| City in for Baah? 10:47 - Jan 31 with 25433 views | oddjob007 |
|  | | |  |
| City in for Baah? on 22:13 - Feb 1 with 4137 views | 442Dale |
| City in for Baah? on 21:49 - Feb 1 by fitzochris |
Where’s this £300k figure come from and why is it being taken as fact? |
Which is why we shouldn’t get too invested in talk of fees straight away. It all comes out in the end and a big factor is we keep him as an option in the squad until the summer. |  |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 22:16 - Feb 1 with 4106 views | Brierls |
| City in for Baah? on 22:13 - Feb 1 by 442Dale |
Which is why we shouldn’t get too invested in talk of fees straight away. It all comes out in the end and a big factor is we keep him as an option in the squad until the summer. |
But how do we get upset about having our pants pulled down if we don’t have a low fee to moan about? |  | | |
| City in for Baah? on 22:32 - Feb 1 with 3963 views | AtThePeake |
| City in for Baah? on 21:46 - Feb 1 by Brierls |
Was the other lad 5’4” and an average defender?
Take away the story, the romance of it all, and you’re left with a very talented young footballer who is going to have to fulfil every single bit of his potential to make it even at Championship level. That’s not due to his ability, it’s due to his height and how teams would target that weakness.
There wasn’t a bidding war for Matheson, we got a good deal while we could. |
I can't pretend I've seen him play much, just on paper I struggle to see how he can have looked to be more than 3x the value of Matheson without having played at a higher level at the time or with England's youth sides, even if he is a whole 3 inches taller. We can agree to disagree - you think we got a good deal, I don't think we got the market value. |  |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 22:41 - Feb 1 with 3879 views | AtThePeake |
| City in for Baah? on 22:32 - Feb 1 by AtThePeake |
I can't pretend I've seen him play much, just on paper I struggle to see how he can have looked to be more than 3x the value of Matheson without having played at a higher level at the time or with England's youth sides, even if he is a whole 3 inches taller. We can agree to disagree - you think we got a good deal, I don't think we got the market value. |
Btw, on the height thing... this isn't the same Brierls that was raving to me about Tariq Lamptey a month or two ago is it?  | |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 22:46 - Feb 1 with 3822 views | nordenblue |
| City in for Baah? on 22:41 - Feb 1 by AtThePeake |
Btw, on the height thing... this isn't the same Brierls that was raving to me about Tariq Lamptey a month or two ago is it? |
He can shift that fella, regardless of height he's ridiculously good | | | |
| City in for Baah? on 22:59 - Feb 1 with 3743 views | Brierls |
| City in for Baah? on 22:41 - Feb 1 by AtThePeake |
Btw, on the height thing... this isn't the same Brierls that was raving to me about Tariq Lamptey a month or two ago is it? |
Heh. Yes 
But Lamptey is different gravy. As promising as Matheson is, he’s not lightning quick or anywhere near as skilful as fellow ankle biter Lamptey. Don’t get me wrong, Lamptey will still get caught out in the air, but he’ll have covered the ground before the ball hits the deck! | | | |
| City in for Baah? on 23:21 - Feb 1 with 3647 views | dingdangblue |
| City in for Baah? on 22:03 - Feb 1 by Shun |
Potentially, but I doubt that would’ve been the case. We’d already rejected one bid and they came back within hours, so they clearly wanted him. This is the richest club in the world, I doubt they were going to balk at a club asking for a fee of £600K rather than £300K.
Other clubs were clearly interested, presumably they decided against putting in an offer when they learnt of City’s bid, knowing their pulling power is less than City’s, and also knowing how it would look when a failed bid came to light.
As for losing out on a sell-on, it’s common practice now when losing a player under-24 on a free transfer for a sell-on percentage to be inserted. |
Scary when you think one of City's star players will be on near enough £1 million a month. |  |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 23:34 - Feb 1 with 3578 views | dingdangblue |
For all the stick that BBM has been getting this season he must be applauded for bringing Baah to the club, I don't know how it happened but its been massively exciting seeing him in the brief time he's been with us - hopefully his contributions in the 2nd half of the season will be enough to secure our league 1 safety for another season. Apparently he was on City's radar even before we signed him so again it's a minor miracle he was at Dale at all. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| City in for Baah? on 06:20 - Feb 2 with 3303 views | davidab2202 |
With him being out of contract in the summer ,very much "a bird in the hand situation".
City have bought a young lad with Potential certainly nothing like a finished article even at our level. We have seen glimpses of what he may achieve but it is still a long hard road for him to even dream of being a Premiership footballer.
Best of Luck to the young man, will be watching with interest | | | |
| City in for Baah? on 09:53 - Feb 2 with 2959 views | jonahwhereru |
| City in for Baah? on 22:59 - Feb 1 by Brierls |
Heh. Yes
But Lamptey is different gravy. As promising as Matheson is, he’s not lightning quick or anywhere near as skilful as fellow ankle biter Lamptey. Don’t get me wrong, Lamptey will still get caught out in the air, but he’ll have covered the ground before the ball hits the deck! |
The one thing Luke diffinately has is pace. That was regularly seen to good effect with his overlapping runs. Hilly when commentating on the Man U game said he would not be beaten for pace. Do agree about is height mind. He cannot leap like the lad who left for Scunthorpe so will need to be that bit more special to make it at the top level. | | | |
| City in for Baah? on 10:06 - Feb 2 with 2920 views | BucketBstard |
| City in for Baah? on 21:47 - Feb 1 by dingdangblue |
If we don't sell Humphrys in the summer he's out of contract at the end of next season. It's always going to be an issue now for Dale because we can't hand out 3 - 4 year contracts. |
Is that cos we used to give out long contracts to S"ite players like McNumpty and Andrew and many more we got stuck with? | | | |
| City in for Baah? on 10:30 - Feb 2 with 2832 views | golfaduffy |
| City in for Baah? on 20:50 - Feb 1 by 1907 |
So we have a player who’s out of contract in a matter of months.
The team who are presently top of the Premier League are the only team to put a solid offer in.
What on earth do you expect us to do? Baah’s head will have been turned immediately. He’s probably just signed a contract that dwarfs anything our top earner gets paid.
Some people are just never happy with whatever our club does. This is the ultimate case of being over a barrel and trying to make the best out of the situation. [Post edited 1 Feb 2021 20:59]
|
Well; I've had time to think about the situation more carefully, and whilst I'm still miffed about us selling him for any less than £500k, I accept that we could easily have made less money by letting him leave in Summer, and taking the compensation for him.
As others point out, any compensation would almost automatically include a sell on clause of (usually 20-25%) so we may have had to wait a long time to gain financially.
Jam today springs to mind.
I guess I'm looking back to when we sold Adshead to Norwich for an undisclosed fee that the club proclaimed was "a fantastic bit of business for the club" that later turned out to be £300k...revealed by Norwich, despite what Brierls says. It was in their local press a couple of days after the move went through. The anger I felt then was based on the fact that unlike Baah, Adshead was a long contracted player who was featuring in the England team regularly, and I just don't feel that we got anywhere near his market value. And yes; I'm old enough (just) to remember us selling Holty to Forest, when we were royally shafted by his agent, and we got several hundred thousand's less than had been agreed because he had a release clause that somehow became known to the buying club. I understand Holts then agent was fined over this and other issues.
And regarding Luke, it was widely reported that he became our first million pound player. He didn't, as we got barely half of that sum, but we were desperate for the cash.
I doubt that we will see the financial benefit of any add ons on either Luke's deal or Adsheads deal for several years to come; if ever.
But in conclusion, I want to wish Baah every success at City, and obviously in the final few months of his Dale career. Let's hope he can score some more memorable goals for us in the coming months. | | | |
| City in for Baah? on 14:34 - Feb 2 with 2566 views | James1980 |
Noticed it has not been confirmed 'officially on the club website. [Post edited 2 Feb 2021 14:35]
| |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 14:36 - Feb 2 with 2556 views | fitzochris |
| City in for Baah? on 14:34 - Feb 2 by James1980 |
Noticed it has not been confirmed 'officially on the club website. [Post edited 2 Feb 2021 14:35]
|
City will decide when it’s announced apparently. I’ve also heard from their end that they are thoroughly pissed off that the news was all over Twitter, Sky and the Guardian yesterday.
Total cheek. |  |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 14:41 - Feb 2 with 2537 views | Plattyswrinklynuts |
| City in for Baah? on 14:36 - Feb 2 by fitzochris |
City will decide when it’s announced apparently. I’ve also heard from their end that they are thoroughly pissed off that the news was all over Twitter, Sky and the Guardian yesterday.
Total cheek. |
Was it leaked from Baahs people or Dale then? |  | | |
| City in for Baah? on 14:41 - Feb 2 with 2533 views | D_Alien |
| City in for Baah? on 14:36 - Feb 2 by fitzochris |
City will decide when it’s announced apparently. I’ve also heard from their end that they are thoroughly pissed off that the news was all over Twitter, Sky and the Guardian yesterday.
Total cheek. |
As a done deal, what's the downside for City in having it announced?
Surely they can't be embarrassed about it? |  |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 14:50 - Feb 2 with 2508 views | fitzochris |
| City in for Baah? on 14:41 - Feb 2 by D_Alien |
As a done deal, what's the downside for City in having it announced?
Surely they can't be embarrassed about it? |
I asked exactly that - although, true enough, it wasn’t a done deal when I tweeted about the rejected bid on Sunday night.
Once it was done - and it was always going to get done - I don’t see what the issue is. But they didn’t want it announced right away though, which is odd. I mean, Baah had his medical and all that business yesterday, so I don’t see any issue.
As to who leaked it? Darryl gave the Guardian the story later in the day and Sky leapt on the early morning tweets, as did Radio Bolton and all the other folk who really should’ve been across this story from the start.
BBM then all but admitted it on Sky. | |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 14:58 - Feb 2 with 2478 views | D_Alien |
| City in for Baah? on 14:50 - Feb 2 by fitzochris |
I asked exactly that - although, true enough, it wasn’t a done deal when I tweeted about the rejected bid on Sunday night.
Once it was done - and it was always going to get done - I don’t see what the issue is. But they didn’t want it announced right away though, which is odd. I mean, Baah had his medical and all that business yesterday, so I don’t see any issue.
As to who leaked it? Darryl gave the Guardian the story later in the day and Sky leapt on the early morning tweets, as did Radio Bolton and all the other folk who really should’ve been across this story from the start.
BBM then all but admitted it on Sky. |
The only angle i can see is City not wanting Baah's head to be mangled by the publicity
But it's hardly a secret. Will be interesting to see how BBM deals with him in terms of starts. He's still in effect our player, so we're entitled to get the most out of him that we can, whatever that might entail
Or is there a possibility that City could pull him out of Dale's hands if they don't like how he's being deployed?
[Post edited 2 Feb 2021 15:00]
| |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 15:22 - Feb 2 with 2402 views | TVOS1907 |
| City in for Baah? on 14:36 - Feb 2 by fitzochris |
City will decide when it’s announced apparently. I’ve also heard from their end that they are thoroughly pissed off that the news was all over Twitter, Sky and the Guardian yesterday.
Total cheek. |
Aye |  |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 15:42 - Feb 2 with 2332 views | fitzochris |
| City in for Baah? on 14:58 - Feb 2 by D_Alien |
The only angle i can see is City not wanting Baah's head to be mangled by the publicity
But it's hardly a secret. Will be interesting to see how BBM deals with him in terms of starts. He's still in effect our player, so we're entitled to get the most out of him that we can, whatever that might entail
Or is there a possibility that City could pull him out of Dale's hands if they don't like how he's being deployed?
[Post edited 2 Feb 2021 15:00]
|
The terms of Baah’s status was a cause of confusion during the negotiations - was it a loan or was it a pre-contract?
It transpired that it was a pre-contract but a fee was paid. As shared ownership is not allowed in the professional leagues, he is still our player until June and City have no say in how he is used until then.
Apparently they couldn’t do a pre-agreement without paying a fee. In all honesty, I’m not sure why that is, but the fee is believed to decent and we have clauses inserted regarding future sales too. If City waited till the summer, while they’d only need to pay us nominal compensation, they risked losing him to another club, so they obviously saw it made sense for them to guarantee the signature. | |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 15:52 - Feb 2 with 2296 views | DaleiLama |
| City in for Baah? on 15:42 - Feb 2 by fitzochris |
The terms of Baah’s status was a cause of confusion during the negotiations - was it a loan or was it a pre-contract?
It transpired that it was a pre-contract but a fee was paid. As shared ownership is not allowed in the professional leagues, he is still our player until June and City have no say in how he is used until then.
Apparently they couldn’t do a pre-agreement without paying a fee. In all honesty, I’m not sure why that is, but the fee is believed to decent and we have clauses inserted regarding future sales too. If City waited till the summer, while they’d only need to pay us nominal compensation, they risked losing him to another club, so they obviously saw it made sense for them to guarantee the signature. |
Presumably it also benefits us if (God forbid) he suffers a significant injury too. |  |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 16:42 - Feb 2 with 2161 views | seasidedale |
How do you know about the fee for Luke, all fees are confidential (supposedly ) and it as far as I am aware came from our side, why would we make afigure up as it would cost us in tax. | | | |
| City in for Baah? on 17:44 - Feb 2 with 1998 views | richfoad32 |
| City in for Baah? on 15:42 - Feb 2 by fitzochris |
The terms of Baah’s status was a cause of confusion during the negotiations - was it a loan or was it a pre-contract?
It transpired that it was a pre-contract but a fee was paid. As shared ownership is not allowed in the professional leagues, he is still our player until June and City have no say in how he is used until then.
Apparently they couldn’t do a pre-agreement without paying a fee. In all honesty, I’m not sure why that is, but the fee is believed to decent and we have clauses inserted regarding future sales too. If City waited till the summer, while they’d only need to pay us nominal compensation, they risked losing him to another club, so they obviously saw it made sense for them to guarantee the signature. |
Excuse me for being a bit thick, just not sure how this 'pre contract' thing works. Is he officially a Man City or Rochdale player now? If he was to pick up a serious injury between now and June and be out for an extended time, are City still on the hook for him or could the deal be nixed? | | | |
| City in for Baah? on 17:51 - Feb 2 with 1952 views | fitzochris |
| City in for Baah? on 17:44 - Feb 2 by richfoad32 |
Excuse me for being a bit thick, just not sure how this 'pre contract' thing works. Is he officially a Man City or Rochdale player now? If he was to pick up a serious injury between now and June and be out for an extended time, are City still on the hook for him or could the deal be nixed? |
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. | |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 18:04 - Feb 2 with 1892 views | richfoad32 |
| 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. |
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. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
