it's not to say there wasn't an approach, but hopefully at least meant swindon (or anyone else) were not allowed to speak to him until the season was over. who knowsusagullmichigan wrote: So that was BS then.

it's not to say there wasn't an approach, but hopefully at least meant swindon (or anyone else) were not allowed to speak to him until the season was over. who knowsusagullmichigan wrote: So that was BS then.
Just passing on the latest word on the street..Southampton Gull wrote:
Stop teasing
Agreed - why does this type of thing happen again and again? Does not happen at other clubs - they seem to get far more than us for their talent.Southampton Gull wrote:Two other clubs interested in him besides Swindon, let's hope it sparks a bidding war because whoever stuck the paltry value on him wants their arse kicking.
I know it's frustrating Dave but at the end of the day these type of clauses (release fees) are surely all put in by the player, or more accurately the players agent, to ensure that the player's best interests are protected. So that clubs who are reluctant sellers cannot demand "silly" fees for any of their players under contract and thereby denying their player a chance to, in most cases, play at higher level for more money.Southampton Gull wrote:Two other clubs interested in him besides Swindon, let's hope it sparks a bidding war because whoever stuck the paltry value on him wants their arse kicking.
Surely the most insane piece of bad business in the history of our club is the guy who gave his pension fund to the charlatan Chris Roberts?forevertufc wrote:Well if our club did agree to such a release clause, at £200k that would go down as the most insane piece of bad buisness in the history.
Users browsing this forum: budegull1954, jamestee67 and 176 guests