| City in for Baah? 10:47 - Jan 31 with 25091 views | oddjob007 |
|  | | |  |
| City in for Baah? on 18:15 - Feb 2 with 4053 views | fitzochris |
| City in for Baah? on 18:04 - Feb 2 by richfoad32 |
Thanks. I suppose if Kwadwo were to get injured in the interim, it would be pretty poor PR for City to try and back out of the deal, particularly given the relatively small sum (for them) involved.
Even so, I reckon they might ask BBM to have a word in his shell like to cut out the backflips. |
Perhaps this is also why they are annoyed it was all made public. |  |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 18:31 - Feb 2 with 3989 views | mingthemerciless |
Regarding full backs and a lack of height one of the best left backs II ever saw, Kenny Sansom, was only 5' 6" and another little good 'un, Alan Wright of Blackpool, Blackburn and the Villa was only 5" 4". | | | |
| City in for Baah? on 19:26 - Feb 2 with 3842 views | Thacks_Rabbits |
| City in for Baah? on 17:51 - Feb 2 by fitzochris |
It’s not being a bit thick. It’s a legitimate question and one that I’m not sure I still fully understand the answer to.
The answer is, though, that he has agreed a contract with Man City that takes effect from end of June/July. That’s straightforward enough. However, in order to be allowed to do this, they had to pay us a fee. It’s the first time I’ve heard of this but it’s what happened. If they didn’t, they would’ve had to wait till June to offer him a deal and then pay us compensation.
I’m not sure how this differed from buying him outright and loaning him back to us, as Wolves did with Luke, but that’s how it went down. |
I still don’t understand the difference between them signing him and loaning back or pre contract, the only thing I can find is that it reduces the number of our loan players, they don’t have to pay him immediately a higher wage on new deal and maybe less paperwork but these are tenuous at best.
Regarding the pre contract, he is still contracted to us until June so he is our player, we can effectively do as we wish (although I am sure city will have unofficial influence), but city are obligated to fulfill the contract offer they have made to Baah and also pay any fee to us (it may have been paid already) if he suffers a bad injury city are still obliged, that’s unless a clause has been put in place and if we or Baahs agent agreed this they need sacking, it won’t have happened.
That’s as far as I can see from my research anyway. |  |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 19:43 - Feb 2 with 3787 views | fitzochris |
| City in for Baah? on 19:26 - Feb 2 by Thacks_Rabbits |
I still don’t understand the difference between them signing him and loaning back or pre contract, the only thing I can find is that it reduces the number of our loan players, they don’t have to pay him immediately a higher wage on new deal and maybe less paperwork but these are tenuous at best.
Regarding the pre contract, he is still contracted to us until June so he is our player, we can effectively do as we wish (although I am sure city will have unofficial influence), but city are obligated to fulfill the contract offer they have made to Baah and also pay any fee to us (it may have been paid already) if he suffers a bad injury city are still obliged, that’s unless a clause has been put in place and if we or Baahs agent agreed this they need sacking, it won’t have happened.
That’s as far as I can see from my research anyway. |
Your research? | |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 20:27 - Feb 2 with 3714 views | swindondale |
| City in for Baah? on 19:26 - Feb 2 by Thacks_Rabbits |
I still don’t understand the difference between them signing him and loaning back or pre contract, the only thing I can find is that it reduces the number of our loan players, they don’t have to pay him immediately a higher wage on new deal and maybe less paperwork but these are tenuous at best.
Regarding the pre contract, he is still contracted to us until June so he is our player, we can effectively do as we wish (although I am sure city will have unofficial influence), but city are obligated to fulfill the contract offer they have made to Baah and also pay any fee to us (it may have been paid already) if he suffers a bad injury city are still obliged, that’s unless a clause has been put in place and if we or Baahs agent agreed this they need sacking, it won’t have happened.
That’s as far as I can see from my research anyway. |
I think you're right about number of loan players being the issue. I believe only 5 loan players are allowed in match day team sheets.
So with Osho, Roberts, Bazunu, Vale and the anticipated, but ultimately unsuccessful loan signing of Mitchell (per Fitz's info), Baah would have been six if loaned back. In the event it wouldn't have mattered as Mitchell loan did not work out, but when they were negotiating they hoped it would.
Sorry if this is wrong or posted elsewhere. | | | |
| City in for Baah? on 21:42 - Feb 2 with 3580 views | Thacks_Rabbits |
| City in for Baah? on 19:43 - Feb 2 by fitzochris |
Your research? |
Just a mix of what I already know re contract law and some other legalities, most of it was trying to find a reason he was not signed and loaned back, as I said there are very few reasons. | |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 08:41 - Feb 3 with 3331 views | Nigeriamark |
| City in for Baah? on 19:26 - Feb 2 by Thacks_Rabbits |
I still don’t understand the difference between them signing him and loaning back or pre contract, the only thing I can find is that it reduces the number of our loan players, they don’t have to pay him immediately a higher wage on new deal and maybe less paperwork but these are tenuous at best.
Regarding the pre contract, he is still contracted to us until June so he is our player, we can effectively do as we wish (although I am sure city will have unofficial influence), but city are obligated to fulfill the contract offer they have made to Baah and also pay any fee to us (it may have been paid already) if he suffers a bad injury city are still obliged, that’s unless a clause has been put in place and if we or Baahs agent agreed this they need sacking, it won’t have happened.
That’s as far as I can see from my research anyway. |
Is a pre-contract not a "first option to buy" guarantee. If at the end of the season City think they have made a mistake, and we also agree we will keep him, then the signing can be cancelled. However City don't get any refund as they paid for that initial first refusal. |  | | |
| City in for Baah? on 11:16 - Feb 3 with 3172 views | Extra_Nan |
A bit confusing this pre-contract thing. What if the lad goes on a purple patch and bangs in 15 screamers, unlikely but conceivable, before the end of the season i.e. before his contract with us runs out? Would the club have any cards at all to play, even 'ungentlemanly' ones? Or more likely his agent re wage demands? All a bit wooly.
I do realise he's a free agent come June 30 btw and we should probably be glad to get what we've got. Whatever that is... | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| City in for Baah? on 11:19 - Feb 3 with 3160 views | nordenblue |
| City in for Baah? on 11:16 - Feb 3 by Extra_Nan |
A bit confusing this pre-contract thing. What if the lad goes on a purple patch and bangs in 15 screamers, unlikely but conceivable, before the end of the season i.e. before his contract with us runs out? Would the club have any cards at all to play, even 'ungentlemanly' ones? Or more likely his agent re wage demands? All a bit wooly.
I do realise he's a free agent come June 30 btw and we should probably be glad to get what we've got. Whatever that is... |
The total opposite could also feasibly happen too, we can't have it every way, the deal appears from the outside to be decent for everyone concerned,cant really ask for much more than that. | | | |
| City in for Baah? on 13:15 - Feb 3 with 2978 views | fitzochris |
The way it has been told to me (by someone close to this at Man City's end and who gave me the heads up on all this in the first place) is that:
"City have effectively bought him from Rochdale in all but name. A fee has been paid and a deal agreed directly with the club with future clauses. A contract has also been given to, and signed by, the player, which comes into effect on July 1. City have done it this way to avoid competing with other clubs for his signature in the summer and to keep healthy relations with Rochdale."
So there you have it. | |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 13:30 - Feb 3 with 2924 views | TVOS1907 |
| City in for Baah? on 13:15 - Feb 3 by fitzochris |
The way it has been told to me (by someone close to this at Man City's end and who gave me the heads up on all this in the first place) is that:
"City have effectively bought him from Rochdale in all but name. A fee has been paid and a deal agreed directly with the club with future clauses. A contract has also been given to, and signed by, the player, which comes into effect on July 1. City have done it this way to avoid competing with other clubs for his signature in the summer and to keep healthy relations with Rochdale."
So there you have it. |
Aye |  |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 13:32 - Feb 3 with 2919 views | judd |
Baah-lue moon
You saw me standing alone....
Rkershaw I ain't |  |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 13:39 - Feb 3 with 2907 views | James1980 |
| City in for Baah? on 11:16 - Feb 3 by Extra_Nan |
A bit confusing this pre-contract thing. What if the lad goes on a purple patch and bangs in 15 screamers, unlikely but conceivable, before the end of the season i.e. before his contract with us runs out? Would the club have any cards at all to play, even 'ungentlemanly' ones? Or more likely his agent re wage demands? All a bit wooly.
I do realise he's a free agent come June 30 btw and we should probably be glad to get what we've got. Whatever that is... |
If that happened wouldn't it be more likely Baah getting in a City match day squad? I'd like to think we would then get some cash via appearances. | |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 14:18 - Feb 3 with 2822 views | YadHoDale |
| City in for Baah? on 13:32 - Feb 3 by judd |
Baah-lue moon
You saw me standing alone....
Rkershaw I ain't |
Going back to The Marcels' version:
Baah Baah Baah Baah Baah Baah Baah Baah,
Baah Baah Baah Baah Baah Baah Baah Baah Baah Baah Bluuueee Mooon! |  | | |
| City in for Baah? on 19:35 - Feb 3 with 2589 views | Thacks_Rabbits |
| City in for Baah? on 13:15 - Feb 3 by fitzochris |
The way it has been told to me (by someone close to this at Man City's end and who gave me the heads up on all this in the first place) is that:
"City have effectively bought him from Rochdale in all but name. A fee has been paid and a deal agreed directly with the club with future clauses. A contract has also been given to, and signed by, the player, which comes into effect on July 1. City have done it this way to avoid competing with other clubs for his signature in the summer and to keep healthy relations with Rochdale."
So there you have it. |
Think that’s basically what I said other than the relationship bit. | |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 19:42 - Feb 3 with 2559 views | fitzochris |
| City in for Baah? on 19:35 - Feb 3 by Thacks_Rabbits |
Think that’s basically what I said other than the relationship bit. |
It’s a direct quote clarifying what I said. Just me doing me. [Post edited 3 Feb 2021 19:45]
| |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 20:17 - Feb 3 with 2495 views | Thacks_Rabbits |
| City in for Baah? on 19:42 - Feb 3 by fitzochris |
It’s a direct quote clarifying what I said. Just me doing me. [Post edited 3 Feb 2021 19:45]
|
It is and thanks. Was not a barbed reply. It’s good to see that our relationship with city is important though.
On another note whilst the initial fee is important the sell on/add one could be absolutely immense if working with quality coaches and at facilities way better than ours progress him faster. Obviously he is not Sterling by any means but he has traits of him. Let’s hope so | |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 23:12 - Feb 3 with 2364 views | nordenblue |
| City in for Baah? on 20:17 - Feb 3 by Thacks_Rabbits |
It is and thanks. Was not a barbed reply. It’s good to see that our relationship with city is important though.
On another note whilst the initial fee is important the sell on/add one could be absolutely immense if working with quality coaches and at facilities way better than ours progress him faster. Obviously he is not Sterling by any means but he has traits of him. Let’s hope so |
He just needs to work on that camp hand when he runs and stick his arse out a bit more, then he's cracked it | | | |
| City in for Baah? on 23:45 - Feb 10 with 1973 views | Shun |
With regards to compensation, I was intrigued to see that Professional Football Compensation Committee has tonight decided that Fulham's compensation they'll receive from Liverpool for 16-year-old Harvey Elliott will be £4.3million plus a 20% sell-on clause. |  | | |
| City in for Baah? on 07:51 - Feb 11 with 1801 views | judd |
| City in for Baah? on 23:45 - Feb 10 by Shun |
With regards to compensation, I was intrigued to see that Professional Football Compensation Committee has tonight decided that Fulham's compensation they'll receive from Liverpool for 16-year-old Harvey Elliott will be £4.3million plus a 20% sell-on clause. |
London weighting. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
