Strange someone with such a short time left on their contract would have a sell-on clause. You'd have thought the buying club would have been in the driving seat

quote:

Originally posted by CupraR04:
Really?

There is alot going around about the sell on clause, but both Daniel Levy and West Ham have stated there isnt one, even at West Ham's AGM when we bought him, West Ham told how they had a sell on clause with every player sold, except for Carrick. The reason for this is they were worried about him not being sold, and going on a bosman free.

quote:

Originally posted by Wot's 'is Face:

quote:

Originally posted by CupraR04:
Really?

There is alot going around about the sell on clause, but both Daniel Levy and West Ham have stated there isnt one, even at West Ham's AGM when we bought him, West Ham told how they had a sell on clause with every player sold, except for Carrick. The reason for this is they were worried about him not being sold, and going on a bosman free.

WEST HAM GET NOTHING

"WEST HAM will NOT receive a penny from Michael Carrick’s £18.6million move to Manchester United.


Tottenham refused to include a sell-on clause when they signed Carrick from the skint Hammers for just £2.75m in August 2004.

As a result, Spurs chairman Daniel Levy has pocketed £15.85m of pure profit.

The White Hart Lane club made their move with Carrick having only a few months left on his contract and on the brink of walking out of Upton Park on a free. Hammers chiefs had no choice but to let him go for a knockdown price.

Geordie Carrick, 25, had also been approached by his boyhood heroes Newcastle after West Ham went down in 2003.

The Toon wanted to wait for the midfielder’s contract to expire then snap him up on a Bosman free transfer.

But in an amazing goodwill gesture, Carrick shelved his dream of playing for his hometown club to join Spurs — making West Ham some much-needed money."

We have not recieved all the £18.6m though, we got £14m up front and the rest will come with appearances and where the club comes, hopefully there was nothing involving goals, because we can kiss that goodbye

It's not that I don't believe you, Wot's, but what's the source of this?

quote:

Originally posted by AndyCardiff:
It's not that I don't believe you, Wot's, but what's the source of this?

The piece i have put up is only from the Sun, but for once they have got it right. A story was put out that West Ham would get £2m, but it didnt make alot of sense, why would we agree to a sell on fee when he had one foot out of the door already. Anyway it was the story about the AGM that hit first by West Ham fans, then Daniel Levy came out to set the record straight, we keep all the money, if i find the statement i will post it up.

we get 14 million now leaving us with 11.25 Million profit.

With the £4.6 millions worth of add ons we will recieve depending on the amount of international and club appearances he makes. Assuming we recieve these add ons then we still don't give any money to the spammers but instead of making £11.25 million profit we make £15.85 million.

Wot's....sorry chief, don't want to sound like I'm on your case, but you are all over the shop! On the one hand you slate the media as reliable sources of gen, preferring the fan zones etc....then when a fan zone comes up with something against what you have said, you use a quote from the media, (if you can call the Sun that! I'll grant you that they get the scoops, but if they start enough rumours, one of them will be true. Plus in my eyes, they will never be forgiven for '89) and without a link!
Sort it aht!

Hands up everybody if we just agree to use links from official club sites?
The downside would be that as many clubs are run as PLCs, there are many stories they don't want to be released, as it may affect share prices...hence the frequent amount of 'undisclosed' transfer fees...
Or any better ideas?

Teletext used to be good as they never used to put anything on there until it happened i.e no gossip. But all their stories now come from the BBC website, so even that is now open to gossip.

The share prices and undisclosed fees business is a funny old thing. How long does a fee stay undisclosed until a company has to declare it for their accounts and therefore affecting any possible share price?

quote:

Originally posted by CupraR04:
Wot's....sorry chief, don't want to sound like I'm on your case, but you are all over the shop! On the one hand you slate the media as reliable sources of gen, preferring the fan zones etc....then when a fan zone comes up with something against what you have said, you use a quote from the media, (if you can call the Sun that! I'll grant you that they get the scoops, but if they start enough rumours, one of them will be true. Plus in my eyes, they will never be forgiven for '89) and without a link!
Sort it aht!

Hands up everybody if we just agree to use links from official club sites?
The downside would be that as many clubs are run as PLCs, there are many stories they don't want to be released, as it may affect share prices...hence the frequent amount of 'undisclosed' transfer fees...
Or any better ideas?

If you had bothered to read what i said, you would of read "for once they got it right", but still some people are not happy, its been on the Spurs website and is news to Spurs forums on the net, it is something we have been raving about since we first read the statement from Daniel Levy that we keep all the money. It means our signings this year have cost very little. But carry on believing what you like.

18million pound. what a mug man u are.

quote:

Originally posted by Wot's 'is Face:

quote:

Originally posted by CupraR04:
Wot's....sorry chief, don't want to sound like I'm on your case, but you are all over the shop! On the one hand you slate the media as reliable sources of gen, preferring the fan zones etc....then when a fan zone comes up with something against what you have said, you use a quote from the media, (if you can call the Sun that! I'll grant you that they get the scoops, but if they start enough rumours, one of them will be true. Plus in my eyes, they will never be forgiven for '89) and without a link!
Sort it aht!

Hands up everybody if we just agree to use links from official club sites?
The downside would be that as many clubs are run as PLCs, there are many stories they don't want to be released, as it may affect share prices...hence the frequent amount of 'undisclosed' transfer fees...
Or any better ideas?

If you had bothered to read what i said, you would of read "for once they got it right", but still some people are not happy, its been on the Spurs website and is news to Spurs forums on the net, it is something we have been raving about since we first read the statement from Daniel Levy that we keep all the money. It means our signings this year have cost very little. But carry on believing what you like.

Sun, Daily Star, Gaurdian, Daily Mail have all changed their story since Daniel Levy came out, telling everyone the truth that West Ham havnt got a sell on clause for Carrick, but some people have used the old story that West Ham had one, from stories from the papers, yet im called for using paper stories?.........Hmmmmmmm contradiction there i think.

Spurs website has changed so much this closed season because of the number of games we have played, and releasing that terrible brown kit, then realise that the kit, which wasnt made for mass production and has run out of stock, anyway the number of stories we have im afraid knocks other stories off the website, Daniel Levy's statement being one of them, but as everyone knows it now there is no reason to keep it on there.

quote:

Originally posted by Wot's 'is Face:
Sun, Daily Star, Gaurdian, Daily Mail have all changed their story since Daniel Levy came out, telling everyone the truth that West Ham havnt got a sell on clause for Carrick, but some people have used the old story that West Ham had one, from stories from the papers, yet im called for using paper stories?.........Hmmmmmmm contradiction there i think.

A quote for you...
"Any player i have said that a team are looking at is from different fans from their own clubs website, or official fan bases, and not from the rubbish that is in the papers."

Ring any bells?

quote:

Originally posted by CupraR04:

quote:

Originally posted by Wot's 'is Face:
Sun, Daily Star, Gaurdian, Daily Mail have all changed their story since Daniel Levy came out, telling everyone the truth that West Ham havnt got a sell on clause for Carrick, but some people have used the old story that West Ham had one, from stories from the papers, yet im called for using paper stories?.........Hmmmmmmm contradiction there i think.

A quote for you...
"Any player i have said that a team are looking at is from different fans from their own clubs website, or official fan bases, and not from the rubbish that is in the papers."

Ring any bells?

Exactly, and that is why i said they got it right for once, usually they do right cr@p and to be honest i was surprised myself that they wrote facts for once. I dont know how they get away with some of the cr@p they write.