Darren Bent

[JUAN PABLO]

Do you think if Lambert was our gaffer a couple of years ago and he went into the January window with £18m in his pocket, he'd have bought Darren Bent?

no  Charlie austin

[eastie]

I note Talksport mentioned the more believable rumour this morning. Eg. That once Bent plays 50 games we owe Sunderland the last part of the transfer 'add ons', rumoured to be anywhere between 4 and 6m

He's currently on 47 games. Sounds far more plausible than the bullshit about we don't need him (HELLO, look at the table and goals scored column)

As Dave Woodhall and PWS keep pointing out, if you buy somebody for £18m you expect them to play 50 games regardless. You wouldn't write £4m-£6m of additional payments into that deal just because somebody had played 50 matches.

Scored 50 goals maybe, qualified for the Champions League maybe - but 50 games is obviously nonsense.

Yes, totally agree, and the club have also rubbished these rumours.

[JUAN PABLO]

Apparently that's nonsense and he's also played more than 47 games for us.

He's played 47 league games

the more this thing goes on , Im starting to believe it , which is worrying .    He should have been on the bench last night , thank f**k we scored because a 0-0 would have been a complete disaster . Lambert got lucky last night .

[PeterWithesShin]

Cheers Dave, saved me writing it out again. The only way you'd have a 50 game clause is someone like Bowery or Stevens where you pick them up cheap and pay an extra 100K or so if they reach that mark. Certainly not for an £18million player.

[Chris Smith]

I can understand Lambert not starting Bent but what I don't understand is him not making the bench, if you're in need of a goal with 10 minutes remaining he's surely a better bet than somebody who didn't exactly set the world on fire playing up front for Chesterfield.

To be fair, it's virtually impossible to set the world on fire playing for Chesterfield.

[sirlordbaltimore]

People are highlighting how since Bent has been dropped we have improved as a team and got better results even though we've had a much tougher run.

Improved on what ?, we were in the bottom 3 before last night. And we're still joint worst goalscorers (or second worst)

Where has this myth we're playing well come from ?, last night was right up there with the garbage served up under McLeish last season. It was awful

[sirlordbaltimore]

Yes, totally agree, and the club have also rubbished these rumours.

Well I didn't know that, when did they rubbish it ?

[Risso]

I note Talksport mentioned the more believable rumour this morning. Eg. That once Bent plays 50 games we owe Sunderland the last part of the transfer 'add ons', rumoured to be anywhere between 4 and 6m

He's currently on 47 games. Sounds far more plausible than the bullshit about we don't need him (HELLO, look at the table and goals scored column)

As Dave Woodhall and PWS keep pointing out, if you buy somebody for £18m you expect them to play 50 games regardless. You wouldn't write £4m-£6m of additional payments into that deal just because somebody had played 50 matches.

Scored 50 goals maybe, qualified for the Champions League maybe - but 50 games is obviously nonsense.

It doesn't mean they're right though, and I don't think it's nonsense at all.  The truth is that nobody knows what the clauses are, and it could easily be: score 50 goals = £2m, play 50 games = £2m, Get Champions League = £2m.  Perhaps there was an injury concern at his medical which meant that the 50 games clause would be understandable.  We've seen players have a clause in their contract that they get a new deal if they play so many games, so why would it be nonsense to pay another club on a similar basis?

[QBVILLA]

Cheers Dave, saved me writing it out again. The only way you'd have a 50 game clause is someone like Bowery or Stevens where you pick them up cheap and pay an extra 100K or so if they reach that mark. Certainly not for an £18million player.

I agree with you that it would be ridiculous that after 50 league games if we had to pay £6m. However,it isn't totally out of the question that after 50 league games we pay say a million? I'd guess those league games were stipulated at premierleague as well given the position we were in at the time he signed. Obviously only speculating but i'd say there are multiple clauses ie England caps, goals, european qualification etc etc.

EDIT: I agree with Rissbert then

[PeterWithesShin]

I note Talksport mentioned the more believable rumour this morning. Eg. That once Bent plays 50 games we owe Sunderland the last part of the transfer 'add ons', rumoured to be anywhere between 4 and 6m

He's currently on 47 games. Sounds far more plausible than the bullshit about we don't need him (HELLO, look at the table and goals scored column)

As Dave Woodhall and PWS keep pointing out, if you buy somebody for £18m you expect them to play 50 games regardless. You wouldn't write £4m-£6m of additional payments into that deal just because somebody had played 50 matches.

Scored 50 goals maybe, qualified for the Champions League maybe - but 50 games is obviously nonsense.

It doesn't mean they're right though, and I don't think it's nonsense at all.  The truth is that nobody knows what the clauses are, and it could easily be: score 50 goals = £2m, play 50 games = £2m, Get Champions League = £2m.  Perhaps there was an injury concern at his medical which meant that the 50 games clause would be understandable.  We've seen players have a clause in their contract that they get a new deal if they play so many games, so why would it be nonsense to pay another club on a similar basis?

I can't see us or any club spending £18million on a player that they aren't sure is capable of playing 50 league games. It's less than a season and a half.

[QBVILLA]

I note Talksport mentioned the more believable rumour this morning. Eg. That once Bent plays 50 games we owe Sunderland the last part of the transfer 'add ons', rumoured to be anywhere between 4 and 6m

He's currently on 47 games. Sounds far more plausible than the bullshit about we don't need him (HELLO, look at the table and goals scored column)

As Dave Woodhall and PWS keep pointing out, if you buy somebody for £18m you expect them to play 50 games regardless. You wouldn't write £4m-£6m of additional payments into that deal just because somebody had played 50 matches.

Scored 50 goals maybe, qualified for the Champions League maybe - but 50 games is obviously nonsense.

It doesn't mean they're right though, and I don't think it's nonsense at all.  The truth is that nobody knows what the clauses are, and it could easily be: score 50 goals = £2m, play 50 games = £2m, Get Champions League = £2m.  Perhaps there was an injury concern at his medical which meant that the 50 games clause would be understandable.  We've seen players have a clause in their contract that they get a new deal if they play so many games, so why would it be nonsense to pay another club on a similar basis?

I can't see us or any club spending £18million on a player that they aren't sure is capable of playing 50 league games. It's less than a season and a half.

Which is assuming the player plays every league game the length of the financial year. Possibly a way of Sunderland saving a bit on income tax?

[caster troy]

Well I've heard that someone pretty high profile at the club was talking about this at the match last night. According to them it isn't a contractural issue.

[PeterWithesShin]

Cheers Dave, saved me writing it out again. The only way you'd have a 50 game clause is someone like Bowery or Stevens where you pick them up cheap and pay an extra 100K or so if they reach that mark. Certainly not for an £18million player.

I agree with you that it would be ridiculous that after 50 league games if we had to pay £6m. However,it isn't totally out of the question that after 50 league games we pay say a million? I'd guess those league games were stipulated at premierleague as well given the position we were in at the time he signed. Obviously only speculating but i'd say there are multiple clauses ie England caps, goals, european qualification etc etc.

EDIT: I agree with Rissbert then

I'd be very surprised if it was anything other than goals (an extra million or two for 50 for example), trophies won or European qualification. I doubt England caps as he was already an international when we signed him. Possibly an extra payment the season we signed him based on us staying up but I doubt that as well.

[JUAN PABLO]

I would have thought 100 games would have been more like it .     

[glasses]

Cheers Dave, saved me writing it out again. The only way you'd have a 50 game clause is someone like Bowery or Stevens where you pick them up cheap and pay an extra 100K or so if they reach that mark. Certainly not for an £18million player.

I disagree. For a starter, it's a negotiating tool. Instead of paying 'x' upfront, you delay the payment of 'x' until the player reaches 50 games. At that point it may be more, but keeps your cash in your bank account, for in this case, nearly two years.