Search results

I agree on Burn. Not sure on Tross with not too long left. But £70m for a player with 1 year left (which is what it would have been)? No chance.

Except @Justice No, you were right, all our fans.

:fishing:

But Sir...

Has @Tyrone Biggums accepted that there was a clause yet?

Given that he was only going to have one year left, it seems pretty decent to me.

In October he hadn't won the WC and hadn't reached the level he's now at. And we don't know Mount will go for 60. We'll know soon enough. If it's to Liverpool for less than 70, you'll have to accept there was a release clause of some sort.

You've misunderstood the situation. The new contract is not what's restricting how much we can gain, the restriction was that he only had a year left if we didn't agree it. He could be going for less than £40m without the new contract.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if he's up in Liverpool having a medical today or tomorrow, and Naylor is pedantically repeating 'nothing has been agreed between the clubs', which could well be correct.

We also denied Cuckoo moving to City last summer, as they didn't offer what we thought he was worth. Chelsea then offered enough, so he went.

If there is a release clause, then Liverpool don't have to agree anything with us. They can agree with Alexis, he can have a medical, and then they can make us an offer we can't refuse (with no harm to animals). There is an awful lot of confidence about this transfer, as well as acceptance from...

The rumour he quashed was regarding Caicedo. If there is a clause, it probably doesn't say 'big club', so Barber would still be correct. We did have a clause for Aaron Mooy (and yes I know why). One would be needed because the player wouldn't sign an extension without one. Allowing a player to...

No I don't think so, since the new contract only runs to 2025, so it wouldn't have added anything if we already had a year's option.

Ok, so to answer my own question (as the rest of you failed), he was only contracted until June 24. So we wouldn't necessarily get a lot for him this summer, and it seems he only signed a new contract in October, on the basis that it would have some sort of release clause. Seems reasonable.

You may be right, but when you say 'this transfer has proven' there is a clause, the transfer isn't done yet is it? Do we know for a fact that the fee is £50m ish?

There's a quote from Barber earlier in the thread where he says we prefer not to etc, not that we never have.

So where are we: What's the best source so far, do we believe there's a release clause, and if so is it specific to Liverpool?

Yep, he's like a stopped clock, but in calendar form - he's right once a year.

When we originally signed him from Juniors?