Jump to content
Newcastle-Online

Other clubs' transfers

Dave

by Dave
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

KaKa

KaKa

Posted
Posted

Villarreal have agreed a deal to sign American starlet Jozy Altidore. We were linked with him a while back, looks a decent prospect.

 

Nice time machine. Where did you get it from?

 

HAHA.My bad, you want one, they are good?

 

Nah, I'm cool. No more living in the past for me. Cheers.

 

O0

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ALNO1

Guest ALNO1

Posted
Posted

Liverpool Echo says Huddlestone could come to Everton for £6m

 

Surprised you aren't all over this one Jol?  O0

He's been linked with Villa as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kingdawson

Guest kingdawson

Posted
Posted

Liverpool Echo says Huddlestone could come to Everton for £6m

 

Surprised you aren't all over this one Jol?  O0

 

It's been on the spurs forum today. Apparantly the spammers are interested too. Would be very dissapointed if this was true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
fredbob

fredbob

Posted
Posted

"Spurs do not fully own dos Santos" - yeah, it's called a sell-on clause, and it's not like Spurs are the first team in England (or the Premiership, or anywhere else for that matter) to have one of those in their players' contracts.  I'd bet that a few of our squad have them from their previous clubs.  And I bet some people we sell (Shola perhaps?) have sell-on clauses that will benefit NUFC.  It's not uncommon, and it's not worth stating it in a melodramatic fashion that Spurs don't own his full transfer rights - that's correct, but it's just a common sell-on clause.  The point I was making is that you suggested that Barca would put a minimum fee release clause into GdS's Spurs contract: now while contract clauses are often kept confidential and we don't know if there is or there isn't one, to say that it's your "understanding" that he does have a minimum fee release clause is just pulling it out of thin air... unlesss you are privy to some inside info, how the hell do you get to that conclusion?

 

FC Barcelona also maintain 20% of the financial rights to any possible transfer of the player during his first two years of contract and 10% on any transfer from his new club, Tottenham Hotspur FC.

 

There is a sell on clause of 10%, but that is totally independent of the 20% financial rights which mean that Barca part own dos Santos for the next two years and therefore have some say over the dealings for that playerin a manner which is not likely to be made public. Same with Modric.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't buy that - 3rd party influence over transfers is not allowed under Premiership rules (as with the West Ham case), and I can't see even Spurs being stupid enough to sign a deal which breaks these rules after the West Ham affair.  The bolded Barca statement reads to me as a 20% sell-on clause in his first 2 years, going down to a 10% clause after that.  (Btw, that's also how the BBC sees it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/t/tottenham_hotspur/7440216.stm)

 

I think your opinions on these two deals are both based on the hope that one of our main current Premiership rivals haven't done two good deals rather than whatever the underlying truth might be.

 

See, im convinced that there was something in the Spurs Modric deal which made it more appelaing to the mamic brothers- the transfer just doesnt make sense otherwise and as it seems that spurs ARE actualy willing to include sell on clauses etc (despite what our spurs ITK posters say) it would sugest to me that James isnt too far from the truth although im not sure where he's plucked the 'forced acceptance' bit from.

 

Im so curious to know what the actual deal was here, even if the truth is as mundane and unrealisitic as the Mamic brothers choosing the best career choice for Modric at the expense of more money for them...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tooj

Tooj

Posted
Posted

Liverpool Echo says Huddlestone could come to Everton for £6m

 

Surprised you aren't all over this one Jol?  O0

 

It's been on the spurs forum today. Apparantly the spammers are interested too. Would be very dissapointed if this was true.

 

Do you not want to move to Merseyside like?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ALNO1

Guest ALNO1

Posted
Posted

"Spurs do not fully own dos Santos" - yeah, it's called a sell-on clause, and it's not like Spurs are the first team in England (or the Premiership, or anywhere else for that matter) to have one of those in their players' contracts.  I'd bet that a few of our squad have them from their previous clubs.  And I bet some people we sell (Shola perhaps?) have sell-on clauses that will benefit NUFC.  It's not uncommon, and it's not worth stating it in a melodramatic fashion that Spurs don't own his full transfer rights - that's correct, but it's just a common sell-on clause.  The point I was making is that you suggested that Barca would put a minimum fee release clause into GdS's Spurs contract: now while contract clauses are often kept confidential and we don't know if there is or there isn't one, to say that it's your "understanding" that he does have a minimum fee release clause is just pulling it out of thin air... unlesss you are privy to some inside info, how the hell do you get to that conclusion?

 

FC Barcelona also maintain 20% of the financial rights to any possible transfer of the player during his first two years of contract and 10% on any transfer from his new club, Tottenham Hotspur FC.

 

There is a sell on clause of 10%, but that is totally independent of the 20% financial rights which mean that Barca part own dos Santos for the next two years and therefore have some say over the dealings for that playerin a manner which is not likely to be made public. Same with Modric.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't buy that - 3rd party influence over transfers is not allowed under Premiership rules (as with the West Ham case), and I can't see even Spurs being stupid enough to sign a deal which breaks these rules after the West Ham affair.  The bolded Barca statement reads to me as a 20% sell-on clause in his first 2 years, going down to a 10% clause after that.  (Btw, that's also how the BBC sees it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/t/tottenham_hotspur/7440216.stm)

 

I think your opinions on these two deals are both based on the hope that one of our main current Premiership rivals haven't done two good deals rather than whatever the underlying truth might be.

 

See, im convinced that there was something in the Spurs Modric deal which made it more appelaing to the mamic brothers- the transfer just doesnt make sense otherwise and as it seems that spurs ARE actualy willing to include sell on clauses etc (despite what our spurs ITK posters say) it would sugest to me that James isnt too far from the truth although im not sure where he's plucked the 'forced acceptance' bit from.

 

Im so curious to know what the actual deal was here, even if the truth is as mundane and unrealisitic as the Mamic brothers choosing the best career choice for Modric at the expense of more money for them...

He choose them because they have European football and are based in London, also maybe Eduardo being in London had an influence. I don't think there is anything else to the transfer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
James

James

Posted
Posted

"Spurs do not fully own dos Santos" - yeah, it's called a sell-on clause, and it's not like Spurs are the first team in England (or the Premiership, or anywhere else for that matter) to have one of those in their players' contracts.  I'd bet that a few of our squad have them from their previous clubs.  And I bet some people we sell (Shola perhaps?) have sell-on clauses that will benefit NUFC.  It's not uncommon, and it's not worth stating it in a melodramatic fashion that Spurs don't own his full transfer rights - that's correct, but it's just a common sell-on clause.  The point I was making is that you suggested that Barca would put a minimum fee release clause into GdS's Spurs contract: now while contract clauses are often kept confidential and we don't know if there is or there isn't one, to say that it's your "understanding" that he does have a minimum fee release clause is just pulling it out of thin air... unlesss you are privy to some inside info, how the hell do you get to that conclusion?

 

FC Barcelona also maintain 20% of the financial rights to any possible transfer of the player during his first two years of contract and 10% on any transfer from his new club, Tottenham Hotspur FC.

 

There is a sell on clause of 10%, but that is totally independent of the 20% financial rights which mean that Barca part own dos Santos for the next two years and therefore have some say over the dealings for that playerin a manner which is not likely to be made public. Same with Modric.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't buy that - 3rd party influence over transfers is not allowed under Premiership rules (as with the West Ham case), and I can't see even Spurs being stupid enough to sign a deal which breaks these rules after the West Ham affair.  The bolded Barca statement reads to me as a 20% sell-on clause in his first 2 years, going down to a 10% clause after that.  (Btw, that's also how the BBC sees it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/t/tottenham_hotspur/7440216.stm)

 

I think your opinions on these two deals are both based on the hope that one of our main current Premiership rivals haven't done two good deals rather than whatever the underlying truth might be.

 

See, im convinced that there was something in the Spurs Modric deal which made it more appelaing to the mamic brothers- the transfer just doesnt make sense otherwise and as it seems that spurs ARE actualy willing to include sell on clauses etc (despite what our spurs ITK posters say) it would sugest to me that James isnt too far from the truth although im not sure where he's plucked the 'forced acceptance' bit from.

 

Im so curious to know what the actual deal was here, even if the truth is as mundane and unrealisitic as the Mamic brothers choosing the best career choice for Modric at the expense of more money for them...

He choose them because they have European football and are based in London, also maybe Eduardo being in London had an influence. I don't think there is anything else to the transfer.

 

He had no choice. The Mamic brothers told him where to go and he went. They owned him. Modric played no part in the negotiations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1878

1878

Posted
Posted

Liverpool Echo says Huddlestone could come to Everton for £6m

 

Surprised you aren't all over this one Jol?  O0

 

There's been no contact, not even a preliminary enquiry asking about his availability etc.

 

The article was written by the chief Everton correspondent at the Echo and billed as an exclusive on the back page, there will be something in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest shearer_206

Guest shearer_206

Posted
Posted

Schalke to sign PSV`s Jefferson Farfan for 10m euros

 

Bargain.

 

Very good player. Quite a few big names moving to the Bundesliga this summer (Barzagli & Zaccardo etc)

 

Where have the two Palermo boys gone in the Bundesliga then? Didnt hear about those transfers!

 

VFL Wolfsburg

 

wtf......... Cant believe that, they are pants. Must have been offering good terms.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin Lol

Martin Lol

Posted
Posted

Liverpool Echo says Huddlestone could come to Everton for £6m

 

Surprised you aren't all over this one Jol?  O0

 

There's been no contact, not even a preliminary enquiry asking about his availability etc.

 

The article was written by the chief Everton correspondent at the Echo and billed as an exclusive on the back page, there will be something in it.

 

I'm not disputing what your saying tbh, I think Hudd could fit in well.  I know Ramos likes his skills but overall doesn't rate Hudd enough to want to keep him and I can understand why.  I must admit though, I rate Hudd highly and would prefer that he didn't go.  He hasn't made the England squad by playing crap, he has a lot of ability.

 

But Ramos is building a fast attacking side and Hudd doesn't have pace and doesn't have a crunching tackle to fill a holding MF role.  Zokora, by contrast, has more pace and has a tackle but not the technical skills, but the attributes he has got will probably keep him in the squad but not the team.

 

For a team put together by Jol, Hudd could have stayed and done a good job. For a Ramos team Hudd I can't see Hudd being accommodated.  But at the present time Boro and Villa are the only two to have made contact, Villa put in a bid which was turned down out of hand and Boro simply enquired.  That's as much as I know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest shearer_206

Guest shearer_206

Posted
Posted

find it abit strange barca have released him so easily after raving about him over the past few years in their youth set-up.

 

They tend to do it as soon as they think they can't cut it before anyone else realises so they get a few bob. 

 

EDIT:  Barca do not sell good players unless they have no choice.

 

Quaresma?

 

He was terrible at Barcelona.

 

Indeed he was, just like Simao. But apparently Quaresma never settled, to much to young and all that. Ive seen Chelski have been linked with him today actually.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Newcastle Fan

Newcastle Fan

Posted
Posted

find it abit strange barca have released him so easily after raving about him over the past few years in their youth set-up.

 

They tend to do it as soon as they think they can't cut it before anyone else realises so they get a few bob. 

 

EDIT:  Barca do not sell good players unless they have no choice.

 

Quaresma?

 

He was terrible at Barcelona.

 

Indeed he was, just like Simao. But apparently Quaresma never settled, to much to young and all that. Ive seen Chelski have been linked with him today actually.

 

Quaresma is fucking class bad he was awfull during his Barca days.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kingdawson

Guest kingdawson

Posted
Posted

Sky saying Alves going for £23m.

 

Milan bid for Berbatov 'in the low 20's'.  Turned down as Levy wants more.

 

 

 

Where's that from?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mags Serbia

Mags Serbia

Posted
Posted

GIOVANI DOS SANTOS signed for Tottenham after boss Juande Ramos convinced the Mexican they can gatecrash the Champions League next year.

 

 

The teenage star joined Spurs from Barcelona yesterday for a fee that could reach Ј8.6million depending on appearances.

 

 

Dos Santos, 19, admitted: “I love Tottenham’s plans, they are very ambitious. I was interested in joining them because they are a team that can compete with the top clubs.

 

 

“I know Juande Ramos and, of all the offers I had, this was the most challenging from a sporting point of view.”

 

 

Dos Santos, who will provide top-class competition for a place either up front or in midfield, met Ramos when he was manager of Seville.

 

 

Ramos has kept close tabs on Dos Santos’ career and persuaded chairman Daniel Levy to spend some of this summer’s Ј40million transfer war chest on the young star, who had just a year left on his contract with Barca.

 

 

He is the second creative player Ramos has signed during the summer break with Croatian Luka Modric already at White Hart Lane following his Ј15.8m switch from Dynamo Zagreb.

 

 

The Dos Santos transfer will be completed when the Mexican has undergone a medical.

 

 

But he will not have any work permit problems as he is now a naturalized Spaniard after signing for Barcelona at the age of 13.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...