Summer transfer rumours thread.

Scaramanga said:
Say what you like about Nixon, but he was right to say the Bowler transfer will determine out transfer strategy this season. Without a good fee we have no money for players. Get him sold A.S.A.P. to the highest bidder.
Click to expand...
Where does this no money come from?

We will pay transfer fees for the right players. Kirk didn’t show us enough to warrant 500k at all.
 
CalderwoodCritchleyWon’t said:
We can meet the fee… we’re choosing not to
Click to expand...

We know there's a fitness issue with him, and they haven't been able to train him as hard as they would've liked to, so I think it might be a case of changing the structure of the deal rather than the fee itself, to make the fee more performance based rather than a simple cash up front payment.

Possibly something like £200,000 now, maybe £200 per game and a percentage of any sell on such that if he performs well then they'll get the fee, but if he's a total flop the club's not completely out of pocket.
 
If we can't afford Kirk then it could be a long wait!

£30m on infrastructure, nowt on players. Hmm.... !
 
voyeur said:
If we can't afford Kirk then it could be a long wait!

£30m on infrastructure, nowt on players. Hmm.... !
Click to expand...
Negotiating ploy
Also Sadler has been honest through the process, and wanted us to be established Championship or better, but relying on our own youth to come through as a long term vision.
In the mean time we will buy to ensure we stay competitive.
 
Decent player of course, says a lot that others can't take decent corners or fee kicks. Most Sunday morning teams have a few lads who can do that very effectively. And if he was busting a gut to get a move - why be tentative about your fitness so you don't give 100%? That said he be an ok addition - for a fee well below 500k.
 
Vince McLean said:
Decent player of course, says a lot that others can't take decent corners or fee kicks. Most Sunday morning teams have a few lads who can do that very effectively. And if he was busting a gut to get a move - why be tentative about your fitness so you don't give 100%? That said he be an ok addition - for a fee well below 500k.
Click to expand...
Yet we finished in the top 5 for both most goals from corners and free kicks!
 
Gary said:
There’s a difference between negotiating a fee and agreeing a fee before the loan agreement and then reneging on it to try and get a discount.

It’s bad faith and this is the second time it’s been done.
Click to expand...
There is an article in The Financial Times that I read on Twitter this morning about Bank of American has stopped dealing with Simon’s hedge fund company , 1 guy commented that when he is in negotiations with Simon Sadler , his aim is to see how little he will lose ……. they all stated he is a very tough guy to deal with !
 
Gary said:
There’s a difference between negotiating a fee and agreeing a fee before the loan agreement and then reneging on it to try and get a discount.

It’s bad faith and this is the second time it’s been done.
Click to expand...

It's an option to buy, not a commitment, the club's not reneged on anything.

The club have decided not to exercise their option, which is their right, if Charlton are willing to negotiate a different arrangement then maybe the transfer will still happen, if not then he returns to his parent club.
 
Gary said:
There’s a difference between negotiating a fee and agreeing a fee before the loan agreement and then reneging on it to try and get a discount.

It’s bad faith and this is the second time it’s been done.
Click to expand...
If you took a car for a test drive that had a ticket price of x but after driving it you liked it but noticed it wasn't quite as good as you had hoped, would you just pay ticket price or negotiate?
 
Lost Seasider said:
It's an option to buy, not a commitment, the club's not reneged on anything.

The club have decided not to exercise their option, which is their right, if Charlton are willing to negotiate a different arrangement then maybe the transfer will still happen, if not then he returns to his parent club.
Click to expand...

NewburyOne said:
If you took a car for a test drive that had a ticket price of x but after driving it you liked it but noticed it wasn't quite as good as you had hoped, would you just pay ticket price or negotiate?
Click to expand...

I think the point Gary is going after is, this is becoming a pattern with us now. The mechanics of how we’re working these deals is likely to piss people off.

I understand the point that we’re under no obligation to trigger the fee to purchase. (Or at least I think we’re not) but if this happens continually, the clubs lower down the pyramid are going to think twice before selling a player to us in this way or at all loosing our ability to have a bit of a try before you buy. They could also start to bump the initial loan fee up as they know they’ll get stiffed further down the line.

Probably not a great tactic on transfers when we re looking to pick up young players from lower down polish them up and sell on.

Could be that we genuinely didn’t think Kirk’s injury was worth the money. But it’s happened twice now, word gets out in the industry.
 
Lost Seasider said:
It's an option to buy, not a commitment, the club's not reneged on anything.

The club have decided not to exercise their option, which is their right, if Charlton are willing to negotiate a different arrangement then maybe the transfer will still happen, if not then he returns to his parent club.
Click to expand...
The only shafting done in football under Sadler's ownership has been done to us
Blackburn /Grayson./Nuttall
Reading/Howe(maybe a learning experience)
Crawley/Bez
Think we might be hard negotiators but do not believe we set out to con other clubs
 
Thatseasider said:
I think the point Gary is going after is, this is becoming a pattern with us now. The mechanics of how we’re working these deals is likely to piss people off.

I understand the point that we’re under no obligation to trigger the fee to purchase. (Or at least I think we’re not) but if this happens continually, the clubs lower down the pyramid are going to think twice before selling a player to us in this way or at all loosing our ability to have a bit of a try before you buy. They could also start to bump the initial loan fee up as they know they’ll get stiffed further down the line.

Probably not a great tactic on transfers when we re looking to pick up young players from lower down polish them up and sell on.

Could be that we genuinely didn’t think Kirk’s injury was worth the money. But it’s happened twice now, word gets out in the industry.
Click to expand...
We've done it twice, with 2 players who only did so-so when with us. There were no issues when we signed Gabriel, Garbs. I'm sure if Kirk or Dale had ripped it up with us, we'd have paid the full amount.
 
NewburyOne said:
We've done it twice, with 2 players who only did so-so when with us. There were no issues when we signed Gabriel, Garbs. I'm sure if Kirk or Dale had ripped it up with us, we'd have paid the full amount.
Click to expand...
You’ve missed my point.

Once it happens more than once the industry’s spidy senses will start to tingle.

I agree it’s not the most egregious of acts but clubs will be wary in the future of how we operate.

Part of our MO is to develop people like Marvin from lower league clubs.

I doubt people will enter this kind of deal with us again. Don’t you?

Garbutt was a free agent wasn’t he?

And I think you’re changing history abit there with JG. There was plenty of wrangling over Gabriel. Which is par for the transfer course, and not really relevant for this specific discussion.
 
Thatseasider said:
You’ve missed my point.

Once it happens more than once the industry’s spidy senses will start to tingle.

I agree it’s not the most egregious of acts but clubs will be wary in the future of how we operate.

Part of our MO is to develop people like Marvin from lower league clubs.

I doubt people will enter this kind of deal with us again. Don’t you?

Garbutt was a free agent wasn’t he?

And I think you’re changing history abit there with JG. There was plenty of wrangling over Gabriel. Which is par for the transfer course, and not really relevant for this specific discussion.
Click to expand...
It’s relevant when, according to reports at the time, we were quoted £500,000 for Gabriel and ended up having to pay almost double. It’s a dog eat dog business I’m afraid.
 
Thatseasider said:
You’ve missed my point.

Once it happens more than once the industry’s spidy senses will start to tingle.

I agree it’s not the most egregious of acts but clubs will be wary in the future of how we operate.

Part of our MO is to develop people like Marvin from lower league clubs.

I doubt people will enter this kind of deal with us again. Don’t you?

Garbutt was a free agent wasn’t he?

And I think you’re changing history abit there with JG. There was plenty of wrangling over Gabriel. Which is par for the transfer course, and not really relevant for this specific discussion.
Click to expand...
It's a fast moving market, a players value can change massively over 6 months. It's all well and good you making this point when it is someone else's money, apply it to a real world situation and I suspect you'd be the same. If you ordered a meal and it was poor, would you just pay up full price, or would you send it back or ask for a discount? The truth is we are not a wash with cash, so if we don't think Kirk is worth £500K, we shouldn't just cough up, we should offer what we are prepared to pay and move on if a deal can't be struck. I don't think clubs will lose much sleep over it, pretty much every club does it.
 
Seasider1953 said:
There is an article in The Financial Times that I read on Twitter this morning about Bank of American has stopped dealing with Simon’s hedge fund company , 1 guy commented that when he is in negotiations with Simon Sadler , his aim is to see how little he will lose ……. they all stated he is a very tough guy to deal with !
Click to expand...

Any chance of a link to that article?
If so thanks in advance.
 
Insider said:
I think it's more a case of realising his value is way below £500k.
Click to expand...
Is it though? 24 years old, under contract at Charlton, deemed good enough for the Championship. The Oyston days have gone. Player don't cost nothing at this level unless they're out of contract.
 
NewburyOne said:
It's a fast moving market, a players value can change massively over 6 months. It's all well and good you making this point when it is someone else's money, apply it to a real world situation and I suspect you'd be the same. If you ordered a meal and it was poor, would you just pay up full price, or would you send it back or ask for a discount? The truth is we are not a wash with cash, so if we don't think Kirk is worth £500K, we shouldn't just cough up, we should offer what we are prepared to pay and move on if a deal can't be struck. I don't think clubs will lose much sleep over it, pretty much every club does it.
Click to expand...
If I started going to restaurants and regularly complained and that the meals weren’t up to the value on the menu, I suspect in a small market place I’d quickly get refused entry as the restaurants wouldn’t want the hassle.

If we really don’t think Kirk is worth 500k that’s fine and probably the correct thing to do. But we’ve done this more than once now, and I suspect it’s not the industry standard practice.

We once thought he would be worth that, and clearly the training ground and East stand projects should have been costed at that point.

As has been said, ultimately I’m on our side of we get him a bit cheaper and we wanted him in the first place it’s a win for us, but I can imagine other clubs with be aware of how we re going about some of these transfers and it could impact us in the future.
 
Thatseasider said:
If I started going to restaurants and regularly complained and that the meals weren’t up to the value on the menu, I suspect in a small market place I’d quickly get refused entry as the restaurants wouldn’t want the hassle.

If we really don’t think Kirk is worth 500k that’s fine and probably the correct thing to do. But we’ve done this more than once now, and I suspect it’s not the industry standard practice.

We once thought he would be worth that, and clearly the training ground and East stand projects should have been costed at that point.

As has been said, ultimately I’m on our side of we get him a bit cheaper and we wanted him in the first place it’s a win for us, but I can imagine other clubs with be aware of how we re going about some of these transfers and it could impact us in the future.
Click to expand...
There's a fine line between penny pinching and prudence, I agree. Ultimately if Critchley wants him and we save a bit of money, it can only be a good thing.
 
Insider said:
Yes.
Click to expand...
Nah. Not really. Signed a 4 year contract a year ago and we deem him good enough for the Championship. But we'll try to force the price down of course and reach a compromise. Sadler has learnt some stuff from Karl. :)
 
Gary said:
It’s hardly the worst crime in the football world but it won’t sit well with other clubs and may affect future dealings with said clubs.
Click to expand...
Beesley transfer suited Rochdale
Nottingham transfer out suited Accy
We have loaned out our youngsters to non league which has obviously suited them.
I do not believe that Crewe have major issues with us as Dale was injured and the reduced fee reflects he is not first team material yet, and no one else was interested so sale was made( think they may have bigger issue with Dale)
Kirk has not settled and Charlton want to offload, again he did not set the world alight, but could still improve as apparently he was carrying an injury.
Even if we agreed a fee if the loan was turned into a permanent transfer. As he has been sent back to his parent club that has not happened, and the ball is clearly in Charlton court as he is their player and we have not tried to unsettle him.
 
Gary said:
It’s hardly the worst crime in the football world but it won’t sit well with other clubs and may affect future dealings with said clubs.
Click to expand...

The clubs are going into this with their eyes open, they know what an option is and that we do not need to exercise it.

Ultimately, the worst case for them is we've taken his wages off their books for 4 months, that's likely saved them £50,000+ already, and he won't have lost any value playing at Championship level, so either way it's a win for Charlton, and they may still get close what they want as a fee.
 
Lost Seasider said:
The clubs are going into this with their eyes open, they know what an option is and that we do not need to exercise it.

Ultimately, the worst case for them is we've taken his wages off their books for 4 months, that's likely saved them £50,000+ already, and he won't have lost any value playing at Championship level, so either way it's a win for Charlton, and they may still get close what they want as a fee.
Click to expand...
50k plus for 4 months for a L1 player?
 
voyeur said:
Nah. Not really. Signed a 4 year contract a year ago and we deem him good enough for the Championship. But we'll try to force the price down of course and reach a compromise. Sadler has learnt some stuff from Karl. :)
Click to expand...
He is unhappy at Charlton due to personal circumstances and wants a move back north. Charlton can either play hard ball or cut their losses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top