StringerBell Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Loan agreed with purchase clause in it... At that point he was a guy who Hull didn't want, didn't think was good enough and had a poor loan spell at Forest... Hence the assumption that the fee agreed would be lower...And as I've said before, from Hulls point of view what would be the point in inserting a clause unless said clause was for more than what he's worth?Why would Hull not wait until the loan spell was over to see how successful it was before reassessing their value? And thereby possibly starting a bidding war between several clubs and maximising their profit?What purpose does a clause serve when the clause is the actual value of the player? If that's the case, why bother with a clause? Just transfer list him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernRam Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 The only reason we have Tom at the price we do is because it was a written in clause in the loan. Just because we've agreed to meet it doesn't mean Hull will agree to sell him on for that to Newcastle. The likelihood is they'll try and squeeze another £1.5-2 million out of McC****n. I have confidence that he'll be ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenwichRam Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 And as I've said before, from Hulls point of view what would be the point in inserting a clause unless said clause was for more than what he's worth?Why would Hull not wait until the loan spell was over to see how successful it was before reassessing their value? And thereby possibly starting a bidding war between several clubs and maximising their profit?What purpose does a clause serve when the clause is the actual value of the player? If that's the case, why bother with a clause? Just transfer list him.Guaranteed income vs the possibility of losing him for nothing next season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernRam Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I'm a bit sceptical about stories linking necastle to ince. I heard they were after Charlie Austin. I agree - I've seen reports saying the Geordies are after Carroll, Austin and Berahino but little that isn't on Twitter or 'ere about Ince. I think Nixon is actually right - if it's not agreed today, should be done by Monday right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringerBell Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Guaranteed income vs the possibility of losing him for nothing next season? They still could lose him for nothing next season. Ince doesn't have to go anywhere if he doesn't want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheron85 Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 It's like you've never played FM...And as I've said before, from Hulls point of view what would be the point in inserting a clause unless said clause was for more than what he's worth?They would have inserted the clause based on what they thought he was worth AT THE TIME... 6 months ago his value was MUCH less than it is now after the successful spell with us...Why would Hull not wait until the loan spell was over to see how successful it was before reassessing their value? And thereby possibly starting a bidding war between several clubs and maximising their profit?Because at the time they just simply wanted rid of him... I can't imagine THEY suggested the fee... we probably did... They agreed to it because they wanted to get him out, playing and took a gamble over whether we'd bother to then sign him or not... What purpose does a clause serve when the clause is the actual value of the player? If that's the case, why bother with a clause? Just transfer list him.Because (again) value at the time vs value now is different... at the time they probably thought £xxx was a good price for him... NOW they're looking and saying "bloody hell... he's worth a LOT more than £xxx... how stupid were WE?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenwichRam Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 They still could lose him for nothing next season. Ince doesn't have to go anywhere if he doesn't want to. Of course, but if they have an agreed price and a club the player wants to be at, it reduces the chances of that happening significantly. As a counterpoint, I doubt that Derby would agree to a clause that would cause us to pay more than he was perceived to be worth at the time- we'd be better off making a bid at the end of the loan spell if we still wanted him. (Though the wisdom of inserting that clause before they realised he was good is certainly showing now!!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringerBell Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 It's like you've never played FM...They would have inserted the clause based on what they thought he was worth AT THE TIME... 6 months ago his value was MUCH less than it is now after the successful spell with us...Because at the time they just simply wanted rid of him... I can't imagine THEY suggested the fee... we probably did... They agreed to it because they wanted to get him out, playing and took a gamble over whether we'd bother to then sign him or not... Because (again) value at the time vs value now is different... at the time they probably thought £xxx was a good price for him... NOW they're looking and saying "bloody hell... he's worth a LOT more than £xxx... how stupid were WE?"Ince has effectively had 6 months in the premier league with Palace. It's not necessarily his fault that Hull have hardly played him and reasons why are speculative. Hull don't even play a formation that has Ince's position in it. I'd say it's extemely harsh to say he's substantially depreciated in value considering his form for Blackpool, a club he only stopped playing for just a year before he joined us. Also, Hull got Ince at a very good price. It went to tribunal and I'd be pretty pissed off I was Blackpool. Can you imagine how we'd feel if we got £2.3 million for Hughes? So I don't buy this idea that Hull are only interested in making their money back. Why would Hull not consider that Ince might have a successful loan spell? Why would they only want to make their money back when he's worth a lot more than they paid for him in the first place? Why would they not want to maximise their profit? Without a clause what would stop them from selling to other teams? And since when did teams start putting clauses for players' actual value rather than more than their value? If we get him I reckon it'll be a biggish amount of money. Local media seems to think so too. I'm hoping to be proved wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posh Ram Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 If not for success in his loan with us, he'd potentially be looking at a lower mid Championship club now, and people are labeling him a failure for his time with Hull. How is a move to Newcastle in any way a good move for him. Here he has a chance to be a key player, and win promotion as a key player. There he risks ending up 2nd or 3rd choice. He gets paid more at Newcastle, and his Dad will be telling him that he's good enough to be first choice. Plus he fit well in Mac's system, which he will probably put in place again at Newcastle. All those things trump the chance he might be a key player in a side that might win promotion, imo. Money and prestige are more powerful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TroyDyer Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Stuck at Liverpool and never got a kick. Went to Blackpool became a regular, scored goals and became a hero. Stuck at Hull and never got a kick. Went to Derby became a regular, scored goals and became a hero. Stuck at New...I hope this pattern isn't lost on the lad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringerBell Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Of course, but if they have an agreed price and a club the player wants to be at, it reduces the chances of that happening significantly. As a counterpoint, I doubt that Derby would agree to a clause that would cause us to pay more than he was perceived to be worth at the time- we'd be better off making a bid at the end of the loan spell if we still wanted him. (Though the wisdom of inserting that clause before they realised he was good is certainly showing now!!) There's no guarantee we'd want him if the loan wasn't much of a success. Surely we'd only want him if he did well and if he did well then surely other clubs would be noticing too? If Hull have any sense they'd factor that in.I think we might spend more than he's worth if we were thinking we'd be promoted (and this is only more than he's worth because of his contract situation- he's Rhodes/McCormack quality at this level). But we weren't promoted and in the Glick days this would never happen but now Mel Morris is on board who knows?The different reports of the agreed amount from each end is weird though. If there's an agreed amount there's an agreed amount. Are we haggling despite there being a clause? Negotiating over instalments maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam the Ram Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 The only reason we have Tom at the price we do is because it was a written in clause in the loan. Just because we've agreed to meet it doesn't mean Hull will agree to sell him on for that to Newcastle. The likelihood is they'll try and squeeze another £1.5-2 million out of McC****n. I have confidence that he'll be ours. Or Hull think, they can lose him to a promotion rival or they can accept the same offer from Newcastle and lose him to a team they won't have to worry about this season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curtains Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Or Hull think, they can lose him to a promotion rival or they can accept the same offer from Newcastle and lose him to a team they won't have to worry about this season? I understand we have the first option and it's not up to Hull if we meet the agreed buy out clause price but it depends of course on Tom wanting to come to Derby McClaren might persuade him to go to Newcastle though and then we are snookered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenwichRam Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 There's no guarantee we'd want him if the loan wasn't much of a success. Surely we'd only want him if he did well and if he did well then surely other clubs would be noticing too? If Hull have any sense they'd factor that in.I think we might spend more than he's worth if we were thinking we'd be promoted (and this is only more than he's worth because of his contract situation- he's Rhodes/McCormack quality at this level). But we weren't promoted and in the Glick days this would never happen but now Mel Morris is on board who knows?The different reports of the agreed amount from each end is weird though. If there's an agreed amount there's an agreed amount. Are we haggling despite there being a clause? Negotiating over instalments maybe?From the reports I've seen I think the instalments vs upfront payment could be an issue. Saying that, everything in the media at this stage is conjecture, so who knows if we've even agreed a price! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 If there are Derby fans daft enough to think Ince isn't a benefit to the team, imagine all the ****** oop North who will think he's rubbish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringerBell Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 From the reports I've seen I think the instalments vs upfront payment could be an issue. Saying that, everything in the media at this stage is conjecture, so who knows if we've even agreed a price! Another consideration over whether we would agree to a clause that was worth more than the players value (again I reiterate because of the contract situation not the players ability) is the reports we were prepared to shell out £5 million for McCormack last year. We couldn't compete with the relegated teams and their parachute money and the recently promoted teams with their premier league money. Maybe from Derbys point of view this clause is an attempt to get such a quality player without being gazzumped. I don't know the details of the clause though and if this Newcastle rumour is true then it would seem other clubs can still bid more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheron85 Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Ince has effectively had 6 months in the premier league with Palace. It's not necessarily his fault that Hull have hardly played him and reasons why are speculative. Hull don't even play a formation that has Ince's position in it. I'd say it's extemely harsh to say he's substantially depreciated in value considering his form for Blackpool, a club he only stopped playing for just a year before he joined us. Also, Hull got Ince at a very good price. It went to tribunal and I'd be pretty pissed off I was Blackpool. Can you imagine how we'd feel if we got £2.3 million for Hughes? So I don't buy this idea that Hull are only interested in making their money back. Why would Hull not consider that Ince might have a successful loan spell? Why would they only want to make their money back when he's worth a lot more than they paid for him in the first place? Why would they not want to maximise their profit? Without a clause what would stop them from selling to other teams? And since when did teams start putting clauses for players' actual value rather than more than their value? If we get him I reckon it'll be a biggish amount of money. Local media seems to think so too. I'm hoping to be proved wrong.I'm not claiming they'll 'just want their money back'... I'm saying that in January when a fee was agreed it would have been at a lower rate than his value now... a year of being seen as a 'Premier League flop' will have damaged his value (which btw a tribunal set at £2.3m...A player's value is based entirely on how many people are prepared to pay a certain fee for them... After a year in the relative wilderness his value would have dropped (I suspect maybe around £4m?) whereas after a good half season with us his value will probably be higher (£6m+) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Sagan Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 He knows McClaren rates him and will play him. If Ashley is prepared to fork out, then I imagine we will lose out. Of course this is one of the reasons why our strong organization as a club and ability to move sooooo quickly at the beginning of the close season is a good thing. Were we able to tie Ince up before others got around to sniffing around, it would be a massive coup. My sense here is we weren't quite fast enough, but I hope I'm wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringerBell Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I'm not claiming they'll 'just want their money back'... I'm saying that in January when a fee was agreed it would have been at a lower rate than his value now... a year of being seen as a 'Premier League flop' will have damaged his value (which btw a tribunal set at £2.3m...A player's value is based entirely on how many people are prepared to pay a certain fee for them... After a year in the relative wilderness his value would have dropped (I suspect maybe around £4m?) whereas after a good half season with us his value will probably be higher (£6m+)£4 million? I could see that happening. Apologies if I lumped you in with those that were saying they could see this being £2-3 million tops. (edit - 3-3.5 million. Definitely heard the 'make their money back' comment somewhere though)Yes his value will have depreciated, but not by too much in my opinion. I'm aware of the tribunal and I think Blackpool got ripped off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curtains Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 He knows McClaren rates him and will play him. If Ashley is prepared to fork out, then I imagine we will lose out. Of course this is one of the reasons why our strong organization as a club and ability to move sooooo quickly at the beginning of the close season is a good thing. Were we able to tie Ince up before others got around to sniffing around, it would be a massive coup. My sense here is we weren't quite fast enough, but I hope I'm wrong.I think you are right I think McClaren and Newcastle will gazump us .All depends on Tom and his dad Paul. Paul he'd be better off at Derby IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.