| 14.09 hrs. 14:09 - Jul 15 with 2122 views | gainsboroughblue |
Waiting for 5pm feels like watching us last season with a 1-0 lead going into the 80th minute. [Post edited 15 Jul 14:09]
|  |
| |  |
| 14.09 hrs. on 16:43 - Jul 15 with 601 views | Metal_Hacker |
| 14.09 hrs. on 16:41 - Jul 15 by SimonBatfordITFC |
Nobody will bid more than 35 mil after 5pm. That is guaranteed. They’d just have bid 35 mil already and guaranteed it was accepted.
It’s a minimum bid release clause, not a minimum you’re allowed to bid clause. [Post edited 15 Jul 16:43]
|
I’ve never suggested anyone would bid over £35m after 5pm ffs ! Total opposite ! |  |
| |
| 14.09 hrs. on 16:43 - Jul 15 with 592 views | FrimleyBlue |
| 14.09 hrs. on 16:41 - Jul 15 by SimonBatfordITFC |
Nobody will bid more than 35 mil after 5pm. That is guaranteed. They’d just have bid 35 mil already and guaranteed it was accepted.
It’s a minimum bid release clause, not a minimum you’re allowed to bid clause. [Post edited 15 Jul 16:43]
|
what if they have 37 mill to spend over 5 years but not 35 to spend now |  |
| |
| 14.09 hrs. on 16:45 - Jul 15 with 573 views | SimonBatfordITFC |
| 14.09 hrs. on 16:43 - Jul 15 by Metal_Hacker |
I’ve never suggested anyone would bid over £35m after 5pm ffs ! Total opposite ! |
So why wouldn’t we accept 28 mil now if we’d accept it after 5? 🤦♂️ |  | | |
| 14.09 hrs. on 16:46 - Jul 15 with 558 views | SimonBatfordITFC |
| 14.09 hrs. on 16:43 - Jul 15 by FrimleyBlue |
what if they have 37 mill to spend over 5 years but not 35 to spend now |
That seems to be what Chelsea have done with Delap though. So surely there’s a way to account for that within the release clause terms. But honestly I don’t know and it’s a good question. | | | |
| 14.09 hrs. on 16:53 - Jul 15 with 476 views | burnbudgiesburn |
More interesting today we've got 2 articles from different sources close to the club
TWTD ' Town have no intention of selling Hutchinson this summer '
EADT 'Ipswich will not entertain anything less than £35m for the 22-year-old attacker today and, determined to keep him, could well put the price up once that clause expires at 5pm.'
We'd likely accept £35m pre/post deadline, but post 5pm it's much more likely we won't sell him imo as it is no longer out of our hands | | | |
| 14.09 hrs. on 16:56 - Jul 15 with 464 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
There is a fundamental difference with and without the release clause in place.
With it in place, it is normal for the buying club to have to pay the entire amount up front. £35M outlay in one chunk is difficult for most clubs, especially given the PSR implications.
With no clause in place, it is normal to negotiate the payment in instalments, so if they have to pay £45M over 5 years, the outlay and PSR implications are much less (£9M). | | | |
| 14.09 hrs. on 17:05 - Jul 15 with 374 views | SimonBatfordITFC |
| 14.09 hrs. on 16:56 - Jul 15 by SuffolkPunchFC |
There is a fundamental difference with and without the release clause in place.
With it in place, it is normal for the buying club to have to pay the entire amount up front. £35M outlay in one chunk is difficult for most clubs, especially given the PSR implications.
With no clause in place, it is normal to negotiate the payment in instalments, so if they have to pay £45M over 5 years, the outlay and PSR implications are much less (£9M). |
Like Chelsea did with Delap and his minimum release clause? | | | |
| 14.09 hrs. on 17:24 - Jul 15 with 305 views | Metal_Hacker |
| 14.09 hrs. on 16:42 - Jul 15 by burnbudgiesburn |
Don't follow this at all tbh
The market was always whatever we wanted to sell him at and remains so. The only thing that happens now is a potential buying club cannot guarantee to buy him at £35m
EADT headline literally says 'Ipswich Town won't accept less than £35m for Omari Hutchinson' and no doubt that's been pushed by the club to the media. |
I’ve never mentioned accepting anything below £35m pre-5pm……… I’m discussing possibilities thereafter and the resulting demise of the clause
But for now Ill leave this “chat” with yourself as I think you might be being slightly awkward for awkward sake
Thanks for the input anyway must’ve been crossed wires | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| 14.09 hrs. on 17:26 - Jul 15 with 294 views | burnbudgiesburn |
| 14.09 hrs. on 17:24 - Jul 15 by Metal_Hacker |
I’ve never mentioned accepting anything below £35m pre-5pm……… I’m discussing possibilities thereafter and the resulting demise of the clause
But for now Ill leave this “chat” with yourself as I think you might be being slightly awkward for awkward sake
Thanks for the input anyway must’ve been crossed wires |
I think crossed wires - not trying to be awkward at all | | | |
| 14.09 hrs. on 19:37 - Jul 15 with 176 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
| 14.09 hrs. on 17:05 - Jul 15 by SimonBatfordITFC |
Like Chelsea did with Delap and his minimum release clause? |
Chelsea negotiated a deal that suited both parties - they got to pay less up front, but agreed to a sell-on clause for any future profits they make. This is not an uncommon alternative, but needs to be agreed by the selling club. We obviously thought there was a good chance of a payback in a few years. | | | |
| 14.09 hrs. on 20:08 - Jul 15 with 85 views | SimonBatfordITFC |
| 14.09 hrs. on 19:37 - Jul 15 by SuffolkPunchFC |
Chelsea negotiated a deal that suited both parties - they got to pay less up front, but agreed to a sell-on clause for any future profits they make. This is not an uncommon alternative, but needs to be agreed by the selling club. We obviously thought there was a good chance of a payback in a few years. |
Interesting. So it’s possible that we’d accept a lower fee with a sell-on for OH too I guess? Be interesting to see what happens. Hoping he stays. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
