The NSNO Everton Forums

AjaxAndy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 9:32 am 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.

If we’re honest, you’re dismissive because it seems to be a character trait. Every thread you’re telling people why they’re wrong and never move an inch and it just makes the threads a bit of a chore. People are making assumptions about the deal same as you. But apparently all the other assumptions are incorrect as you know Daniel Levy and proofread the contract pre-signing.

I reckon we’d all agree that there’s zero chance of him being kept on past the original agreement anyway?

Why would we release him on a free then sign him back?

Why wouldn’t we just simply renew the contract?

superpull wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 12:54 pm 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.

Correct, and I'm thinking City had to do the same with Stones too but might be wrong.

It's definitely a thing though.

I don't know the legalities behind releasing and resigning instead of renewing, but I'd imagine if there's a clause about renewing they'd be smart enough to cover that base too.

Bob Sacamano wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 1:12 pm If we’re honest, you’re dismissive because it seems to be a character trait. Every thread you’re telling people why they’re wrong and never move an inch and it just makes the threads a bit of a chore. People are making assumptions about the deal same as you. But apparently all the other assumptions are incorrect as you know Daniel Levy and proofread the contract pre-signing.

I mean someone else has given an example of when a contract renewal has triggered further payments... You gave Pistone as an example.

You can try and paint my interactions however you want, but the fact is your example didn't make any sense in the context of contract renewals triggering payments for a player, so not really sure how else you expected me to respond.

Unless you just need me to agree with you regardless, which seems an odd desire.

AjaxAndy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 1:48 pm Correct, and I'm thinking City had to do the same with Stones too but might be wrong.

It's definitely a thing though.

I don't know the legalities behind releasing and resigning instead of renewing, but I'd imagine if there's a clause about renewing they'd be smart enough to cover that base too.

If we released and then resigned a month later, we wouldn't owe Spurs a penny.

But clubs don't want to act the cunt like that as nobody would ever negotiate with them in good faith again.

AjaxAndy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 1:51 pm I mean someone else has given an example of when a contract renewal has triggered further payments... You gave Pistone as an example.

You can try and paint my interactions however you want, but the fact is your example didn't make any sense in the context of contract renewals triggering payments for a player, so not really sure how else you expected me to respond.

Unless you just need me to agree with you regardless, which seems an odd desire.

Thought an example of re-signing a free agent was a fair thing to bring up considering Dele would in fact be a free agent when his contract expires. If we released him and signed him on fresh terms of wouldn’t necessarily mean he’s having his contract renewed.

I didn’t quote your original post in hope that it wouldn’t end up in yet another Andy vs the world thread. I posted an example of what I thought would be a similar situation if we ended up releasing a player then re-signing them later in the window.

Bob Sacamano wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 2:11 pm Thought an example of re-signing a free agent was a fair thing to bring up considering Dele would in fact be a free agent when his contract expires. If we released him and signed him on fresh terms of wouldn’t necessarily mean he’s having his contract renewed.

I didn’t quote your original post in hope that it wouldn’t end up in yet another Andy vs the world thread. I posted an example of what I thought would be a similar situation if we ended up releasing a player then re-signing them later in the window.

Ok well I'm happy to end the convo seeing as you seem to want to make it about your perception of my intent / personal.

At the end of the day you believe we could release Dele and resign him without incurring any additional fee... I don't believe that would be a loop hole Spurs wouldn't have tied down.

Neither of us are lawyers and I doubt either could say with certainty if that would be classed as re-signing or renewing, or if there even is a difference in those terms.

You sit one side of that fence, I sit the other.

It's all pure speculation anyway as we have no clue what's in his current contract

Surely we only pay spurs if we renew his contract.

If we release him, then sign him again (which is very unlikely) then we won’t owe spurs a fee as why would you even think that would happen?

Probably best to wait and see if he can kick a football still before worrying about most of this.

Fuck it, get rid and sign Pistone again.

TheRam wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 2:55 pm Surely we only pay spurs if we renew his contract.

If we release him, then sign him again (which is very unlikely) then we won’t owe spurs a fee as why would you even think that would happen?

As I said above, that's absolutely something we *could* do, but no club *would* do.

You'd be fucking yourself over for every player you ever tried to sign in the future with add-ons

We also don't know if there's a time-frame set on the appearances. It could well stipulate 20 league appearances in 2 years rather than 'remainder of contract'.

It's silly to speculate really.

superpull wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 2:08 pm If we released and then resigned a month later, we wouldn't owe Spurs a penny.

But clubs don't want to act the cunt like that as nobody would ever negotiate with them in good faith again.

You'd probably end up in court "spirit of the law"

Clubs could just sign players sell them to a third party and then re sign them and avoid all clauses. There does have to be a level of trust with these clauses. People have to what was intended when the clauses were agreed