us managing the situation badly and Olise and his agent not playing ball.blythspartan wrote:Did the transfer embargo/financial constraints prevent us offering Olise a much improved deal, thus a larger release clause? Or was it just down to us managing the situation badly and Olise and his agent not playing ball.
CheersSutekh wrote:us managing the situation badly and Olise and his agent not playing ball.blythspartan wrote:Did the transfer embargo/financial constraints prevent us offering Olise a much improved deal, thus a larger release clause? Or was it just down to us managing the situation badly and Olise and his agent not playing ball.
Much more the latter than the former.blythspartan wrote:CheersSutekh wrote:us managing the situation badly and Olise and his agent not playing ball.blythspartan wrote:Did the transfer embargo/financial constraints prevent us offering Olise a much improved deal, thus a larger release clause? Or was it just down to us managing the situation badly and Olise and his agent not playing ball.
As a young Premier League regular who creates chances he is probably automatically considered to be worth £50 million especially when the likes of Sancho, Anthony, Mudryk etc. have cost nearly twice as much.SCIAG wrote:All of the above, frankly. Olise was never going to sign a new contract.
I'll believe he's "worth £50m" when someone actually pays £50m for him.
Yeah agree, we didn't even put ourselves in a position where we could offer a better deal with a better release clause, under different circumstances I believe we could have got at least double for him.Fezza wrote:We put ourselves into a position with both Olise and Richards where we were under embargo and couldn’t offer contracts (regardless of if they’d have been accepted). It is probably my biggest frustration with the EFL process, as there was opportunity to reduce our debts. However we only have ourselves to blame.
On Olive’s value, Buendia was sold for £37 million at the same time. We missed out through our own ridiculous financial mismanagement and the EFL’s self defeating rules.
You don't learn do you. We've just spent a decade being mismanaged and you lament that mismanagement preventing us making a kid our highest earner.YorkshireRoyal99 wrote:Yeah agree, we didn't even put ourselves in a position where we could offer a better deal with a better release clause, under different circumstances I believe we could have got at least double for him.Fezza wrote:We put ourselves into a position with both Olise and Richards where we were under embargo and couldn’t offer contracts (regardless of if they’d have been accepted). It is probably my biggest frustration with the EFL process, as there was opportunity to reduce our debts. However we only have ourselves to blame.
On Olive’s value, Buendia was sold for £37 million at the same time. We missed out through our own ridiculous financial mismanagement and the EFL’s self defeating rules.
I don't really agree necessarily with the argument of, he'd never sign a new deal because he'd get a move anyway. I just don't think it works like that. If we were better run we could have offered him something mid-season and we could have easily made him one of our highest earners.
Had they both been offered deals on breaking into the first team I think they’d have signed, without the wage having broken the bank. From memory though we could only offer short term deals. Surely a good deal would have allowed them a greater percentage of any transfer fee?Snowflake Royal wrote:You don't learn do you. We've just spent a decade being mismanaged and you lament that mismanagement preventing us making a kid our highest earner.YorkshireRoyal99 wrote:Yeah agree, we didn't even put ourselves in a position where we could offer a better deal with a better release clause, under different circumstances I believe we could have got at least double for him.Fezza wrote:We put ourselves into a position with both Olise and Richards where we were under embargo and couldn’t offer contracts (regardless of if they’d have been accepted). It is probably my biggest frustration with the EFL process, as there was opportunity to reduce our debts. However we only have ourselves to blame.
On Olive’s value, Buendia was sold for £37 million at the same time. We missed out through our own ridiculous financial mismanagement and the EFL’s self defeating rules.
I don't really agree necessarily with the argument of, he'd never sign a new deal because he'd get a move anyway. I just don't think it works like that. If we were better run we could have offered him something mid-season and we could have easily made him one of our highest earners.
Absolute LOLz at the idea we could have offered Richards or Olise a deal that would have stopped them choosing Bayern or Palace.
A kid or one of our best players? What has his age got to do with his ability? The point was, if we were better run, we could have offered them better deals and made him one of our top earners. That would mean we wouldn't have Moore on £30k a week, as he'd have been sold, or Swift on £25k, he'd have been sold. We could have had Olise on £20k a week if we wanted to and then sold on, assuming he would accept.Snowflake Royal wrote:You don't learn do you. We've just spent a decade being mismanaged and you lament that mismanagement preventing us making a kid our highest earner.YorkshireRoyal99 wrote:Yeah agree, we didn't even put ourselves in a position where we could offer a better deal with a better release clause, under different circumstances I believe we could have got at least double for him.Fezza wrote:We put ourselves into a position with both Olise and Richards where we were under embargo and couldn’t offer contracts (regardless of if they’d have been accepted). It is probably my biggest frustration with the EFL process, as there was opportunity to reduce our debts. However we only have ourselves to blame.
On Olive’s value, Buendia was sold for £37 million at the same time. We missed out through our own ridiculous financial mismanagement and the EFL’s self defeating rules.
I don't really agree necessarily with the argument of, he'd never sign a new deal because he'd get a move anyway. I just don't think it works like that. If we were better run we could have offered him something mid-season and we could have easily made him one of our highest earners.
Absolute LOLz at the idea we could have offered Richards or Olise a deal that would have stopped them choosing Bayern or Palace.
I genuinely can't see how both of these can be trueSutekh wrote:us managing the situation badly and Olise and his agent not playing ball.blythspartan wrote:Did the transfer embargo/financial constraints prevent us offering Olise a much improved deal, thus a larger release clause? Or was it just down to us managing the situation badly and Olise and his agent not playing ball.
You mentioned being mismanaged for a decade... we were still able to keep our best players potentially by offering them deals a decade ago. You could say if we weren't under transfer embargo's like we have been over the last 3/4 years, then maybe we'd have been able to do something more with them.Snowflake Royal wrote:if it involves going back 5 or 6 years to be better run, the argument is pointless. If we were better run we'd have an entirely different squad.
Perhaps if we had a proper scouting network instead of relying on the fraud Kia Joorabchian then maybe we'd have identified sooner that he'd be a star and we'd have made better decisions such as selling Moore and offering Olise and Richards better deals. I'm sure both would have accepted a decent deal with a £25m and £15m release clause respectively.YorkshireRoyal99 wrote:A kid or one of our best players? What has his age got to do with his ability? The point was, if we were better run, we could have offered them better deals and made him one of our top earners. That would mean we wouldn't have Moore on £30k a week, as he'd have been sold, or Swift on £25k, he'd have been sold. We could have had Olise on £20k a week if we wanted to and then sold on, assuming he would accept.Snowflake Royal wrote:You don't learn do you. We've just spent a decade being mismanaged and you lament that mismanagement preventing us making a kid our highest earner.YorkshireRoyal99 wrote:
Yeah agree, we didn't even put ourselves in a position where we could offer a better deal with a better release clause, under different circumstances I believe we could have got at least double for him.
I don't really agree necessarily with the argument of, he'd never sign a new deal because he'd get a move anyway. I just don't think it works like that. If we were better run we could have offered him something mid-season and we could have easily made him one of our highest earners.
Absolute LOLz at the idea we could have offered Richards or Olise a deal that would have stopped them choosing Bayern or Palace.
I think you've missed the point as we wouldn't have been offering them new deals at that time, but rather earlier. Of course we were never going to compete with Bayern or Palace, but we wouldn't have to be competing with anyone if we had flexibility to offer them longer and improved deals.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 267 guests