He would lose the singing on fee if he requests the move.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] Zaha watch - *** The SEGW finally managed to escape***
- Thread starter Sussex Nomad
- Start date
He would lose the singing on fee if he requests the move.
Sheebo
Well-known member
- Jul 13, 2003
- 29,287
A) Don’t read too much into the gutter press - they love to exaggerate
B) If he does go for £60mil / £70mil plus 2 no hopers, his fee is £60mil/£70mil. Don’t let the twats tell you otherwise
Eh? A signing on fee would be between him and the new club. Wouldn't it make sense for anything he loses to be between him and Palace, based on his contract. eg, a percentage of the sale price.
Yes. Similar situation, but rather different lads.....also Stevens may well have been pining for icky thump and rain, whereas haha is merely pining for a bigger stage. Sometimes it takes a while to get accustomed to The South.
There is some sort of money loss associated with a transfer with versus without the player's transfer request. I don't knw the details. That's your forte.
Sheebo
Well-known member
- Jul 13, 2003
- 29,287
I think it means the scum won’t have to pay him a ‘loyalty bonus’ - if it’s in the contract he has of course.
Edit - actually, perhaps that is a myth. A good post here if true innit - if a player has a higher contract at new club there is no ‘bonus’ - https://www.otib.co.uk/index.php?/topic/155673-paying-up-contracts/
Same
Green Cross Code Man
Wunt be druv
Scenes on 5Live. Nice little session detailing the malaise hanging over the club. Even the captain saying he doesn't feel he can say what he feels about the current set up. Sounds like things are falling apart.
We've spent two decades hauling that lot back in. It's time to finish above them and put them back in their box.
We've spent two decades hauling that lot back in. It's time to finish above them and put them back in their box.
hampshirebrightonboy
Well-known member
- Sep 3, 2011
- 973
Superb timing
Icy Gull
Back on the rollercoaster
- Jul 5, 2003
- 72,015
Ahhhhhhhh I will see it when I believe it ..... For years and years and years those animals have always been on the verge of disaster and yet they ALWAYS claw their way out of it.
We can all pray.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
Odd. Isn't that the offer they denied making last week?
I watched 'the debate' last night where they spent the whole show discussing VAR and how the premier league will implement it, how it differs to previous iterations etc. Felt very much like the basic is the same - it is mainly there for factual errors (offside, however tight the decision; in or outside the box etc). When it comes to more subjective decisions the VAR ref isn't judging the challenge, he's judging whether the footage appears to show what the ref thought he saw - the ref is supposed to explain his decision to the video official who looks at the video and if he can see what the ref is saying (i.e. not whether he agrees, and anyone who watches Dermot Gallacher on SSN on a monday morning knows how easy refs find it to 'see why he's given it' when it's a decision that all the players and pundits are saying shouldn't be given).
People who dive a lot are pretty good at making contact, hanging a leg out, etc. This includes Zaha. Where we might look at a situation and say 'clear dive - he's deliberately hung his leg out' the ref will be telling the video official 'It looked to me like the keeper caught his leg...', the video official will look at the video and see contact between the leg and the defender and say 'I can see why you've given that', and the decision will stand.
I think people are going to be frustrated in much the same way they have been with its implementation so far. Narrow offsides given, fouls you don't think are fouls not being overturned, etc. We've seen two seasons ago when they brought in the ability to retrospectively punish players for diving how infrequently they used that power. The incident with Zaha that former players, former refs, etc all called a blatant dive, it fooled the ref, it gave them a penalty v Man City in the dying moments when 0-0, all ticking the required boxes. Yet he went unpunished.
I think we're more likely to see him get more fouls, because it'll catch the ones he should have been given but wasn't, while his diving continues to go mostly unpunished (and not just his diving, but other players' diving as well)
Thought Stephens merely indicated he'd like to leave rather than put in a formal transfer request.
We're unchanged in the 'relegation' market, a smidge under 2/1.
palace have now dropped a point down to 4/1.
afters
Well-known member
A) Don’t read too much into the gutter press - they love to exaggerate
B) If he does go for £60mil / £70mil plus 2 no hopers, his fee is £60mil/£70mil. Don’t let the twats tell you otherwise
you do understand maths I hope? £60/70m plus one at say £5m and another at £10m is not £60/70m right?
Mayonaise
Well-known member
Lets hope he stays and upsets the applecart by throwing toys out and goes on strike
Green Cross Code Man
Wunt be druv
Some lovely fans palace have:
I don't think that's right. New clubs rarely buy a player and then pay them less than they were on.
I think some players have loyalty bonuses as part of their contract.
https://www.fourfourtwo.com/feature...g-a-transfer-request-fourfourtwo-investigates
https://www.sportskeeda.com/football/how-transfer-requests-work-football
It can be called a 'signing on bonus', as it's when they player signed his contract with his existing club. He may get a bonus spread over the course of the contract, and in the event he's sold (without a transfer request) he'd get what's left of it.