| 300k again on 22:36 - Jan 10 with 3227 views | Shun |
| 300k again on 22:03 - Jan 10 by James1980 |
Hopefully other clubs get wind of this and are able to outbid the club that shows the initial interest. |
It wouldn’t matter. If Rathbone (completely hypothetically) has a release clause of £300K, and Sunderland bid £300K, we’d have to accept the offer, regardless of Ipswich bidding £1m. Both offers would be accepted and it would be up to Ollie to decide where to go. |  | |  |
| 300k again on 23:00 - Jan 10 with 3184 views | James1980 |
| 300k again on 22:36 - Jan 10 by Shun |
It wouldn’t matter. If Rathbone (completely hypothetically) has a release clause of £300K, and Sunderland bid £300K, we’d have to accept the offer, regardless of Ipswich bidding £1m. Both offers would be accepted and it would be up to Ollie to decide where to go. |
So in said hypothetical scenario Sunderland could offer Ollie a £700k 'signing on fee' & more per week than Ipswich likely outcome he would sign for them.
How about the add ons are they part of sell on clauses? |  |
| |
| 300k again on 23:12 - Jan 10 with 3167 views | boromat |
| 300k again on 23:00 - Jan 10 by James1980 |
So in said hypothetical scenario Sunderland could offer Ollie a £700k 'signing on fee' & more per week than Ipswich likely outcome he would sign for them.
How about the add ons are they part of sell on clauses? |
Surely chances are the release clause fee becomes known and all clubs offer that amount. Especially as the player and their agent know that number. | |
| |
| 300k again on 01:53 - Jan 11 with 3029 views | richfoad32 |
As an aside, Rathbone had an absolute blinder in the first half against Sunderland when they beat us at the start of the season. I remember their fans were raving about him on their forum. He probably impressed more than their supporters that night...
I really rate him and would be gutted to lose him. Brings an energy and bite to the midfield that nobody else does, even if his tackling is occasionally 'Scholesyesque'. Along with Camps he is the only one of our players who seems to get consistently under the skin of the opposition as well, must be a nightmare to play against. I try not to put too much stock in transfer speculation but good luck to him if he goes, he's always given 100%. | | | |
| 300k again on 11:28 - Jan 11 with 2840 views | tony_roch975 |
| 300k again on 23:00 - Jan 10 by James1980 |
So in said hypothetical scenario Sunderland could offer Ollie a £700k 'signing on fee' & more per week than Ipswich likely outcome he would sign for them.
How about the add ons are they part of sell on clauses? |
I'd assume add-ons are part of the sale contract Dale make with the buying club - the release clause is part of the contract between Dale and the player when he signs; it merely assures the player that the club won't stop his transfer if a buyer meets the release clause conditions. | |
| |
| 300k again on 11:36 - Jan 11 with 2821 views | James1980 |
| 300k again on 11:28 - Jan 11 by tony_roch975 |
I'd assume add-ons are part of the sale contract Dale make with the buying club - the release clause is part of the contract between Dale and the player when he signs; it merely assures the player that the club won't stop his transfer if a buyer meets the release clause conditions. |
So if the buying club says no to any add ons and they meet the SOC they could potentially secure themselves an absolute bargain. | |
| |
| 300k again on 11:39 - Jan 11 with 2817 views | tony_roch975 |
| 300k again on 11:36 - Jan 11 by James1980 |
So if the buying club says no to any add ons and they meet the SOC they could potentially secure themselves an absolute bargain. |
No because they can't buy a player in contract with Dale without Dale agreeing (& setting add-ons etc) | |
| |
| 300k again on 11:45 - Jan 11 with 2799 views | James1980 |
| 300k again on 11:39 - Jan 11 by tony_roch975 |
No because they can't buy a player in contract with Dale without Dale agreeing (& setting add-ons etc) |
Well at least we don't just have to accept the sell on clause fee and there is potential for jam tomorrow | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| 300k again on 11:46 - Jan 11 with 2798 views | dawlishdale |
But the release trigger is supposed to be confidential between the selling club, the player and his agent.
I seem to recall Forest? pulling a fast one on us when they bought Holt....I'm sure they had allegedly bid much more than the release fee, only to withdraw the bid when Holt was having a medical, and replace the bid with a lower one that exactly met the release fee.
I think Holts agent might have been fined and possibly suspended for his part in the deal, but ultimately, it was Dale who lost out. | | | |
| 300k again on 14:59 - Jan 11 with 2667 views | RAFCBLUE |
iFollow saying that Rathbone is injured after a knock in training.
Propaganda from the CEO or fact? |  |
| |
| 300k again on 17:40 - Jan 11 with 2592 views | tony_roch975 |
| 300k again on 14:59 - Jan 11 by RAFCBLUE |
iFollow saying that Rathbone is injured after a knock in training.
Propaganda from the CEO or fact? |
well he's sat in the stand | |
| |
| 300k again on 18:41 - Jan 11 with 2452 views | RespectTheChemistry |
| 300k again on 11:46 - Jan 11 by dawlishdale |
But the release trigger is supposed to be confidential between the selling club, the player and his agent.
I seem to recall Forest? pulling a fast one on us when they bought Holt....I'm sure they had allegedly bid much more than the release fee, only to withdraw the bid when Holt was having a medical, and replace the bid with a lower one that exactly met the release fee.
I think Holts agent might have been fined and possibly suspended for his part in the deal, but ultimately, it was Dale who lost out. |
I don't know about the agent being fined but it's quite possible as it was he who tipped Forest off about the £300k release clause after a price of c.£500k had been agreed. Dale lost c.£200k and the agent pocketed 10% of it as his 'reward' | | | |
| 300k again on 14:26 - Jan 12 with 2231 views | Scunnydale |
| 300k again on 18:33 - Jan 10 by Shun |
I’m with Chaff more than others it seems. He’s a huge player, and the second most important player in the team IMO, after Henderson. I’d also say the adage that when he plays well the team plays well applies to him more than other Dale player.
He’s young, pacy, has a fairly decent assist rate, can beat a man pretty regularly, one of the most tenacious and hard-working players I’ve ever seen, and, crucially, he’s getting better and better. He’s worth far more than £500K. If he were at any other club in the world I’d be stunned if his sale price wasn’t close to £1m.
The release clause is a fair argument, but I’m wondering why this point’s only just cropped up now. In every transfer in Dale history I don’t think anyone’s ever mentioned a release clause, and there’s never been a rumour that we sold a player so cheaply because of one. |
I seem to remember release clauses being discussed when Perkins left first time. My memory is terrible, but I think it was about £150k which seemed criminal for our key midfield ratter. |  | | |
| 300k again on 14:42 - Jan 12 with 2193 views | Brierls |
Rathbone would be a big loss. Those suggesting otherwise need to give their heads a wobble, you only have to look at our performance with/without Rathbone to see that.
I was very surprised (and delighted) when he signed a new deal in the summer. There would have been no shortage of interest in him, albeit from ‘smaller’ clubs that are being credited with an interest now. The fact he signed despite the interest suggests there is an agreement or clause in place for the event that a big club comes knocking.
Either way, the club have done the right thing. We got Rathbone for another x years if not sold, or we got Rathbone for another 6 months plus a fee larger than what we’d get from a tribunal had he moved on in the summer.
I hope Rathbone stays, a midfield of Rathbone, Ryan and Camps is more than good enough. |  | | |
| 300k again on 20:48 - Jan 12 with 2002 views | scarrow |
In suffering from deja-vue swap rathbone for camps and you could have the same thread for the last 3 January's. I'm confident Rathbone will be a Dale player at the end of this window.
It was no surprise Cannon leaving, he'd have gone in the summer before if he hadn't been injured. McGahey was going backwards fast and it was decent business. Last January the bolt out of the blue was Rafferty.
I'm not saying no one will be sold, history suggests otherwise but I don't think rathbone will go. |  |
| |
| 300k again on 22:18 - Jan 12 with 1876 views | sweetcorn |
| 300k again on 14:42 - Jan 12 by Brierls |
Rathbone would be a big loss. Those suggesting otherwise need to give their heads a wobble, you only have to look at our performance with/without Rathbone to see that.
I was very surprised (and delighted) when he signed a new deal in the summer. There would have been no shortage of interest in him, albeit from ‘smaller’ clubs that are being credited with an interest now. The fact he signed despite the interest suggests there is an agreement or clause in place for the event that a big club comes knocking.
Either way, the club have done the right thing. We got Rathbone for another x years if not sold, or we got Rathbone for another 6 months plus a fee larger than what we’d get from a tribunal had he moved on in the summer.
I hope Rathbone stays, a midfield of Rathbone, Ryan and Camps is more than good enough. |
I don't think anyone is saying they want Rathbone to go, but it wouldn't be the end of the world if we got a good fee.
I'll refrain from wobbling my head just yet, we may in your opinion perform better and I agree we probably do, but statically we have more points per game without olly starting the game than we do with him starting, so that better performance doesn't necessarily translate to points |  |
| Leader of the little gang of immature cretins. |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
