I don’t know about better, I think Oaqueta is incredibly talented, but I think Bruno is a better target. His skill set is rarer - there’s not many players who can play 6 and 8 equally well and be creative from deep and around the box.
Wingers/Attacking midfielder hybrids are common as muck really, there’s a new £100m one every year.
Rodri-Bruno-Foden could be a midfield until 2030.
He has a release clause of £100m so we wouldn't have to deal with them at all if we were willing to pay the fee.I'd imagine Newcastle wouldn't be easy to deal with from a financial aspect.
He has a release clause of £100m so we wouldn't have to deal with them at all if we were willing to pay the fee.
Surely if there is a release clause in the contract the selling club can’t ignore it.Release clause mean very little if the selling club completely ignores said clause. Harry Kane was on up until Spurs completely dissmissed the sale.
Liverpool did. Villa took their time with Jack Grealish. Newcastle United's owners were not completely stupid when they renewed Bruno Guimarares' contract. Josko Gvardiol's tranfer didn't instantaneously happen either.Surely if there is a release clause in the contract the selling club can’t ignore it.
In Kanes case there were no release clause, just gentlemans agreement between him and Levy and Levy shat on that agreementRelease clause mean very little if the selling club completely ignores said clause. Harry Kane was on up until Spurs completely dissmissed the sale.
Still didn't happen. The selling club always has a say. Same with us and Bernardo Silva.In Kanes case there were no release clause, just gentlemans agreement between him and Levy and Levy shat on that agreement
Not with a release cause they don't. We'd obviously have to still persuade the player to come though.Still didn't happen. The selling club always has a say. Same with us and Bernardo Silva.
I saw no evidence that Harry Kane had a release clause. He claimed to have a gentleman's agreement with Levy. You can't ignore a contractual release clause it is legally binding.Release clause mean very little if the selling club completely ignores said clause. Harry Kane was on up until Spurs completely dissmissed the sale.
would depend on need to get bookdFrom limited viewing I just prefer the Newcastle player. When England played Brazil recently, I thought Paqueta was a bit of a liability - not ability wise, just he looked often reckless and from memory could well have been sent off. He seems to get away with a lot of niggling and intentional fouling.
Both a similar age so nothing in that. I'd imagine Newcastle wouldn't be easy to deal with from a financial aspect.
Would agree with this if in the contract but think it then moves on to when the payments are made - cash up front , spread over life of contract etc. Would imagine every buying club would want a discount for up front payments whilst the sellers want the cash up front without the discount. Think this is the dance that takes place under these circumstances.Surely if there is a release clause in the contract the selling club can’t ignore it.
I saw no evidence that Harry Kane had a release clause. He claimed to have a gentleman's agreement with Levy. You can't ignore a contractual release clause it is legally binding.
It looked on until the selling club pulled the plug. Newcastle can do the same to a player who has a good amount of time left on his current dealI saw no evidence that Harry Kane had a release clause. He claimed to have a gentleman's agreement with Levy. You can't ignore a contractual release clause it is legally binding.
Because in simple terms he is still under contract at NewcastleRay does seem to be biting back at the release clause part doesn’t he?
Not if he has a release clause and the buying club match that they can't.It looked on until the selling club pulled the plug. Newcastle can do the same to a player who has a good amount of time left on his current deal
Newcastle can still dismiss the bid. Same with Harold Kane.Not if he has a release clause and the buying club match that they can't.
No they can't if he has a release clause. We are simply responsible for making the payment to Newcastle that the contract stipulates. There is contract law that clubs have to follow here. They can't just do whatever they feel like. If he doesn't have a release clause then it is a different matter.It looked on until the selling club pulled the plug. Newcastle can do the same to a player who has a good amount of time left on his current deal
No, they can't. That is the point of a release clause. Kane didn't have a release clause.Newcastle can still dismiss the bid. Same with Harold Kane.