£27m for Wood - should we just pay it to MSD?

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
claretonthecoast1882
Posts: 6610
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:59 pm
Been Liked: 2498 times
Has Liked: 56 times

Re: £27m for Wood - should we just pay it to MSD?

Post by claretonthecoast1882 » Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:44 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:
Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:42 pm
It’s never been in dispute that the release clause was activated the dispute/doubt is when the contractual release clause was effective from, without being 100% sure but believing Simon Jordan & his sources I think at the earliest the clause could have been triggered is in the summer but in order for the transfer to be completed earlier we waivered that & received an excess on top. It’s never been in dispute that the clause was activated it’s when the clause was effective from.
If the clause wasn't effective in January it can't be activated

Jakubclaret
Posts: 6785
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 860 times
Has Liked: 604 times

Re: £27m for Wood - should we just pay it to MSD?

Post by Jakubclaret » Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:46 pm

claretonthecoast1882 wrote:
Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:44 pm
If the clause wasn't effective in January it can't be activated
The waiver was the mechanism.

RicardoMontalban
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:51 am
Been Liked: 99 times
Has Liked: 127 times

Re: £27m for Wood - should we just pay it to MSD?

Post by RicardoMontalban » Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:50 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:
Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:46 pm
The waiver was the mechanism.
So the clause wasn’t activated, NUFC just offered £5m more and we said “ok then”?

Seems much more likely that the amount they bid was what the release clause stated and thus activated, as the clubs said in the press release announcing the transfer and Dyche said in the press conference.

Jakubclaret
Posts: 6785
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 860 times
Has Liked: 604 times

Re: £27m for Wood - should we just pay it to MSD?

Post by Jakubclaret » Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:03 pm

RicardoMontalban wrote:
Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:50 pm
So the clause wasn’t activated, NUFC just offered £5m more and we said “ok then”?

Seems much more likely that the amount they bid was what the release clause stated and thus activated, as the clubs said in the press release announcing the transfer and Dyche said in the press conference.
Ok then, people are just making stories up for absolutely no reason coinciding with us desperate for cash that sounds far more plausible.

RicardoMontalban
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:51 am
Been Liked: 99 times
Has Liked: 127 times

Re: £27m for Wood - should we just pay it to MSD?

Post by RicardoMontalban » Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:11 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:
Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:03 pm
Ok then, people are just making stories up for absolutely no reason coinciding with us desperate for cash that sounds far more plausible.
So we can do away with this nonsense of mechanisms as and so on.

Jakubclaret
Posts: 6785
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 860 times
Has Liked: 604 times

Re: £27m for Wood - should we just pay it to MSD?

Post by Jakubclaret » Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:15 pm

RicardoMontalban wrote:
Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:11 pm
So we can do away with this nonsense of mechanisms as and so on.
I was referring to people telling false tales about release clauses being effective :roll:

RicardoMontalban
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:51 am
Been Liked: 99 times
Has Liked: 127 times

Re: £27m for Wood - should we just pay it to MSD?

Post by RicardoMontalban » Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:24 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:
Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:15 pm
I was referring to people telling false tales about release clauses being effective :roll:
Yes, I get that.

But what are these false tales, and who's making them? You mean the club saying the clause had been met, then Dyche repeating as much in every press conference / interview since? How do you know these are false?

Yet you believe Simon Jordan and Talksport who have nothing to back up their own claims.

Jakubclaret
Posts: 6785
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 860 times
Has Liked: 604 times

Re: £27m for Wood - should we just pay it to MSD?

Post by Jakubclaret » Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:44 pm

RicardoMontalban wrote:
Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:24 pm
Yes, I get that.

But what are these false tales, and who's making them? You mean the club saying the clause had been met, then Dyche repeating as much in every press conference / interview since? How do you know these are false?

Yet you believe Simon Jordan and Talksport who have nothing to back up their own claims.
Well apart from SJ & the people in & about football, CW when questioned about the release clause refused to clarify
if it was active or summer triggered, I don’t see why anybody wouldn’t clarify if it was just a straightforward active activation but on the other hand summer triggered I can perfectly understand the refusal, dyche hasn’t mentioned anything about the release clause apart from that it was activated which hasn’t been in any dispute in any shape or form. Maybe I’ve missed SD specifically saying that the release clause wasn’t effective in the summer.

claretonthecoast1882
Posts: 6610
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:59 pm
Been Liked: 2498 times
Has Liked: 56 times

Re: £27m for Wood - should we just pay it to MSD?

Post by claretonthecoast1882 » Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:47 pm

Just accept you backed the wrong horse in Jordan.

This is as dumb as your "alleged" stance on not going to games due to kneeling to 3 seconds prior to kick off or your wish for the public to decide a criminals punishment.

RicardoMontalban
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:51 am
Been Liked: 99 times
Has Liked: 127 times

Re: £27m for Wood - should we just pay it to MSD?

Post by RicardoMontalban » Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:55 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:
Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:44 pm
Well apart from SJ & the people in & about football, CW when questioned about the release clause refused to clarify
if it was active or summer triggered, I don’t see why anybody wouldn’t clarify if it was just a straightforward active activation but on the other hand summer triggered I can perfectly understand the refusal, dyche hasn’t mentioned anything about the release clause apart from that it was activated which hasn’t been in any dispute in any shape or form. Maybe I’ve missed SD specifically saying that the release clause wasn’t effective in the summer.
I've not seen anything that I'd regard as conclusive from SJ or anyone else on that side of the argument, but I have seen unequivocal comments from the club that state NUFC offered an amount that triggered the clause in CW's contract that meant he could listen to them and decide, and off he popped.

It's either activated or it isn't, none of this farting around with mechanisms or whatever else. It seems you absolutely are disputing this point.

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 18949
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 6257 times
Has Liked: 3542 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: £27m for Wood - should we just pay it to MSD?

Post by Lancasterclaret » Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:56 pm

Old people not admitting they are wrong is a real problem in the Uk today it has to be said
These 2 users liked this post: RicardoMontalban Jakubclaret

Jakubclaret
Posts: 6785
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 860 times
Has Liked: 604 times

Re: £27m for Wood - should we just pay it to MSD?

Post by Jakubclaret » Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:10 pm

RicardoMontalban wrote:
Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:55 pm
I've not seen anything that I'd regard as conclusive from SJ or anyone else on that side of the argument, but I have seen unequivocal comments from the club that state NUFC offered an amount that triggered the clause in CW's contract that meant he could listen to them and decide, and off he popped.

It's either activated or it isn't, none of this farting around with mechanisms or whatever else. It seems you absolutely are disputing this point.
It was activated before it should have been & waived in return for an higher fee I don’t understand what’s difficult to grasp?

quoonbeatz
Posts: 3139
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:03 am
Been Liked: 1818 times
Has Liked: 621 times

Re: £27m for Wood - should we just pay it to MSD?

Post by quoonbeatz » Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:12 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:
Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:44 pm
Well apart from SJ & the people in & about football, CW when questioned about the release clause refused to clarify
if it was active or summer triggered, I don’t see why anybody wouldn’t clarify if it was just a straightforward active activation but on the other hand summer triggered I can perfectly understand the refusal, dyche hasn’t mentioned anything about the release clause apart from that it was activated which hasn’t been in any dispute in any shape or form. Maybe I’ve missed SD specifically saying that the release clause wasn’t effective in the summer.
I refer you to my earlier post. The club, Dyche and Wood all confirmed the release clause was activated. Here's Wood saying it

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... id-burnley

Jakubclaret
Posts: 6785
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 860 times
Has Liked: 604 times

Re: £27m for Wood - should we just pay it to MSD?

Post by Jakubclaret » Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:14 pm

quoonbeatz wrote:
Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:12 pm
I refer you to my earlier post. The club, Dyche and Wood all confirmed the release clause was activated. Here's Wood saying it

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... id-burnley
That’s never been in dispute it’s when the release clause was effective from.

quoonbeatz
Posts: 3139
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:03 am
Been Liked: 1818 times
Has Liked: 621 times

Re: £27m for Wood - should we just pay it to MSD?

Post by quoonbeatz » Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:17 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:
Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:14 pm
That’s never been in dispute it’s when the release clause was effective from.
It was effective when he was sold. That's how it was activated. If it hadn't been activated, nobody would be talking about a release clause.

claretonthecoast1882
Posts: 6610
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:59 pm
Been Liked: 2498 times
Has Liked: 56 times

Re: £27m for Wood - should we just pay it to MSD?

Post by claretonthecoast1882 » Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:18 pm

quoonbeatz wrote:
Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:17 pm
It was effective when he was sold. That's how it was activated. If it hadn't been activated, nobody would be talking about a release clause.
Yeah but Simon said ........

quoonbeatz
Posts: 3139
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:03 am
Been Liked: 1818 times
Has Liked: 621 times

Re: £27m for Wood - should we just pay it to MSD?

Post by quoonbeatz » Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:20 pm

Of course. Been about 40 years since I've played that game, no wonder I'm rusty.

dsr
Posts: 13064
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 3867 times
Has Liked: 1677 times

Re: £27m for Wood - should we just pay it to MSD?

Post by dsr » Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:22 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:
Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:42 pm
It’s never been in dispute that the release clause was activated the dispute/doubt is when the contractual release clause was effective from, without being 100% sure but believing Simon Jordan & his sources I think at the earliest the clause could have been triggered is in the summer but in order for the transfer to be completed earlier we waivered that & received an excess on top. It’s never been in dispute that the clause was activated it’s when the clause was effective from.
The difference is this.

If the release clause was activated, then the release clause was met and we had no choice to sell.

If the release clause did not apply during the current window, then there was no active release clause at all. the release clause was not activated, and Burnley sold because they wanted to.

I think what you might have in mind is that Newcastle agreed to pay the sum of money mentioned in the release clause. That is irrelevant to this discussion. The point at issue is whether Burnley had a choice of whether to sell or not, and for that point, it makes no difference whether Newcastle offered £100m or half a crown.
This user liked this post: Jakubclaret

RicardoMontalban
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:51 am
Been Liked: 99 times
Has Liked: 127 times

Re: £27m for Wood - should we just pay it to MSD?

Post by RicardoMontalban » Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:29 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:
Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:10 pm
It was activated before it should have been & waived in return for an higher fee I don’t understand what’s difficult to grasp?
What is this absolute nonsense?

Tall Paul
Posts: 6861
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:07 am
Been Liked: 2428 times
Has Liked: 634 times

Re: £27m for Wood - should we just pay it to MSD?

Post by Tall Paul » Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:32 pm

Nonsense is what it is. Best thing is just to drop it and let Jakub carry on living in his own little fantasy world.

RicardoMontalban
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:51 am
Been Liked: 99 times
Has Liked: 127 times

Re: £27m for Wood - should we just pay it to MSD?

Post by RicardoMontalban » Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:38 pm

Guess I'm just fascinated by their one-poster crusade against logic.

Rileybobs
Posts: 12638
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 5101 times
Has Liked: 1141 times
Location: Leeds

Re: £27m for Wood - should we just pay it to MSD?

Post by Rileybobs » Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:47 pm

:lol: is this still going?

evensteadiereddie
Posts: 8163
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:45 pm
Been Liked: 2636 times
Has Liked: 8008 times
Location: Staffordshire

Re: £27m for Wood - should we just pay it to MSD?

Post by evensteadiereddie » Mon Jan 24, 2022 5:23 pm

Brilliant, innit ? :lol:

TheFamilyCat
Posts: 8769
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:56 pm
Been Liked: 4420 times
Has Liked: 153 times

Re: £27m for Wood - should we just pay it to MSD?

Post by TheFamilyCat » Mon Jan 24, 2022 5:58 pm

evensteadiereddie wrote:
Mon Jan 24, 2022 5:23 pm
Brilliant, innit ? :lol:
Even by Jakub's standards.

Post Reply