Fabian Delph - Signed for Manchester City

[john e]

Still not a peep from the club over 24 hours after the story broke.  Obviously the attitude is "let's ignore it and hopefully the furore will go away".  Mushroom management again.

What are you expecting them to do?

Surely the club should set up it's own radio station to counter transfer speculation rumours and appoint someone like Tony Butler to give it dramatics gravitas whilst in between denial broadcasts the station should play patriotic Club songs to keep out spirits up?

With a X factor type panel giving green or red lights as to whether the speculation is good and solid or bad and lazy

[LTA]

Still not a peep from the club over 24 hours after the story broke.  Obviously the attitude is "let's ignore it and hopefully the furore will go away".  Mushroom management again.

You can't expect the club to comment on every story that comes out. Besides, you're already convinced that he's on his way to Man City.

True, but in this instance I think they need to.  They made a big thing about announcing Delph had committed, with the video message and press conference the following day.  Its all starting to look like a patronizing publicity stunt.

[silhillvilla]

I think as he's our star player and captain the club need to clarify things. 

[Tom_Mc9?]

I wish the internet wasn't around during transfer windows.

[Clark W Griswold]

Still not a peep from the club over 24 hours after the story broke.  Obviously the attitude is "let's ignore it and hopefully the furore will go away".  Mushroom management again.

What are you expecting them to do?

Surely the club should set up it's own radio station to counter transfer speculation rumours and appoint someone like Tony Butler to give it dramatics gravitas whilst in between denial broadcasts the station should play patriotic Club songs to keep out spirits up?

Quite possibly the most I've laughed on here for a long time. Perhaps we should also find some way of giving long term jail sentances to some of the journalists too and the same for anyone with opposing political views such as Blues fans.

[robbo1874]

I think as he's our star player and captain the club need to clarify things. 

why? What's that go to do with anything? They don't comment on speculation and fair enough. If someone actually comes up with a bid and offers him a deal he likes, then I would expect to hear a comment from the club. Up to that point, I would expect to hear fk all.

[ozzjim]

Still not a peep from the club over 24 hours after the story broke.  Obviously the attitude is "let's ignore it and hopefully the furore will go away".  Mushroom management again.

You can't expect the club to comment on every story that comes out. Besides, you're already convinced that he's on his way to Man City.

True, but in this instance I think they need to.  They made a big thing about announcing Delph had committed, with the video message and press conference the following day.  Its all starting to look like a patronizing publicity stunt.

I actually agree. In this case I think the club should say something, as essentially they have been rumbled on the huge PR they did on him signing. Had they not done that, then ignoring it would be fine, but due to the huge fuss they made, a response is not unwarranted in this case. Especially for a player who Sherwood seems to have built his first few months around, making him captain and lauding him as "the best midfielder in the country".

[Dave]

Still not a peep from the club over 24 hours after the story broke.  Obviously the attitude is "let's ignore it and hopefully the furore will go away".  Mushroom management again.

You can't expect the club to comment on every story that comes out. Besides, you're already convinced that he's on his way to Man City.

True, but in this instance I think they need to.  They made a big thing about announcing Delph had committed, with the video message and press conference the following day.  Its all starting to look like a patronizing publicity stunt.

So assuming that it is true, would the club coming out and saying "yes, it's true - he can leave for £10m" would that make you happier than you currently feel about the situation?

[Dave]

Hmm. John Percy does have more credibility than nursey. £8m clearly a lot better than zilch but it is a shockingly low fee. Quite an unusual situation - can't think of a similar instance elsewhere

Don't blame villa for agreeeing to such a clause during this season's negotiation. The mistake was letting it get to six months from the end of his contract in the first place!

Hopefully delph's mindset is to see how we do next year before making a decision.

its not the fee though, just the value of the release clause (if it's true), ie a minimum. Look at it like a reserve price in an auction. You'd expect a few clubs to be fighting for him, so the eventual transfer fee would hopefully be significantly higher than 8m.

No, we have to accept an £8m bid, therefore only an idiot would offer more. That's the point of a release clause.

lee & Duncan - I think you're both wrong on this, though happy to be corrected if I am wrong. We don't have to accept a bid for him from any club unless he wants to go there. For example Stoke or Southampton might offer 8m for him, but if he doesn't want to go to either of those clubs we don't have to accept the bids or sell him. I accept the point that the figure is disappointingly low if true, but in reality you would expect that a Stoke or a Southampton might put that kind of bid in, but then say Liverpool or city or whoever would say: we'll bid 12m for him. At the end of the day, it's up to the player to decide if he wants to leave and which club he goes to. I could see it working the other way and a 'big' club like city for example offering 8m for him and offering him say 200k a week for him to sign, so the money goes largely to the player. But the fact remains we don't have to accept a bid if he doesn't like that club.

No, you've got it the wrong way round.

With a buyout clause it's a not a case of us accepting or declining a bid. If a club meets the buy-out price, then they have the right to speak to the player and try and convince him to join them. We then sell him for the price that his contract stipulates. If West Brom do it, then they have the right to try and convince him to join them, but they probably wouldn't manage it so he stays. If Real Madrid do it then they'd probably convince him to go there so he leaves.

It's the exact same situation whether a club bids £8m, £20m or £100m - they still have the right to speak to him and convince him that he should join them, so there is no reason for them to bid more than the lowest figure necessary.

[ozzjim]

The only fly seems to be Liverpool flat refused to sell at the release clause in Suarez' contract when Aresnal came in for him.

[Dave]

The only fly seems to be Liverpool flat refused to sell at the release clause in Suarez' contract when Aresnal came in for him.

And if Suarez and Arsenal had decided to pursue the matter legally then Liverpool wouldn't really have had a leg to stand on.

For whatever reason they chose not to. I can't imagine that if we have agreed this with Delph and then refused to sell at the agreed price, he would be quite so placid about it.

[Matt Collins]

The only fly seems to be Liverpool flat refused to sell at the release clause in Suarez' contract when Aresnal came in for him.

My understanding was that It wasn't a release clause. It allowed him to discuss with other teams. Liverpool under no obligation to sell. But that might have been a false rumour.

[JJ-AV]

I don't know if the release clause is true or not, although I hope it isn't - but if it is then I'd feel really let down. I can see why they've done it, we needed a morale boost and it's protected their asset a little - but there's no denying it'd be hard to swallow if he swans out for £10m after what he said when the contract was signed.

[Dave]

The only fly seems to be Liverpool flat refused to sell at the release clause in Suarez' contract when Aresnal came in for him.

My understanding was that It wasn't a release clause. It allowed him to discuss with other teams. Liverpool under no obligation to sell. But that might have been a false rumour.

It was.

Read me if you want proof

Liverpool owner John Henry has admitted striker Luis Suarez had a £40m buy-out clause in his previous contract but that the club refused to sell anyway.

Arsenal bid a pound over £40m for the 27-year-old last summer, believing it would force the Reds into a sale.

"Arsenal offered £40m and one pound for him and triggered his buy-out clause," said Henry.

"Since apparently these contracts don't seem to hold, we took the position we're just not selling...

...speaking as part of a panel at the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference at the weekend, the 64-year-old American said: "I don't know to what degree I should go into this - but [Suarez] had a buy-out clause of £40m.

"But what we've found over the years is that contracts don't seem to mean a lot in England - actually not in England, in world football.

"It doesn't matter how long a player's contract is, he can decide he's leaving.

"We sold Fernando Torres for £50m. We didn't want to sell but we were forced to.

"For the first time [with Suarez] we took the position that we weren't selling.""

[JJ-AV]

Also, my feelings are it's probably true. Say what you want about red-top sports journalists, but they ain't just making something so specific up and putting their name to it. Nursey could have easily just ran a 'Delph to Citeh' story - still an 'exclusive' - but the talk of the clause makes me think there's got to be something in it.