N/West Saint Posted 25 January, 2009 Share Posted 25 January, 2009 Report on Sky claim Spurs are intrested in KJ. Did the clogg lover get a sell on clause when he sold him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Bates Posted 25 January, 2009 Share Posted 25 January, 2009 Spurs offering £6m & Darren Bent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rational Rich Posted 25 January, 2009 Share Posted 25 January, 2009 It was Burley who sold him. Do you think r*dkn*pp will play him at right wing back like he did when he was here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 25 January, 2009 Share Posted 25 January, 2009 it doesnt matter as we went cap in hand and got the deal paid up so there wont be a sell on clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 25 January, 2009 Share Posted 25 January, 2009 Sell on clauses are quite often a % of the profit. We sold Jones for 6m and the Spurs/Sunderland deal is 6m plus Bent (so no profit) unless the value of Bent is taken into account. So perhaps even if we did have a clause this swap deal would prevent us getting anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jam Posted 25 January, 2009 Share Posted 25 January, 2009 Report on Sky claim Spurs are intrested in KJ. Did the clogg lover get a sell on clause when he sold him? Jim Hone is a clog lover? I don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 25 January, 2009 Share Posted 25 January, 2009 No. Sunderland would not have given £6million, Stern John AND a sell-on clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Man Do Posted 25 January, 2009 Share Posted 25 January, 2009 No. Sunderland would not have given £6million, Stern John AND a sell-on clause. I'm sure they said us getting Stern John was a seperate deal to the Kenwyne Jones one although clearly there to seal the deal. BBC is currently quoted as Spurs having bid 15 million for jones so it would be nice to see 10% of that 9 million might pay the wages for a week or so :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 25 January, 2009 Share Posted 25 January, 2009 I'm sure they said us getting Stern John was a seperate deal to the Kenwyne Jones one although clearly there to seal the deal. BBC is currently quoted as Spurs having bid 15 million for jones so it would be nice to see 10% of that 9 million might pay the wages for a week or so :-) It may well have been a separate deal, but we would not have got John if Jones had not gone to Sunderland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david in sweden Posted 25 January, 2009 Share Posted 25 January, 2009 I'm sure they said us getting Stern John was a seperate deal to the Kenwyne Jones one although clearly there to seal the deal. BBC is currently quoted as Spurs having bid 15 million for jones so it would be nice to see 10% of that 9 million might pay the wages for a week or so :-) Quite right! Wasn't Bent bought for about £18 million not so, long ago ...? in which case if his valuation as about the same...? If Jones is valued at £15mill, or £12 mill . and there is £5-6 mill difference ..? The " profit " would be around £6 -8 million ...if thats the case..then a sell-on clause would look very attractive- wouldn't it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 25 January, 2009 Share Posted 25 January, 2009 but that was signed away when we went to get all the outstanding fees renegotiated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david in sweden Posted 25 January, 2009 Share Posted 25 January, 2009 but that was signed away when we went to get all the outstanding fees renegotiated ah well , it was a nice thought ...for a few minutes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan83 Posted 26 January, 2009 Share Posted 26 January, 2009 I could've sworn that it was against the rules to talk about players at other clubs... but yet Redknapp has done it with KJ and Palacios already this window. But no1 mentions it, always amazes me how nothing ever sticks with Redknapp - the Teflon Man! Noone mentions the shocking job he did with us either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted 26 January, 2009 Share Posted 26 January, 2009 Ricky Sbragia isn't too impressed by Redknapp's comments and has hit out at him once again. http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_4848777,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LatvianTolix Posted 26 January, 2009 Share Posted 26 January, 2009 TBH, I really dont care, whether they are interested in Jones, or not. We have more problems back on the South coast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 26 January, 2009 Share Posted 26 January, 2009 Ricky Sbragia isn't too impressed by Redknapp's comments and has hit out at him once again. http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_4848777,00.htmlKj knows if he goes on strike he will get a move, HR knows that and so is using the media yet again to unsettle him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wireframebox Posted 26 January, 2009 Share Posted 26 January, 2009 Another ex-saint on the move and potentially facing us again... http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/w/watford/7851242.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Posted 26 January, 2009 Share Posted 26 January, 2009 £6m was an out of this world deal for Jones when we sold him, and I remember it reported that because the fee was so big there were no other clauses to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 Jones Stays at Sunderland http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/sunderland/7849513.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mower Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 It may well have been a separate deal, but we would not have got John if Jones had not gone to Sunderland. So, if we assume John has a value, why the **** have we gifted him to Bristol City? (No need to answer, I know why) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now