[Albion] Dunk to Arsenal in January for £35-40m

Sussex Nomad said:

Utter madness of a reply.

Click to expand...

Kalimantan Gull said:

It really isn't, its exactly what you're arguing Tony Bloom should do.

Click to expand...

Sussex Nomad said:

Clever ending to your synopsis however you are not taking Dunk into your consideration, it's just club, club, club. Contracts mean nothing, it just gives you better bargaining power when selling. If a player is unhappy and puts in a transfer request, there is very little you can do about it. I know we had similar with Stephens and remained steadfast, he got his wish, he's a Prem player. But this isn't about the Prem, it's about England and a WC in the summer. Dunky is so close he can smell it and if that means moving to a top six club he will do it and the club will let him go with their best wishes.

Click to expand...

Sussex Nomad said:

I'm not arguing anything fella, I wish for Dunky to stay without a doubt, however, there is a difference between realism and shrieking like a little girl. At the moment I can hear your decibels from here.

Click to expand...

Bold Seagull said:

Contracts can only be broken with clauses fulfilled or agreement between both parties to end them. That is a fairly simple truth. I think I made it quite clear how that would be fulfilled on the part of the club, who no doubt would wish Dunk well, if they feel they are not weakened significantly as a result. You stated 'it's about the player not the club', but both have to be happy to agree to it. TB may well be delighted for Dunk and want him to fulfil his England ambitions, but he will only do so if he is happy with the deal on offer.

The one thing in the club's favour is that if we do hold on to him in January and he has England ambitions, Dunk cannot afford to sulk or let his performances dip. We could hold him until the summer and he will still have a chance of the World Cup if he plays well for us. I'd feel fairly confident we wouldn't have a sulking disenchanted player on our hands. He'd have to be motivated to play to break into England and keep a said big move alive.

You say there is very little you can do to keep a player who hands in a transfer request - this is patently untrue. You only let them go if the deal is equally beneficial to you. Rightly or wrongly, Liverpool and Southampton both held onto players who handed in transfers requests and were offered huge fees for.

Click to expand...

Mellotron said:

Clear disagreements on here about where the balance of power lies - in the hands of the players or the clubs. For my money, more now than ever at the top end, the players have a LOT of power IMO.

If Dunk REALLY wants to go in January for his England chances, I think he will probably go.

The idea that clubs NEVER let players go that they weren't happy to see go is utter nonsense and club spin.

Click to expand...

Bold Seagull said:

Contracts can only be broken with clauses fulfilled or agreement between both parties to end them, contracts in football aren't meaningless, it is simply that on many occasions the contracting parties are in agreement to end them. That is a fairly simple truth. I think I made it quite clear how that would be fulfilled on the part of the club, who no doubt would wish Dunk well, if they feel they are not weakened significantly as a result. You stated 'it's about the player not the club', but both have to be happy to agree to it. TB may well be delighted for Dunk and want him to fulfil his England ambitions, but he will only do so if he is happy with the deal on offer.

The one thing in the club's favour is that if we do hold on to him in January and he has England ambitions, Dunk cannot afford to sulk or let his performances dip. We could hold him until the summer and he will still have a chance of the World Cup if he plays well for us. I'd feel fairly confident we wouldn't have a sulking disenchanted player on our hands. He'd have to be motivated to play to break into England and keep a said big move alive.

You say there is very little you can do to keep a player who hands in a transfer request - this is patently untrue. You only let them go if the deal is equally beneficial to you. Rightly or wrongly, Liverpool and Southampton both held onto players who handed in transfers requests and were offered huge fees for.

Click to expand...

Sussex Nomad said:

I think we'll have to agree to disagree regarding player power. Also, we have no idea what is written into Dunks contract or whether he has a buy out clause. I've said it previously, I'll say it again, I don't want us to lose our jewel, but if the right offer comes in, he will go.

Click to expand...

Bold Seagull said:

I think you are wrong principally because of the ridiculous level of transfer fees recently. £25m for Arnautovic tells you that the holding club is holding the cards in a transfer negotiation. The only time this starts to swing back to the player is when that contract ticks down below 18 months left.

You have a player with a 3 or 4 year contract, you are seriously only letting that player go if you are absolutely happy with the offer on the table.

Click to expand...

Bold Seagull said:

I'm not arguing with you on that point. I am arguing with your point in which you stated it is only about the player. I've already said that contracts can be broken through clauses being fulfilled, or agreement with both parties.

If the right offer comes in, he will go: because it is the right offer for the club and the player.

Click to expand...

Sussex Nomad said:

We have no idea of Dunk's contract details.

Click to expand...

Sussex Nomad said:

We have no idea of Dunk's contract details.

Click to expand...

Sussex Nomad said:

But it's about the player not the club, do you not get it?

Click to expand...

Sussex Nomad said:

I didn't say it was only about the player, I said they have more power than a club. And of course we won't undervalue his stock, but he will go if there were 30 mill+ offered for his services from a top six club and he felt it's the right move for him.

Click to expand...

Bold Seagull said:

No, but if we gave him a contract with a clause in it, then we were happy with that when we agreed the contract vis a vis we are happy to release him with that clause being fulfilled.

Click to expand...

Bold Seagull said:

I must have misread your earlier post then?

Click to expand...