Lescott [Merged]

[cityman14364]

cheers dontshootme about time we had 1 efc fan if you have to come in here speaking properly.. time will tell.. i still think if we hold the registration hes our player with the option or not.. but i`ll take your word for it ,seem to have facts on it

 

[Anonymous]

yes but they seem to think they have us over a barrel regarding his transfer i mean why would city hand everton a contract giving them all the power over one of our players transfer it does not make sense and would not happen.

EFC fan again - I'm trying to stay out of these arguments due the bile flying around, but in the hope of defusing at least one: according to reports, Everton do indeed have the right to exercise an option on Jo, IF the player agrees. If Jo wants to stay at City there's nothing Everton can do about it.

Everton have done a bunch of these deals. Yobo, Arteta and Pienaar were all signed on this type of loan, where Everton had the right to sign the player if they desired. (In fact in Arteta's case, Everton DIDN'T exercise the option, but instead renegotiated a lower price, which scared the hell out of everyone for a few weeks). There's been a load of players we didn't sign permanently after these loans (Castillo last season for example).

Why would a club like City sign away this right? Quite simply, we pay for it. For example, we paid £1m for Pienaar's loan, with a £2.5m agreed fee. If we didn't sign him, Dortmund would have got the £1m fee, saved on his wages, AND got the player back. If, like Pienaar did, he has a great season, obviously it looks like great business. If not...well, do you remember Rodrigo? No? Exactly. That cost us £1m too.

The mentions of contract law are a bit bizarre, since these things happen all the time in the real world. Think buy options on borrowed shares, or a lease of land with an option to buy. There's no reason at all you can't set a price for an asset in advance.

I hear what you're saying but there's two things you need to be aware of...

Firstly, Everton didn't pay a "loan fee" for Jo. Neither are you paying all of his wages. There is a "set fee" in the contract, but as I said earlier, it's a right of first refusal. It still hinges on City wanting to sell they player. If they choose to keep him there's nothing Everton can do. And as I stated earlier, the manner in which the relationship between the two clubs has deteriorated, and some of the bile which has spewed forth from Moyes' mouth, suggest to me that City may not do business with Everton on principle...

Then again, I don't envisage Jo setting the premiership alight at Everton this season anyway...

 

[irelands_hair09]

we need him but it is unlikely that he will come unless in sheikh does a massive bid

 

[Marvin]

That sounds reasonable

Jo has certainly got the technique, but he just didn't impose himself on games while he was at City. Got no problem with Everton fans coming on here as long as the discussion is OK.

Moyes comments about City showing Everton a lack of respect have raised the tension, but it's very difficult for fans to know whether the deal has been conducted the right way. It's perfectly reasonable to make bids for a player, and it wasn't City who made the deal public. Sky seem to have been forewarned of City's interest, and perhaps that was what Moyes objected to. We have no real way of knowing, but I don't think there's been anything that bad. Looks like this saga is coing to a close now anyway, but the rivalry will continue, because it seems we are destined to battle for 5th place if not higher.

 

[dontshootme]

yes yes but you HAVE NOT paid a loan fee for jo.WHY does yhis not seem to sink in?

I don't know if that's true or not (do you have a link?) but even if it is, we have agreed to take on most of his wages. He's on what, £60k a week? So if you didn't loan him out, you'd be paying him £3m this year. It's not like anybody else will take on his wages. Taking on £2m+ in wages and not paying a loan fee is effectively the same thing as taking on £1m in wages and paying a £1m loan fee, isn't it?

The reports at the time (for example the guardian here: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jul/07/jo-signs-everton-loan-deal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009 ... -loan-deal</a>) say there's an option to buy.

 

[dontshootme]

There is a "set fee" in the contract, but as I said earlier, it's a right of first refusal. It still hinges on City wanting to sell they player. If they choose to keep him there's nothing Everton can do.

What do you base that on? What is the point of agreeing a fee in advance if one side can back out? What is the difference between having the fee in the loan agreement and not bothering at all? You may as well put a clause in there saying we can sign Robinho for 20p, unless City decide not to, right?

All the language in the media suggested it was Everton's option to exercise. This would be consistant with the 8-10 other loan deals we've done over the Moyes period.

Then again, I don't envisage Jo setting the premiership alight at Everton this season anyway...

That, we agree on.

 

[Blue Si O.B]

yes yes but you HAVE NOT paid a loan fee for jo.WHY does yhis not seem to sink in?

I don't know if that's true or not (do you have a link?) but even if it is, we have agreed to take on most of his wages. He's on what, £60k a week? So if you didn't loan him out, you'd be paying him £3m this year. It's not like anybody else will take on his wages. Taking on £2m+ in wages and not paying a loan fee is effectively the same thing as taking on £1m in wages and paying a £1m loan fee, isn't it?

The reports at the time (for example the guardian here: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jul/07/jo-signs-everton-loan-deal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009 ... -loan-deal</a>) say there's an option to buy.

oh well if the papers say so it must be true, unless it comes from our o.s i wont believe a word you say on the matter.<a class="postlink" href="http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Team-news/2009/July/Jo-goes-out-on-loan" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Team-news/20 ... ut-on-loan</a>
this is all our o.s says.

 

[Anonymous]

yes yes but you HAVE NOT paid a loan fee for jo.WHY does yhis not seem to sink in?

I don't know if that's true or not (do you have a link?) but even if it is, we have agreed to take on most of his wages. He's on what, £60k a week? So if you didn't loan him out, you'd be paying him £3m this year. It's not like anybody else will take on his wages. Taking on £2m+ in wages and not paying a loan fee is effectively the same thing as taking on £1m in wages and paying a £1m loan fee, isn't it?

The reports at the time (for example the guardian here: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jul/07/jo-signs-everton-loan-deal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009 ... -loan-deal</a>) say there's an option to buy.

Actually, it's not the same at all. Paying a "loan fee" ensures a player cannot be recalled - however as far as I'm aware, to reach that stage a club must first agree to pay 100% of the player's wages. For example, if Everton agreed to pay 100% of Jo's wages, plus a loan fee of even 10k - this would ensure that City could not recall him. By not paying 100% of his wages, Everton run the risk of the player being recalled.

Neither of these have any bearing on the "set fee" which may be in the loan agreement. As I said earlier, this is simply a right of first refusal if City choose to sell next summer. Everton could NEVER force City to sell if we didn't want to...

 

[fanny hugger]

I was referring to this comment

"You get consitantly smaller crowds than us.
Your ground is falling to bits-and Tesco ain't rushing to build a new one....."

All correct statements.

I was under the impression it was called in by the government. So this is wrong.
Anyway grow the fuck up. Your like a gang og bloody kids. I can pee higher up the wall than you. No you cant. pathetic and childish

 

[Blue Si O.B]

All correct statements.

I was under the impression it was called in by the government. So this is wrong.
Anyway grow the fuck up. Your like a gang og bloody kids. I can pee higher up the wall than you. No you cant. pathetic and childish

at least i can spell "of" lol