Jump to content

Jackson Irvine - Signed for Hull City

Nuwtfly

By Nuwtfly
in Transfer Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 401
  • Created
  • Last Reply
cannable

cannable

Posted
Posted
On 27/07/2017 at 14:37, Gandalf's shin pads said:

My take on Irvine is if he is not significantly better or does not do anything different than we already have, don't spend the money. Who from Butterfield, Johnson, Bryson, Huddlestone and Thorne would he displace? 

 

He's a more energetic BJ, so him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cannable

cannable

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, PodgeyRam said:

Buy-out clauses aren't simply down to the club. Players tend to ask for them to be put in, with lower clauses being better for the player.

£1.2 million doesn't mean that Clough thinks that's all he's worth.It means that when Irvine was signed that's as low as they were willing to go for a release clause.

In an ideal world I'm sure Clough would've slapped a £5 million release clause on him, but if the player isn't going to agree to it, there's no point, as they won't sign and you'll miss out on one of your top targets.

I reckon that's the situation that occurred when Bryson was give a ridiculous £750,000 release clause. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ronnieronalde

ronnieronalde

Posted
Posted
On ‎27‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 22:35, gccrowdpleaser said:

It's not a stupid comment and there is still no relevance. A buy out clause is not a valuation on the player themselves. It's an indication of what a club feels it will cost to replace that player in the event that they are sold. 

I also didn't say he isn't any good. The direct quote is that he is 'bang average'.  There are tens of bang average players in the Championship. Some are worth less than that. Some are worth more. 

I'm saying that had he not scored against Derby he wouldn't get so much as a mention. I'm also saying that Burton happily committed to a contract where they believe they can adequately replace him for 1.2million. 

That's not strictly true. They "happily" committed to a contract whereby the release clause was seen as a decent return on investment and protection of their asset.

Nowt to do with how much it'll cost to replace, I can pretty much guarantee Burton won't be forking out 1.2m on a player to replace him. I'd take a punt at between 350-500k max.

I'd say it's more to do with the fact his agent had a clause in at Ross County that allowed him to leave for 300k and wanted a clause in his Burton contract as well. What's good for the goose is good for the gander so to speak. Burton got him cos of his release clause, it wouldn't be fair on the player to deny that clause and I've a feeling that was probably one of the key reasons Burton got him.

Come down put yourself in the window, do a job for us and we won't stand in your way. Typical NC approach to player recruitment.

He's worth more than 1.2 in todays market but I'd still say if Bryson joined the brewers on loan, it would be a step up player wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ronnieronalde

ronnieronalde

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, Cardifframs said:

Apparently 50% of fee goes to ross county

Can't see the sell on figure being as high as that Cardiff. 

It's typical to see somewhere between 10 and 25% Surely NC wouldn't have gone for a 50% cut on a 1.2m release clause.

That would mean Ross County make more profit on this deal than Burton do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...