Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Two year deal, undisclosed fee.
[tweet]747437961541738496[/tweet]
[tweet]747437961541738496[/tweet]
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Glen Rea on the way out?
- Thread starter AZ Gull
- Start date
casbom
Well-known member
- Jul 24, 2007
- 2,581
I tend to ignore the usual suspects when it comes to twitter rumours but when some random person tweets something like this, then it's those I take notice of!
Another example was the random tweet from some Sheff Wed fan last year saying that we'd signed Hambo.
Ernest
Stupid IDIOT
Luton = Brighton Reserves FC
Although I can see the obvious benefits of sell on clauses, but why would the selling club (especially when the buying club is of a considerably LOWER standard ) feel they are entitled to endless rewards, which in the future we havent had any impact upon.
We could of offered Rea a contract of a few hundred quid a week and whisper in his ear to say that they see a future for him here etc. and he would of bitten our hand off, but they obviously didnt, so why should we deserve any add ons and why would we deserve to tax future development from other people with no link to our club ?
10 years coaching and developing of him, and I'd bet we kept the transfer fee down to a minimum so Luton could afford him. In return a healthy sell on clause why not?
If the club has got a sell on clause then good for them, however it doesnt seem to make much sense to me, especially when he is signing for a significantly lower club, that particular action in itself shows that our own assessment is that that future fee's if any are likely to be linked to lower league football, if I was his agent I would want his future pathway within the game to be clause free as it seems a lottery clause.
His development has delivered basically what he is today, which really is failed development in terms of BHA (this is not a swipe at Rea ) so what he does from now on in should really be assigned to that/those team that might be instrumental to future progression.
I think your point in terms of perhaps a lesser transfer fee is a fair one, but I would be surprised if there was any real current value in the player.
They will have paid about 75k with a whacking great sell on clause as insurance. You don't just bring through players and let them go without hedging against their future success.
Ah ok, thats interesting, perhaps a good bit of business for the club as Rea has not featured really for our first team ever, but if the deal is as you suggest then in my mind Luton deserve every penny in respect of his future success and not the club releasing him after deeming him not good enough.
For me the selling clubs 'insurance' is factored in to their decision to release him in the first place, it would be a calamity from those that made that decision if Rea now has the potential to progress to a standard where he might trigger 'whacking great sell on price' perhaps thats why Luton have accepted it, its a lottery ticket clause that each party suspect will never be triggered.
Again if you are correct that seems a great bit of business for BHA and an awful deal for Luton Town Football Club.
I would never have expected Tommy Elphick to move to Villa for 3 million after getting into the Premier League with Bournemouth but I'm glad we have a sell on clause in that deal.
I agree, but my point is firstly he was/had been our captain and secondly he is at Villa not because of us, he is there because of the time he has spent training and playing for different coaches and teams, its madness that we should still have some kind of stake in his future success even if we are not directly a participant in it.
Football is a little bit bonkers anyway, clubs seem vulnerable at the time of wanting to sign a player logic is very quickly lost.