| Greetings and welcome to The Football Net. We love talking balls, do you? You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. Therefore you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, take part in the banter, vote in polls and enjoy fun competitions such as fantasy football and the betting exchange. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join us today on our football forums to talk balls with us! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Phil Jones | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 8 2011, 10:07 AM (3,618 Views) | |
| TheReturnOfTheKing | Jun 11 2011, 09:44 PM Post #166 |
|
Definitely NOT a Terrorist
|
June 11, 2011 By Harry Harris, Football Correspondent Blackburn Rovers are conducting an internal investigation into how Manchester United became aware of Phil Jones' £16 million so-called 'get-out clause' to leave the club. Rovers sources of a belief that Manchester United must have had sight of the contract, or indeed been told of the contract, to be so specific about what is contained it in the contract. Rovers' advisers believe the clause is open to interpretation and the club's Indian owners do not wish to sell the player, and will not sell at the price being offered. Venky's accept that Jones was entitled to inform the club that he wished to talk to Manchester United, or any club, who are prepared to evoke the clause, but Blackburn's lawyers dispute that the clause means that legally the club are obliged to sell their player for the set price. Blackburn are contesting whether the clause that triggers the ability for Jones to talk to a club that offers £16 million also means that they are must accept the fee, or that they are entitled to ask for more money if other clubs are prepared to pay more. Blackburn want more for Jones and if United don't offer more, will refuse to sell. As Jones has rejected overtures from Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurs, Blackburn know they will struggle to provoke an auction as rival bidders believe they are wasting their time on a players whose heart is set on a move to Old Trafford. That has left United and Rovers in a stand-off position, which insiders inform ESPNsoccernet could be resolved on Monday with some kind of compromise offer from Manchester United. If United continue to refuse to up their price then the issue might even result in Blackburn asking the Premier League how private and confidential contractual details were obtained by Manchester United. ESPNsoccernet believes that if United increased their offer to £20 million with some bolt-on additions then Blackburn will relinquish their legal arguments and avoid a Premier League complaint. The Jones transfer has become one of the most messy deals of this summer as Blackburn contest the validity of get-out clauses in players' contracts. It will also mean that the football authorities will need to look closely at the strength of get-out clauses and how confidential they can remain, or whether they have outlasted their usefulness, if they can produce disputes such as that has mushroomed between United and Blackburn. ESPNsoccernet broke the story on Thursday that the Jones move to Manchester United was halted over over a dispute about the players' valuation. Yet, for 24 hours the media continued to report that the deal was going through without any hitch as both clubs kept the dispute firmly under wraps. The player has already passed his medical and agreed personal terms with United, which normally happens after the clubs have agreed a fee. Premier League rules state that a player can only talk to a club and go through with the transfer procedures once a fee is agreed. Manchester United would argue the fee was already set, but Blackburn are vehemently contesting that interpretation's validity. http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story/_/id/927644/jones-transfer-to-manchester-united-dispute-ramped-by-rovers?cc=5901 |
| no | |
|
|
| Dotty | Jun 11 2011, 09:49 PM Post #167 |
![]()
Stuck up bastard
|
Does it matter if Utd got wind of the release clause from a 3rd party source? |
|
|
| Papa_Lazarou | Jun 11 2011, 09:51 PM Post #168 |
|
Randolph
|
Depends what they did - if they got that information and then went directly to the player, therefore bypassing Blackburn, surely it would technically be tapping up?
|
![]() Oppa Papa Style | |
|
|
| FLOPP'D | Jun 11 2011, 09:52 PM Post #169 |
![]()
The King in the North
|
I'm so ITK these days
|
![]()
| |
|
|
| Monty | Jun 11 2011, 09:52 PM Post #170 |
![]()
I'm a naughty boy
|
His agent maybe? How the fork does any club find out about a release clause? Arsenal met the clause too btw. Blackburn are shooting themsleves in the foot here. They are making themselves out to look like a bunch of mugs. They are p***ing off their best asset, how will he feel if at this stage his dream move is canceled on him because of winker owners? |
|
|
| Dotty | Jun 11 2011, 09:54 PM Post #171 |
![]()
Stuck up bastard
|
Isn't that just a formality though? You know there's a release clause so you approach the player in full knowledge that the bid will be accepted no matter what. |
|
|
| Jeffers | Jun 11 2011, 09:55 PM Post #172 |
|
Ginger Prince
|
didnt Liverpool first go in for the buy out then United went in also? |
| "I don't play against a particular team. I play against the idea of losing." - Cantona | |
|
|
| Papa_Lazarou | Jun 11 2011, 09:56 PM Post #173 |
|
Randolph
|
Even so, would you not need to get the bid officially accepted by the club before opening talks with the player? Assuming it will be/has to be accepted shouldn't make the formal procedure of a transfer null and void. Assumption is the mother of all fork ups
Edited by Papa_Lazarou, Jun 11 2011, 09:56 PM.
|
![]() Oppa Papa Style | |
|
|
| FLOPP'D | Jun 11 2011, 09:56 PM Post #174 |
![]()
The King in the North
|
We were in talks with Blackburn, that's how we found out. You dirty cheating bastards went straight to the player like slimeballs. According to rumour anyways
|
![]()
| |
|
|
| Chelsea Rent Boy | Jun 11 2011, 09:57 PM Post #175 |
![]()
Jose is God
|
Sounds to me Blackburn have forked up with the release course and are trying to get as much money out of Utd |
| |
|
|
| stacie | Jun 11 2011, 09:59 PM Post #176 |
|
Dipped in chocolate, bronzed with elegance
|
Wasn't this clause common knowledge anyway? |
|
flak and gary love stacie and weep sorrowful tears when she's not around | |
|
|
| Dotty | Jun 11 2011, 09:59 PM Post #177 |
![]()
Stuck up bastard
|
In general yes. But if there is a set amount that a bid has to 100% be accepted at then surely waiting for confirmation from the selling club is a mere formality since there is only one answer? |
|
|
| stacie | Jun 11 2011, 10:02 PM Post #178 |
|
Dipped in chocolate, bronzed with elegance
|
I'm with you. Have a chocolate button. |
|
flak and gary love stacie and weep sorrowful tears when she's not around | |
|
|
| Papa_Lazarou | Jun 11 2011, 10:02 PM Post #179 |
|
Randolph
|
Indeed, but it doesn't remove the need FOR that formality. I very much doubt Blackburn could make anything stick, just trying to see how/why they would complain. |
![]() Oppa Papa Style | |
|
|
| stacie | Jun 11 2011, 10:03 PM Post #180 |
|
Dipped in chocolate, bronzed with elegance
|
This is the bit I don't get about the clause thing and it seems, the bit that is causing the confusion. Does evoking the clause mean that Blackburn have to let the player go or does it mean that Blackburn have to let the player go at that price? |
|
flak and gary love stacie and weep sorrowful tears when she's not around | |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Barclays Premier League · Next Topic » |









8:02 PM Jul 11