Sippo
Living in the 80s
 Offline
Posts: 15585
I ain't gettin on no plane fool
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 13:12:53 » |
|
West Brom have got a bargain there.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If my calculations are correct, when this baby hits 88 miles per hour, you're gonna see some serious shit...
|
|
|
Arriba
Offline
Posts: 21289
|
|
« Reply #16 on: Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 13:15:49 » |
|
i think it's a fair price.
i'm not convinced he'll cut it in the championship.
i hope he does though
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
DiV
Has also heard this
 Online
Posts: 32287
Joseph McLaughlin
|
|
« Reply #17 on: Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 13:16:21 » |
|
Sorry to go a bit Bart on you...
...but...£1.5million plus 400k add ons for a player of Cox's talent is fucking stupid.
We've been done. We should be getting more than that even after Readings cut.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Jamiesfuturewife
Cats is nature
Offline
Posts: 11649
|
|
« Reply #18 on: Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 13:17:58 » |
|
Im so over Coxy already
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Rustle
Prediction League Champion 2012/13
Offline
Posts: 1393
TEF World Cup Stunners Champion 2010
|
|
« Reply #19 on: Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 13:19:12 » |
|
All the best to the lad,I hope he does really well for them and then maybe he may get his dream move to liverpool one day.
Nothing but respect for the guy.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
STFC_Gazza
|
|
« Reply #20 on: Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 13:24:30 » |
|
Sorry to go a bit Bart on you...
...but...£1.5million plus 400k add ons for a player of Cox's talent is fucking stupid.
We've been done. We should be getting more than that even after Readings cut.
I can see your point sort of BUT... He was never going to sign a new contract here, had 2 good seasons, we would have got a lot less in January I think as he had 6 months left on his contract. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
suttonred
Offline
Posts: 12510
|
|
« Reply #21 on: Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 13:27:02 » |
|
Sorry to go a bit Bart on you...
...but...£1.5million plus 400k add ons for a player of Cox's talent is fucking stupid.
We've been done. We should be getting more than that even after Readings cut.
We dont know what readings cut is though, and i'm wondering whether they have done a deal that means this is what we get and a seperate bit has gone to Reading? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
DiV
Has also heard this
Online
Posts: 32287
Joseph McLaughlin
|
|
« Reply #22 on: Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 13:27:06 » |
|
Maybe - doesnt help the deal has been reported as being between £2m and £2.5m all week.
Now all of a sudden its only £1.5m BEFORE Readings cut
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
pauld
Aaron Aardvark
Offline
Posts: 25436
Absolute Calamity!
|
|
« Reply #23 on: Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 13:30:18 » |
|
Maybe - doesnt help the deal has been reported as being between £2m and £2.5m all week.
Now all of a sudden its only £1.5m BEFORE Readings cut
Erm, except you don't know that do you? Sutton's suggestion would make perfect sense in reconciling the two sets of figures |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Arriba
Offline
Posts: 21289
|
|
« Reply #24 on: Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 13:31:23 » |
|
2.5 was the figure fitton wanted.that is always gonna drop as it's the start point in a negotiation.
considering you can pick up proven players for fuck all,1.9 mill is good business
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
DiV
Has also heard this
Online
Posts: 32287
Joseph McLaughlin
|
|
« Reply #25 on: Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 13:41:34 » |
|
We dont know what readings cut is though, and i'm wondering whether they have done a deal that means this is what we get and a seperate bit has gone to Reading?
Its always been quoted as 40% That would make better reading if it didnt include Readings 40% |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Paolo69
Offline
Posts: 2790
|
|
« Reply #26 on: Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 13:44:44 » |
|
I've read 40% quite a few times admittedly. Never officially though.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
STFC_Gazza
|
|
« Reply #27 on: Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 13:45:21 » |
|
Maybe - doesnt help the deal has been reported as being between £2m and £2.5m all week.
Now all of a sudden its only £1.5m BEFORE Readings cut
If it was 2m inclusive of performance related bonuses you would be happy... its only a £100,000 difference... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
glos_robin
|
|
« Reply #28 on: Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 14:02:44 » |
|
Always going to happen and no great suprise hopefully we can replace him somehow even if it means a goalscoring midfielder and new striker to chip in.
Would be nice to get some clarity on the sell on clause though as would say I'd feel we've been done abit if after Readings cut and the the money we paid for him originally we only made a £600,000/£700,000 profit on him.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jonny72
Offline
Posts: 5554
|
|
« Reply #29 on: Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 14:26:16 » |
|
I'd have liked us to get £2.5m cash for him, but we've done pretty well considering.
Clubs weren't queuing up to buy him, those that were previously interested all refused to pay what we wanted except for West Brom. Celtic offered about £1m for him, Huddersfield was about £600k (I think), Leicester gave the impression they thought £1m was too much and so on - compared to those offers we got an excellent deal.
With a year left on his contract we were running the risk of having to sell him for a lot less in January, or getting even less next summer.
The 40% sell on clause with Reading isn't good, but I've always thought we got him on the cheap from Reading solely due to that sell on clause. I'm not sure Fitton would have taken the risk at say £500k or more without a sell on clause.
The only annoying thing is that Fitton won't come out with a clear statement about how much we got. Why do clubs insist on keeping this information a secret, with a number of unclear and different deals being quoted by the press. It just pisses fans off.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
