value.

It's obvious £300K was set by Taylor and his agent. They wanted a move...and were just waiting for the right team to come along and trigger it. Rovers knew this would happen eventually if Taylor continued with his scoring.

It's obvious Taylor wanted a Championship move.

It may not have been reported...but for all we know, other teams MAY have triggered it, but it just hasn't come into the public domain. Even if it's been reported that it never was. We just don't know that.

There are two types of release clause. The one that Taylor had...which enables him to go for that 'set fee'.

The other...is a 'Good faith' release clause...which sets a minimum figure, allows discussion between clubs, and then negotiation on a selling fee.

Dopey has confirmed that 80% of L1 clubs offered Taylor a deal last summer and the only reason he went to Rovers was because of the release clause so they basically knew they'd lose him in January but would at least get some money for him. He also said we were the only C'ship club in for him.

[Northern Red]

3 minutes ago, spudski said:

Regardless of all the speculation...this situation boils down to the fact, that Rovers and Taylor agreed a sum of £300K to release him. Both parties agreed to it. If Rovers don't like it, it's their problem, they should never have agreed to such a low figure. Even if we had bid £400K it would still be below market value.

It's obvious £300K was set by Taylor and his agent. They wanted a move...and were just waiting for the right team to come along and trigger it. Rovers knew this would happen eventually if Taylor continued with his scoring.

It's obvious Taylor wanted a Championship move.

It may not have been reported...but for all we know, other teams MAY have triggered it, but it just hasn't come into the public domain. Even if it's been reported that it never was. We just don't know that.

There are two types of release clause. The one that Taylor had...which enables him to go for that 'set fee'.

The other...is a 'Good faith' release clause...which sets a minimum figure, allows discussion between clubs, and then negotiation on a selling fee.

Indeed. I think the latter of those may have been the case with the Suarez example that's been mentioned. 

[1960maaan]

@spudski just endured a video where DC says no other Championship club came in. Not sure that's a good or bad thing. 

I am surprised though.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

6 minutes ago, spudski said:

Regardless of all the speculation...this situation boils down to the fact, that Rovers and Taylor agreed a sum of £300K to release him. Both parties agreed to it. If Rovers don't like it, it's their problem, they should never have agreed to such a low figure. Even if we had bid £400K it would still be below market value.

It's obvious £300K was set by Taylor and his agent. They wanted a move...and were just waiting for the right team to come along and trigger it. Rovers knew this would happen eventually if Taylor continued with his scoring.

It's obvious Taylor wanted a Championship move.

It may not have been reported...but for all we know, other teams MAY have triggered it, but it just hasn't come into the public domain. Even if it's been reported that it never was. We just don't know that.

There are two types of release clause. The one that Taylor had...which enables him to go for that 'set fee'.

The other...is a 'Good faith' release clause...which sets a minimum figure, allows discussion between clubs, and then negotiation on a selling fee.

Well the mail reported it a week before deadline day and the mirror 8 days before deadline day, so it was certainly out there and I recall that the speculation was rife within days of him signing the contract at the gas.

[lenred]

4 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

@spudski just endured a video where DC says no other Championship club came in. Not sure that's a good or bad thing. 

I am surprised though.

Complete and utter rollocks I would suggest.  More trying to save face from them. And failing. Miserably!

[Bar BS3]

24 minutes ago, COACH2 said:

So the Daily Mail are reporting a story saying Bristol City must have had inside knowledge of the transfer release clause.
This is ironic as on Jan 24 the Mail reported the following

Prolific lower league scorer available for just £300,000
SAMI MOKBEL: Bristol Rovers hotshot Matt Taylor is available this month for just £300,000.

So of course City new the price the DailyMail told them...........  

Brilliant! 

Can you imagine the FA "court" hearing...?! 

 

[Son of Fred]

24 minutes ago, Taz said:

This made me laugh when I saw it on Facebook last night. This supposed £300k release fee has been banded about on here, asschat  (from what others have said), and has been all over the media.

The only way the monkies down the road would have a case, is if the £300k was a red herring, and the actual fee was higher. We then bid the exact higher amount the first time of bidding. 

Just making them look bitter and stupid.

There are as yet isolated tribes in the Amazonian Basin that have been aware Matty Taylor's release clause was set at £300,000  .... And have known for some time...

[spudski]

2 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Well the mail reported it a week before deadline day and the mirror 8 days before deadline day, so it was certainly out there and I recall that the speculation was rife within days of him signing the contract at the gas.

Which makes me think other League 1 teams may have triggered it in January, and that's how the figure got into the public domain.

Taylor was hanging on for a Championship move it seems.

[BRISTOL86]

Cant make it up, this is on their official homepage