http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... dfall.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Being reported in the Mail, so it may be a little out.

How does that work if they buy him back?

All the papers are rehashing the stories from September/ October time re Keane to Chelsea - then it was LVG f****d up with no sell on, until someone at United er yes we do - and that has been reported in the main as 25%.

Simple solution is to sell back to United who can bid a bit more than the others if they want him because of that 25% - we get more money - he goes to the club he loves - apart from him signing a new contract with us - best solution

Easy, if the Mail story is true, say Chelsea want to pay 40 million, United can waive their sell on and have him for 35 million. We get 5 mill more that we would have if we have to give them 10 mil of the Chelsea money, United get him and Chelsea don't. Everything is negotiable.

We will never know for sure.

Am I right in thinking if he signs a new contract all sell on fees etc become void?

It has to be remembered up to now Michael Keane is employed by B.F.C. may be waiting to see how Burnley are placed at the E.O. Season, he does seems really happy here, full of praise for S Dyche, and comes across as a level-headed lad, who always has a smile on his face, perhaps all this talk is false speculation at the moment, but maybe not, i hope the latter, as many more Supporters will, lets not open the door before the horse has Bolted!!

Quickenthetempo wrote:We will never know for sure.

Am I right in thinking if he signs a new contract all sell on fees etc become void?

No. Our contract with Man Utd will be unaffected by any changes in our contract with Keane.

It has also been standard practice in the past for Manchester United to have a 'first refusal' clause in an outgoing player's contract and I have been led to believe that's the case with Keane's contract as well.

'It is understood'
Is this the same as Sky Sports understands?

Tall Paul wrote:No. Our contract with Man Utd will be unaffected by any changes in our contract with Keane.

I seem to remember a player involved with us recently having clauses in a contract that stopped on when he signed another. Can't think who it was though. Maybe the 3 strikers who left or Tripps?

He will probably be able to at least triple his wages and get a 5 year contract if he goes in July (worth say £20m to him). If he stays and does not sign a new contract with us he can get a really massive signing on fee at a top club in July 2018 and we get nowt.

Sadly he will go at the end of this season in his and our best interests. Tarks imo is good enough to step up. We could have something like an extra net £25m minimum to invest into a replacement as back up and crucially into our strikeforce and right wing. This is on top of say £30m we can already invest if we stay up.

Goods news all round imo and we need to keep the conveyor belt going.

In a recent edition of the London Clarets journal "Something to Write Home About" , Dave Thomas reported that there was no sell-on clause in the Michael Keane contract. Maybe Sky Sports has not fully researched this issue.

We'll still get enough to drown ourselves in Benedictine.

Rollin in it.

Quickenthetempo wrote:I seem to remember a player involved with us recently having clauses in a contract that stopped on when he signed another. Can't think who it was though. Maybe the 3 strikers who left or Tripps?

I don't think you are even close to being correct here.

BedfordsDad wrote:In a recent edition of the London Clarets journal "Something to Write Home About" , Dave Thomas reported that there was no sell-on clause in the Michael Keane contract. Maybe Sky Sports has not fully researched this issue.

The problem is that Dave picks up snippets from the internet and takes them as fact when quite often it is far from the case. I've seen it very recently on a number of occasions with things that have had to be changed in his articles.

As for this one, the MEN did report some time ago that there was no sell on clause but they subsequently reported there was, and that's from the same publication.

Someone asked what would happen if they signed him back. That happened once before when Sheffield United had a sell on clause when they sold Billy Sharp to Scunthorpe. They bought him back so therefore got him cheaper than anyone else would.

........

No way on earth does a new contract negate the terms in the original to manyoo. Consider Keane as property (which in effect he is). The sell on clause of 25% acts as a deed on the property that still holds against the property regardless of any subsequent amendments.

Best if he stays with us then....keep it simple!

Just add 33% to what we actually want then 25 % off leaves us with a 100% of the amount we want.
It's all Monopoly money let's play the game

ClaretTony wrote:The problem is that Dave picks up snippets from the internet and takes them as fact when quite often it is far from the case. I've seen it very recently on a number of occasions with things that have had to be changed in his articles.

As for this one, the MEN did report some time ago that there was no sell on clause but they subsequently reported there was, and that's from the same publication.

Someone asked what would happen if they signed him back. That happened once before when Sheffield United had a sell on clause when they sold Billy Sharp to Scunthorpe. They bought him back so therefore got him cheaper than anyone else would.

Warren Joyce said there was no sell fee, perhaps Dave got it from there?

It's back to the base point that Joyce would have heard it from someone else.

I heard that LVG stopped the practice of automatically inserting a 'right to match other bids' clause (buy-back) but did not interfere with the practice of inserting 'sell-on' clauses.

It is almost certain that there will be a sell-on percentage in Keane's contract but we will not get to know how much because neither United nor us release such information normally.

bedfords wrote:It's back to the base point that Joyce would have heard it from someone else.

Bearing in mind he was his coach and still at united at the time iam sure he was as close as you could get to knowing what was going on himself

We can also insert our own 'sell on' clause, you know?

We all know he is going and good luck to him, he's been a fantastic servant to the club and we've got way above what we paid for him, even if he was to walk away for nothing.

As it is, we will turn a big profit and know that we've helped to develop him into an England international. Whilst it will of course help to strengthen us for next season, we need to be finding the next rough diamond for the conveyor belt and not justness thinking of spending it on a couple of first team players for the here and now (although that would of course be welcomed too).

At the time of him signing on full time for us he wasn't in the team from his loan spell so United might of thought the 3m fee was great for them.

I don't think many Burnley fans would of wanted us to pay more at the time.

Nobody actually seems to know whether there is one or not,so let's just agree that there isn't one until there Is proper proof otherwise

Grumps wrote:Bearing in mind he was his coach and still at united at the time iam sure he was as close as you could get to knowing what was going on himself

A football coach. Exactly my point.

ClaretTony wrote:The problem is that Dave picks up snippets from the internet and takes them as fact when quite often it is far from the case. I've seen it very recently on a number of occasions with things that have had to be changed in his articles.

Another thing he has in common with Donald Trump.

bedfords wrote:A football coach. Exactly my point.

Who has been closer to him than anyone at united.... Exactly my point

Grumps wrote:Who has been closer to him than anyone at united.... Exactly my point

Not sure why a coach would be privy to that kind of information.

Shappie wrote:How does that work if they buy him back?

I often thought the same if we bought back Jay Rod, Charlie or Danny - surely we must have a sell on.
In place on those 3.

Say it's 25% that makes it very good value v other clubs

Will be interesting to see what the bids are for Keane and from whom.
Everton are interested. That seems certain and more recently Liverpool.
Previously, I think Chelsea were too, Possibly ManU too.

It seems that if ManU came in for him then they could outbid most others
and may decide to bid just to up his price and their share, if it's 25%.

If Everton start the bidding at 20m and/or we say that 20m is the bottom line
then United could go to 25m knowing they'd get over 6m back.
Everton then may have to bid 25m or more if they really want him.
We could if it got silly end up getting nearer to 30m.
30m to United would be 22.5m.

That's close to a bargain given he may have another 10 years left of his playing career and
could turn out to be the best English centre-half in the Premier League.
Either way we stand to make at least 15m. 12m more than we paid.

Also worth bearing in mind what City paid for the vastly overrated Stones!

Nobody is paying 40 million for a player in his final year of contract. Stones had a long contract at Everton.

If he keeps his England place from now to getting sold he could go for 30m, but you don't pay that much for potential.

Bordeaux... My hair is nothing like Donald Trump's.

Bedfordsdad
I have looked it up and the quote goes back to October last year when i wrote int the magazine diary that
'Man U are allegedly kicking themselves that they never included a sell-on clause.'
Not quite the same as 'reporting' (as if it were a fact) that they did not include a sell-on clause... cos in fact I had no idea whether they had or not, and still don't.
And TS does sometimes edit a factual error which I am quite happy with... a wrong date... a wrong score...etc no problem with that

Rodleydave wrote:Bedfordsdad
I have looked it up and the quote goes back to October last year when i wrote int the magazine diary that
'Man U are allegedly kicking themselves that they never included a sell-on clause.'
Not quite the same as 'reporting' (as if it were a fact) that they did not include a sell-on clause... cos in fact I had no idea whether they had or not, and still don't.
And TS does sometimes edit a factual error which I am quite happy with... a wrong date... a wrong score...etc no problem with that

BedfordsDad has a capital D in it...innit!

thought I'd correct you before he does!

The problem is that Dave picks up snippets from the internet and takes them as fact when quite often it is far from the case.

You should have seen his facebook posts (before he either disappeared or unfriended me!) on stuff. He made Farage look like Fullfact.

His England appearances now mean that a buying club can no longer factor in 'potential' as a reason why they shouldn't pay full whack.