egg

Interesting, thanks for sharing. He'd be a great fit at city but I fear they'll see walker's price as a comparable.

We'll agree to disagree. The fundamental points are that a) extended contracts (where it is accepted that the player will move during the contract, like with VVD) are for the club's benefit not the player, and b) there will likely have been agreements or understandings reached when that deal was agreed relevant to the future transfer. You lurch to conclusions about that whereas I say none of us know.

We're straying from the point that the extension is for the club's benefit, not the player. The longer the contract, in theory, the stronger our hand when selling time comes. At least that used to be the thinking! To give that something to the club, the player expects something. Sure, there'll be money, but more besides I suspect. To answer your question, the club can expect some commitment from the player. It could be to delay a move to the next season rather than an immediate move - I'm not quite sure why and redslo assume something different.

You don't think we're a stepping stone club? You don't think that long contracts benefit us (with very good players who'll probably move on) more than the player? You don't think that the next big thing but who isn't yet ready for a bigger club won't want to come here if he's worried we'll hold him to his contract?

I hear what you say, but again it's assumptions. The fact is that we are a stepping stone club. If we weren't we wouldn't sign the likes of VVD, Mane, Lovren, Alderweireld (I know it was a loan). Signing players on long term deals are for our benefit, not the players. Sure, we're fans and want to see good players stay but we can't expect that - it's where we are in the layer cake. If we didn't have this approach we'd be signing players that the likes of West Bromwich attract. Consequently, when we sign up these players who are clearly destined for bigger moves, something has to be in it for the player over and above a few extra pounds a week while they are with us. One of those things may be an assurance of a move in certain situations. Without that I suspect that they wouldn't sign. Whilst I hate any form of striking or holding people to ransom, I fear that if we get a reputation in the game for blocking players paths we will be much less likely to sign the next VVD or Mane. That's a real problem. The longer this stalemate continues I suspect that we'll find the transfer market a trickier place in the future. Imo it's a horrible situation for the club - they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

You mean that you assume it's not a reasonable possibility. We are a stepping stone club. Anything could have been discussed and agreed as an understanding. The point is that we don't know why that deal was signed and the background to it.

Hypothetical question. Might we have agreed verbally with him a schneiderlin type 'give us a season' this time last year, but on the basis that he signed a new deal to assist us with getting the best fee? People assume that it's him not holding up his end of the bargain.

Lower mid table. Another manager change at the season end.

Squad cap is 25 players. We have that. We all agree we need more players. I suspect (hope!) that the board agree and we get players in. To facilitate that (aside of any budgetary or FFP issues) we need to make space in the squad. I'd like to see Gallagher get a chance this season but something has gotta give and I suspect the kid will get another season under his belt elsewhere.

Our keeping situation is crazy. The England keeping coach has seemingly made them worse. Forster has an awful season and gets rewarded with a new contract. Mccarthy spends all year injured, seems to have recovered and then disappears again without mention. Taylor doesn't play but gets a new contract despite the fact he'll probably never play. Lewis, who has obvious talent, gets chucked in at the deep end and then thrown aside with his confidence probably in shatters. Then there's Gazza. He's clearly a good keeper but needed games. He got them and assuming Mccarthy is injured or whatever, should be around the place to challenge Forster. Crazy decisions have been made and we're left with a poor keeper on a long deal with no competition.

Nice idea, we need at least one proper CB desperately. But, we ain't buying and selling cars and you can't just part ex footballers. Players have to be willing to move to other clubs. VVD seemingly only wants to go to Liverpool, feck knows why, but that's what he wants. We can't make him go to Chelsea anymore than we can make Christensen join us. As for finding anyone who'd take Gardos, forget about it.

Pretty sure he'll go to a championship club. He won't get game time and we need to make room in the squad.

Quite. Staplewood was £40 million in round numbers. That's ambition. Osvaldo was a statement of intent signing, and look how that went. £25 million + wasted in wages, pay off and fees. Gaston ate up massive money too. There's ambition right there, just a bad end result. Buying the unknown Mane. Developing him and making a huge profit. Replacing him with the up and coming Redmond. Sure he's not yet as good as Mane was for us but the intent there was to be creative in the market and make some money. Developing and retaining Stephens, and having the balls to ditch Fonte and to play Stephens over Caceres, that's ambition to grow and develop our own. Ambition comes in different flavours. We've developed ourselves, by measured ambition, as an established top 8 club whilst developing one of the best training grounds in the world and growing some great talent along the way. I prefer that kind of ambition over and above casting our academy products to one side and buying in bus loads of eastern European players and Carlos kick a balls. Oh, then there is FFP.

Money. Chance to win stuff. Question answered. Move on.

Millions probably. Fellaini waived 4 mill on his utd move

Why's that a bad thing? MK Dons will pay some or all of his wages and give him games. He could come back ready to play for us. If not we may sell and he's probably worth more then than he is now. Makes sense for us, the player and probably MK Don's.

The damages are the club's losses flowing from the breach. Chelsea lost all prospect of a transfer fee cos of his conduct / breach . Same principal as a reduced transfer fee from conduct / breach.

Yes and then sued for breach of contract as a result of the transfer fee Chelsea lost as a result of his conduct. The award was £14.6million. Don't have to sack a player to have a claim for breach of contract - especially when a player is refusing to play.

I agree but it's unlikely the club will have an ongoing dispute with a player locked into a 5 year contract. Realistically I think we'd have to cash in. Or do a Mutu on him and sue him for every bean for breach of contract.

If we accept an offer he can refuse to talk to the other club. In that situation he hides behind his contract. The tail is wagging the dog.

No, and that's the rub. If it's the case that he'll only go to Liverpool his value is potentially reduced. They may be only willing to pay say 40 mil, but someone else 70 mil. What do we do then? Give in to player power or keep a lad who refuses to play?

Hopefully the fool will.

You said "I dont believe Sigurdsson was anywhere near Southampton today. I think egg made that up. He will need to explain why." Don't call me a liar again. And stop trying to be funny, it doesn't suit you.

Glasgow, you're changing your tune. You essentially called me a liar and a fantasist because you chose not to believe the information that I was passing on. Feel free to express your opinion of something happening, but do not bring into question my honesty and integrity - have a read of the Libel warning on this board. If you have an opinion worth listening to please PM me, and I'll be happy to share my opinion of you.

17 plate AMG. I asked if it was the polish fella and the response was 'would he buy his Mercedes in South Wales' so I'm assuming car dealer plates.