Why undisclosed?

[davidpinder]

Why is the fee for McDonald undisclosed ??? Wolves triggered a clause at 750k didn't they so surely the fee is 750k end of chat.

There lying to us again

 

[Reedy_22]

Who has said the clause was a fee on £750k? is that for definite? Just i've seen elsewhere it's been said the clause was only £250k?!

 

[Foxy]

Why is the fee for McDonald undisclosed ??? Wolves triggered a clause at 750k didn't they so surely the fee is 750k end of chat.

There lying to us again

I assume given that they've simply said they activated a clause and the fee is undisclosed that you are suggesting they either didn't activate a clause or that the fee is disclosed?

 

[alcoblade]

I assume given that they've simply said they activated a clause and the fee is undisclosed that you are suggesting they either didn't activate a clause or that the fee is disclosed?

It's a good point Foxy - but let's hope even United wouldn't be stupid enough to allow a £250,000 get out clause.

UTB

 

[Bladesman]

It's a good point Foxy - but let's hope even United wouldn't be stupid enough to allow a £250,000 get out clause.

UTB

Depends which suit gave Macca the contract.

 

[Foxy]

It's a good point Foxy - but let's hope even United wouldn't be stupid enough to allow a £250,000 get out clause.

"£250k" came from one of the self appointed Twitter "ITK's" as far as I'm aware.

There's that many people who "know exactly" what's going on, but don't actually have any contact nor even pop along to the odd match that I think it's safe to say it's not worth getting any knickers in a twist about

 

[alcoblade]

"£250k" came from one of the self appointed Twitter "ITK's" as far as I'm aware.

There's that many people who know exactly what's going on, but don't actually have any contact nor even pop along to the odd match that I think it's safe to say it's not worth getting any knickers in a twist about

Agreed. Common sense would surely say get out clauses are to prevent players being held to ransom, and should be set at a reasonable valuation for the player, albeit at the lower end of the range. I've put forward the case for McDonald's limitations, but I think we should realistically hope we'd managed to screw around £750,000 from the deal.

UTB

 

[stannyblade]

Disclose how much we got and everyone knows how much we have to spend. Lets just hope we get to bring decent players in

 

[dingledog]

However much it is, you can be sure it will all disappear into someone's pocket in Belgium.

 

[Pittsburg Blade]

Undisclosed because the pitiful amount for our star player is too embarassing to reveal.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

The only mystery is why Wolves didn't offer less than the release clause.
After all, you can't ever keep a player who asks to leave.
The spin would have been familiar enough.

"We got him for nothing. He's out of contract at the end of the season. It's a good profit. Can't stand in the boy's way when he can better himself and earn more. Only one goal and two assists last season. Other irons in the fire etc..."

Wolves could have made practically any offer and the outcome would have been the same.

 

[bartman]

Why is the fee for McDonald undisclosed ??? Wolves triggered a clause at 750k didn't they so surely the fee is 750k end of chat.

There lying to us again

Where is the lie ? Many transfers are 'undisclosed fees' nowadays. Why is it that important that we know ?

 

[JohnDenver]

I would truly be staggered if Wolves have paid £750,000. Third division player, last year of contract, off the back of a poor season.

The fact Wolves are minted doesn't alter the buy-out clause, or the possibility that we'd sell for under that value.

 

[puppet]

Disclose how much we got and everyone knows LITTLE we ARE GOING TO RE-INVEST

There, fixed it for you

 

[lawlessdan]

Why is the fee for McDonald undisclosed ??? Wolves triggered a clause at 750k didn't they so surely the fee is 750k end of chat.

There lying to us again

If another club knows that a certain amount of cash that has come into the club they then can hold out for more money. Assuming of course we are looking for a replacement...

 

[BornOnShorehamStreet]

If another club knows that a certain amount of cash that has come into the club they then can hold out for more money. Assuming of course we are looking for a replacement...

So the replacement's "...already at the club.", then.....

 

[Revolution]

Undisclosed because the pitiful amount for our star player is too embarassing to reveal.

This. Embarrassed by their own incompetence.

 

[SotonBlade]

I can see the reason for undisclosed fees. It can help clubs replace outgoing players by not letting other clubs know how much they have to spend.

In the Blades case it's so that McCabe can transfer 50% into his Belgian bank account.

 

[SwissBlade]

Why is the fee for McDonald undisclosed ??? Wolves triggered a clause at 750k didn't they so surely the fee is 750k end of chat.

There lying to us again

Give me one reason why, you, as a fan needs to know what the fee was?

When there is an option to not disclose, I'd be more concerned as to why clubs would want to make a big deal about it.

 

[SotonBlade]

Give me one reason why, you, as a fan needs to know what the fee was?

When there is an option to not disclose, I'd be more concerned as to why clubs would want to make a big deal about it.

I get your point here Swiss.

However...if they did release the fee and McDonald had gone for £200k....would you be happy?

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

Watch when/if the Gareth Bale fee is revealed how inflated the worth of any replacement suddenly becomes!

 

[Railway Blade]

A guy on twitter met McCabe and family at La Manga yesterday (and seems to have photo evidence to back it up). Said that McCabe discussed football matters at the club and the bloke says the clause was 250k. Could be bull of course but that's what his assertion is having spoken to him.

 

[Grecian2000]

Disclose how much we got and everyone knows how much we have to spend. Lets just hope we get to bring decent players in

Have a like Stanny, made me chuckle.

Figure could be anywhere from 100k to 50m, amount we're prepared to invest would remain unaltered (at around fuck all).

Are people really expecting "decent players" in any more? Has there been a collective wiping out of 5 years of memory?

Even Alco, who flipped big style when Blackman departed, has said Macca is "replaceable". Everyone is replaceable, of that there is no argument, and over a period of time we've managed to replace Kyle Walker with Westlake, and Kyle Naughton with Williams. It's that sort of replacement that sees us where we are. I don't understand why people haven't worked this out yet.

 

[sheffielder]

Watch when/if the Gareth Bale fee is revealed how inflated the worth of any replacement suddenly becomes!

yeh because nobody will know it's over £80m! shhhh

 

[raul]

Intersting too how the club can maintain absolute lockdown on the fee, yet KMacs salary somehow leaks out....

 

[Ferenc Blade]

Intersting too how the club can maintain absolute lockdown on the fee, yet KMacs salary somehow leaks out....

True...and I can't believe we would pay out 5k a week for one player...We are supposed to be running a tight ship.
If any of the players are on more than 1.5 k a week I'd be suprised.

 

[alcoblade]

Even Alco, who flipped big style when Blackman departed, has said Macca is "replaceable". Everyone is replaceable, of that there is no argument, and over a period of time we've managed to replace Kyle Walker with Westlake, and Kyle Naughton with Williams. It's that sort of replacement that sees us where we are. I don't understand why people haven't worked this out yet.

To explain my standpoint.......

Blackman was a goalscorer, and as we know right now, they're so hard to find some are trying to convince themselves that Porter aint that bad.

McDonald is a midfielder with a lovely pass, but with the engine and heart of a mouse. He's been ever consistent in a team that's been going backwards for several years, and when was available for free the tumbleweed almost overcame us. I believe he is more easily replaceable.

If we'd have kept Blackman last season I believe we would have been promoted.
If we'd have kept the same team this season, I don't think we would.

UTB

 

[Revolution]

McDonald is a midfielder with a lovely pass, but with the engine and heart of a mouse. He's been ever consistent in a team that's been going backwards for several years, and when was available for free the tumbleweed almost overcame us. I believe he is more easily replaceable.

With the money we seem to be prepared to spend? really?

At best it will be another loan of someone unproven until January, another Doyle figure, or nobody.

You are right that we wouldn't have gone up if McDonald had stayed. It's the other end of the table that's worrying me, though.

 

[alcoblade]

With the money we seem to be prepared to spend? really?

At best it will be another loan of someone unproven until January, another Doyle figure, or nobody.

But as I've said elsewhere, I will be really pissed off at that, if it's the case.

I'm explaining why I'm not angry at the club at this point, and why I don't think it's a total disaster, yet. McDonald excercised a get out clause. Blackman didn't, we just saw quick buck.

I'll judge the club on what it can control. If that's another half baked loan then you will witness my dummy being spat again.



UTB

 

[Grecian2000]

To explain my standpoint.......

Blackman was a goalscorer, and as we know right now, they're so hard to find some are trying to convince themselves that Porter aint that bad.

McDonald is a midfielder with a lovely pass, but with the engine and heart of a mouse. He's been ever consistent in a team that's been going backwards for several years, and when was available for free the tumbleweed almost overcame us. I believe he is more easily replaceable.

If we'd have kept Blackman last season I believe we would have been promoted.
If we'd have kept the same team this season, I don't think we would.

UTB

I understood your standpoint, I just brought you into it because of your spectacular meltdown in Jan. and I just see you've adopted the "if we replace" stance.
My point is that I see that stance from someone (nay almost everyone) after EVERY sale and which, certainly in our current decline, has never materialised sufficiently.

I just find it mildly amusing that we justify an "undisclosed" on the grounds that this will have a detrimental effect on any incomings. I believe we have a much more serious problem with our dealings!