RD saying that Fulham to probably take disciplinary action against our Chris Martin

[G STAR RAM]

3 minutes ago, rynny said:

Why? Did Liverpool tap up Ibe when they cut his loan short?

Because that is the definition of tapping up. 

Ibe was on a youth loan which could be ended at any point for him to return to his parent club.

Martin signed a season long loan with no recall clause as far as I am aware but may be wrong.

[rynny]

1 minute ago, G STAR RAM said:

Because that is the definition of tapping up. 

Ibe was on a youth loan which could be ended at any point for him to return to his parent club.

Martin signed a season long loan with no recall clause as far as I am aware but may be wrong.

What about Ince then? No mention of Hull being in the wrong when we had agreed a fee to buy him. Wasnt he even training with them?

[Ghost of Clough]

I believe the deal included an option for Martin to return during this transfer window if all three parties agreed. We spoke to Martin and found he wants to return. He is under contract with us and has been offered an improved deal. Seems reasonable to me and IS NOT tapping him up.

[PistoldPete2]

1 hour ago, toddy said:

Because he is under contract to Fulham till June.

You know it might have been..... we told Martin's agent that we are going to offer him a pay increase and a longer contract, hoping at the end of the season we can temp Martin back, knowing he is on a season long loan that offer would be in June. Maybe Martin decided he didn't want to wait till June and done what he's done, now that actually make sense on what may have happened.

Still does hide the fact that he is a silly boy and didn't take advice before refusing to play for Fulham.

Martin is a derby player with 18 months left on his Derby contract, just like will hughes. If we have (and there no confirmation from Derby that we have) offered martin a contract extension, then that is only the same as we've done with hughes and certainly something we are perfectly entitled to do. It's not tapping up at all, if indeed it's true that we've offered an extended contract. 

[G STAR RAM]

14 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

I believe the deal included an option for Martin to return during this transfer window if all three parties agreed. We spoke to Martin and found he wants to return. He is under contract with us and has been offered an improved deal. Seems reasonable to me and IS NOT tapping him up.

If that is correct I will agree but I am not sure there was any option for him to return in the transfer window, if there was then it was certainly not reported as I recall.

[G STAR RAM]

59 minutes ago, rynny said:

What about Ince then? No mention of Hull being in the wrong when we had agreed a fee to buy him. Wasnt he even training with them?

I don't remember the ins and outs of that deal. If it was in the contract that we had the option to buy him then they were in the wrong.

I personally think the way we have gone about our business in recent times paints us in a bad light.

If we get the players then all well and good but I imagine it comes at a cost to the club.

[rynny]

8 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I don't remember the ins and outs of that deal. If it was in the contract that we had the option to buy him then they were in the wrong.

I personally think the way we have gone about our business in recent times paints us in a bad light.

If we get the players then all well and good but I imagine it comes at a cost to the club.

We did, agreed the fee for a summer transfer, Hull dug their feet and Bruce didn't want to sell but it ultimately came down to Ince and that is the same with Martin. 

http://m.hulldailymail.co.uk/hull-city-fight-derby-county-tom-ince/story-26657838-detail/story.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3149264/Tom-Ince-4-75m-sale-Derby-County-leaves-Hull-manager-Steve-Bruce-livid.html

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11714/9899631/tom-ince-holds-talks-over-hull-future-with-derby-and-newcastle-interested

[G STAR RAM]

8 minutes ago, rynny said:

We did, agreed the fee for a summer transfer, Hull dug their feet and Bruce didn't want to sell but it ultimately came down to Ince and that is the same with Martin. 

http://m.hulldailymail.co.uk/hull-city-fight-derby-county-tom-ince/story-26657838-detail/story.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3149264/Tom-Ince-4-75m-sale-Derby-County-leaves-Hull-manager-Steve-Bruce-livid.html

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11714/9899631/tom-ince-holds-talks-over-hull-future-with-derby-and-newcastle-interested

Agreeing something and being contractually obliged to something are 2 completely different things though in my opinion.

[toddy]

4 hours ago, rynny said:

As @Tombo says it is not tapping up. Tapping up is when you do not have permission to talk to a player. We own his documents, all teams talk to their players who are out on loan, do you think Boro will ignore De Sart from the rest of the season? Do you think Chelsea ignore all their players out on loan? Do you think we haven't been speaking to Kelle Roos?

No, but you forget it's a loan deal with a perm deal at the end of the season for an already agreed amount contract with Fulham.

It is not just a loan deal.

[rynny]

1 minute ago, toddy said:

No, but you forget it's a loan deal with a perm deal at the end of the season for an already agreed amount contract with Fulham.

It is not just a loan deal.

So as I have already said what about the Ince deal?

[toddy]

3 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

I believe the deal included an option for Martin to return during this transfer window if all three parties agreed. We spoke to Martin and found he wants to return. He is under contract with us and has been offered an improved deal. Seems reasonable to me and IS NOT tapping him up.

Factually incorrect, it is a season long loan, with a contract to buy him for a agreed amount in June.

[toddy]

2 minutes ago, rynny said:

So as I have already said what about the Ince deal?

Ince was on loan. There was a contract to buy.

[BuckoBeast]

Just get him back 

[rynny]

18 minutes ago, toddy said:

Ince was on loan. There was a contract to buy.

And Bruce didn't want to sell they dug their heels in and made it as difficult as possible and Bruce had talks with Ince, even after we had agreed to pay the amount that they had set in the loan terms.

[Ghost of Clough]

35 minutes ago, toddy said:

Factually incorrect, it is a season long loan, with a contract to buy him for a agreed amount in June.

http://m.derbytelegraph.co.uk/chris-martin-responds-to-question-about-his-derby-county-future/story-29852791-detail/story.html

"This could only happen during the January transfer window and, it is understood, would need the agreement of all three parties - the Rams, Fulham and Martin."

This seems to suggest I may be correct 

[BondJovi]

So Martin has two contracts? Does that mean neither club can talk to him? So is the term loan an actual cover for Martin having signed an agreement to sign a contract for Fulham when the loan expires.

In football you can get out of nearly all deals if you so wish. But I am amazed that some on here "know" the exact details of the loan. Codswallop.

[Mr Tibbs]

42 minutes ago, toddy said:

Factually incorrect, it is a season long loan, with a contract to buy him for a agreed amount in June.

Do you know that's a fact? 

Seems a bit odd you've gone down that road, unless you're Sam Rush of course. 

[AndyinLiverpool]

4 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

I believe the deal included an option for Martin to return during this transfer window if all three parties agreed. We spoke to Martin and found he wants to return. He is under contract with us and has been offered an improved deal. Seems reasonable to me and IS NOT tapping him up.

But all three parties do not agree so that should be the end of the matter. 

As Meatloaf said, two out of three ain't bad. 

What he would have said here is that two out of three ain't enough. 

[Mr Tibbs]

9 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

But all three parties do not agree so that should be the end of the matter. 

As Meatloaf said, two out of three ain't bad. 

What he would have said here is that two out of three ain't enough. 

There would be no transfers in football if it was that simple Andy. All three parties initially don't agree with the majority of transfers. 

[Alph]

Not really interested in the Martin debate anymore but you know how "tapping up" used to be like a major thing? It's much less so now

Contracts between players and clubs are much more complex than sorting out a transfer deal. 

So if you want to buy a player you don't put a bid in. You make contact with the players representatives and see what sort of deal they have in place. Then you go to the club with a bid. 

Whether this is legal or not I haven't been arsed to look. But I do know it's the way things are done. 

Otherwise it's a waste of time thrashing out a deal with the club to find the player has a contract you can't possibly offer him. 

I'd imagine most contracts forbid the player from personally speaking to another club. But an agent will be free to negotiate.