Dele

[Shogun]

I mean, the fact is that our best and most important player already plays in his position.

[blueToffee]

He's not a Spurs player though, he's ours... His contract is with us, so if we 'sign' him after it expires we aren't actually signing him as he's already our player.

The clause (which I worded badly) will be that if we renew his contract we pay x amount. Which is what we'd be doing if we have him a contract after this one expires.

My question was really how do you know there is this clause in his contract?

Again, this isn't my wheelhouse but I still don't really get how they'd be any stipulations on any deal when he's a free agent. Wouldn't renewing mean we've not let the contract lapse, as in we put him on a new deal before the current deal expires? If he's a free agent and he's no longer anybody's player then we're not renewing technically speaking are we?

[blueToffee]

I mean, the fact is that our best and most important player already plays in his position.

I feel this has gone done a bit of a wormhole as we don't even know at this point if he'd be worth signing again, but theoretically if he was worth a punt it's always good to have options in that area I suppose. Our bench although improved from consisting of 3 keepers a year ago is still a bit lightweight.

First things first though is seeing if he even gets a runout without getting more injuries, if he's any good (in general) and if he fits into Dyche's system. The latter is really what has me intrigued...he could actually fit quite well if motivated/fit/etc etc. We shall see.

[Cods]

Not my speciality either but couldn't the clause be binding (if it exists) if it were to state something along the lines of:

a) for the term of the contract, if Everton play Dele in x# of games, then Everton are liable to pay Spurs £x

b) and if Everton at any point re-sign Dele, (after this initial term ends, and effectively implying a further accumulation of appearances) then Everton are due to pay Spurs £x


Re sell-on clauses. In a similar scenario, a small club (Chester) may receive a windfall after their former young player, years after leaving that club, let's say, 'accumulates 20 international matches',... If the contract stipulates it, a payment will be due to the selling club (Chester City), from the purchasing club (Middlesbrough), even if they've since transferred to another club (Real Madrid) and earned these appearances whilst there. I don't think the purchasing club (Middlesbrough) can avoid paying (Chester) by claiming the player no longer plays for them, unless the contract is deemed to be particularly onerous. The initial contract term has effectively ended yet there is still compensation due.

Slightly different, but in certain industries contracts can to an extent restrict employees working in a similar field in the future, even after the employee has left that employer. Restrictive covenant clauses can impact what an employee can do after their contract has ended, for example, not actively work for a competitor in a similar field that may involve them using their knowledge or skills in regard to : sensitive market/financial information, IP, client bases, etc.

[74Blue]

Let's say he plays a few cup games U23 games and enough PL games this season without triggering the first £10m clause and shows signs of getting back to the player that he was. Assuming the 777 takeover goes through, what's to stop one of 777's other clubs signing him on a free in the Summer and then selling him to is in January for a.nominal fee. Spurs would then be entitled to fuck all. Whichever of the clubs signed him would effectively get a free player for the first half of the season as they could effectively sell him to is in January for whatever they have shelled out in wages, so a couple of million quid.

[777Kidnappings]

A free agent is a free agent as far as I know. You’re so dismissive of other opinions it’s hard to be bothered about the discussion tbh.

We paid money for barry after his city deal expired

[sam of the south]

Let's say he plays a few cup games U23 games and enough PL games this season without triggering the first £10m clause and shows signs of getting back to the player that he was. Assuming the 777 takeover goes through, what's to stop one of 777's other clubs signing him on a free in the Summer and then selling him to is in January for a.nominal fee. Spurs would then be entitled to fuck all. Whichever of the clubs signed him would effectively get a free player for the first half of the season as they could effectively sell him to is in January for whatever they have shelled out in wages, so a couple of million quid.

And then cue a rule change and another points deduction

[TheRam]

We paid money for barry after his city deal expired

He was on loan and in the last year of his deal.

We have bought Dele from Spurs so it’s different.

[Bob Sacamano]

We paid money for barry after his city deal expired

I don’t know what either contract says or if the same person copy and pasted Gareth Barry’s contract and used the “find & replace” feature on MS Word and swapped their names.

[AjaxAndy]

My question was really how do you know there is this clause in his contract?

Again, this isn't my wheelhouse but I still don't really get how they'd be any stipulations on any deal when he's a free agent. Wouldn't renewing mean we've not let the contract lapse, as in we put him on a new deal before the current deal expires? If he's a free agent and he's no longer anybody's player then we're not renewing technically speaking are we?

It was mentioned at the time of him signing... There were loads of clauses behind just appearances, as the appearance clauses only count for something like £20m of the £40m fee.

[AjaxAndy]

A free agent is a free agent as far as I know. You’re so dismissive of other opinions it’s hard to be bothered about the discussion tbh.

I'm dismissive because Pistone's transfer isn't comparable to Dele's, if you'd offered an example that was I'd not have dismissed it

Pristine wasn't signed on some mad deal with a boat load of clauses based an a myriad of factors coming to fruition.

[TheRam]

I'm dismissive because Pistone's transfer isn't comparable to Dele's, if you'd offered an example that was I'd not have dismissed it

Pristine wasn't signed on some mad deal with a boat load of clauses based an a myriad of factors coming to fruition.

To be fair, giving money to another team to renew a players contract is something most of us have never heard of.

As far as I’m aware, the clauses are all go do with appearances and performances add ons.

[777Kidnappings]

He was on loan and in the last year of his deal.

We have bought Dele from Spurs so it’s different.

The agreement was if we signed him after the loan we had to pay City even though at that time he wasn't a city player.

No one knows what the clauses are but he's only been with us 2.5 years. So if it was 20 and 40 league games it's extremely unlikely to be 60 and 80 for the other 20m purely because he'd have to play every game to trigger them all. I'd be surprised if after 2.5 years we can just renew him at no cost and all the clauses have expired

It's all a bit of a daft debate anyway. He's been awful for years. He's not fit. Get rid of the sentiment. Get him a loan in Jan and let him find a new club in the summer

[74Blue]

And then cue a rule change and another points deduction

The Premier League have met and discussed this sort of scenario literally within the last few weeks. We were one of the rebel.clubs who voted against banning loan deals between two clubs under the same ownership. If we can't buy players.from clubs under the same ownership,.even better. They can sign him on a free and then loan him straight to Everton on a season long loan with no loan fee and then jist keep loanong him to us until his contract is up. There is absolutely nothing in the Premier League rulebook to stop this AND they can't even say that it's a.topic that has never come about because it's already been discussed and voted for by all 20 clubs. If the PL just decided to change the rules.again, that would definitely give Everton grounds to take them to CAS.

Watford have been manipuating the loan rules for a few years with the Pozzo family owning a.few.clubs. if you go back to last time they were promoted, there was a bit of a hoo-hah about the number of players that they had on loans from other Pozzo owned clubs and how it gave them an unfair advantage when it camr to the stricter P&S rules in the championship. It blew up for a.lottle bit, rhen disappeared when the EFL realised that they had not actually broken any rukes.

[superpull]

United had to pay us for Rooney when he signed a new contract with them.

It is absolutely an existing and established clause in a contracts.