Question on the Cuellar "clause"

[Frankie 8,150]

I would have thought that it was the starting point for other clubs offering a similar amount or more.

 

No club would offer more as we had to accept at that figure...

[Trailio 0]

I would have thought that it was the starting point for other clubs offering a similar amount or more.

 

Why would any club want to offer more that the minimum required to be able to offer a contract to the player? It wouldn't make them any more likely to get the player.

[craig 5,195]

Why would any club want to offer more that the minimum required to be able to offer a contract to the player? It wouldn't make them any more likely to get the player.

 

And in actual fact it would be folly to do so for a couple of reasons.

 

1. Once the min fee release clause is triggered the current club have to accept.

2. At that time the decision lies with the player regardless of what the offers to selling club are.

3. If a club offers more than the min fee then they are STUPID. If they offer the min fee then it HAS to be accepted. Offering more is a waste of money and, in fact, could be used to increase the wages on offer to the player (eg, say Cuellar is worth 14 mill and a prospective buyer knows that. He offers 8 mill and now has 6 mill to play with. If they desperately want Cuellar then they can offer him a 5 mill signing on fee and STILL save 1 mill).

[Trailio 0]

And in actual fact it would be folly to do so for a couple of reasons.

 

1. Once the min fee release clause is triggered the current club have to accept.

2. At that time the decision lies with the player regardless of what the offers to selling club are.

3. If a club offers more than the min fee then they are STUPID. If they offer the min fee then it HAS to be accepted. Offering more is a waste of money and, in fact, could be used to increase the wages on offer to the player (eg, say Cuellar is worth 14 mill and a prospective buyer knows that. He offers 8 mill and now has 6 mill to play with. If they desperately want Cuellar then they can offer him a 5 mill signing on fee and STILL save 1 mill).

 

My point exactly:thup:

[Guest ecosse1]

Maybe I am being overly suspicious here, but in my defense I cite the way Hutton was hounded out the door just to raise cash...

 

Is it possible or even plausible that "The clause" was inserted after we lost to Kaunus?

 

Who would be capable of doing or even agreeing to such a thing just to raise cash?

 

In my view the very same person whom hurried Alan Hutton, our best ever full back since Sandy Jardine out the door just for money.

 

 

Just a thought/suspicion !!

[craig 5,195]

Maybe I am being overly suspicious here, but in my defense I cite the way Hutton was hounded out the door just to raise cash...

 

Is it possible or even plausible that "The clause" was inserted after we lost to Kaunus?

 

Who would be capable of doing such a thing just to raise cash?

 

In my view the very same person whom hurried Alan Hutton, our best ever full back since Sandy Jardine out the door just for money.

 

 

Just a thought/suspicion !!

 

If the cluse was inserted after we lost to Kaunas there is, in my opinion, NO WAY that it would be inserted at such a low amount.

 

If it was SDM that instigated Cuellar leaving he wouldn't have been so stupid as to insert a clause which allowed Cuellar to leave for more than a 50% reduction on value - that would be silly.

[calscot 0]

The clause has no benefit to Rangers whatsoever (except for getting the player to sign) - so why would they introduce it?

[Guest ecosse1]

I do take your points, but Mr Murray himself said it represented good buisness for Rangers..

 

Often these kind of contract clauses sneak out before hand, the supporters reps that met Murray and Smith a day or so before were told nothing about it, and just a few days later the clubs best player is offski !!!!

 

I am not saying it's a fact, just an opinion.

[calscot 0]

I very much doubt that Murray would deliberately make such a fool of himself. People are usually not enamoured with him due to his ego but it is this very aspect that would prevent him from handing out such a huge stick to beat him with.

 

I think it's obvious that he had no intention of selling Cuellar but the Spaniard himself must have leaked the clause to Aston Villa via his agent. Villa just had to ask his agent what it would take to bring Carlos to Birmingham.

 

Buying something for a certain amount, getting fantastic use of it, then selling it for 3.5 times the price is good business by any definition.

[Guest ecosse1]

Various points taken, but for me the question is still unanswered.

 

"Good bit of business" is an oft used statement these days, personally i am sick of it. (b4 anyones beats me over the head here I know the club is a business)

 

Hutton was a good if not great bit of "business" however in football terms it was a disaster for the Gers (in my view) .

Here is a classic case of an "enforced clause" all in the name of "a good bit of business" nothing to do with footballing ambition.

 

..