Bid rejected for Clarke

[Sons of The Wear]

You must be logged on to see media items

You must be logged on to see media items

He's the biggest fanny on Twitter like. Wasn't he crying when they got taken over?

His arrogance is staggering.

Never forget.

 

[MickeyV]

Burnley will not be chasing Clarke exclusively. They will have other targets in mind.
They will be aware of any buy out clauses in respective players contracts.
If they meet the clause in Clarke's contract then the club will be obliged to let him and his agent negotiate with them.
They are a well run club and will stick to their budget. So our best hope of keeping JC is that they sign a player to fill his prospective spot for a fee that then allows them to pursue other targets for different positions.
He will leave though, if the money is right for us and the contract is right for him.

Is there one?
In my opinion, if we sell Clarke a replacement for him and the striker we need to buy to make our squad competitive, will total at least £10m
To get that from Clarke's sale, the fee would have to be north of £20m, because Spurs have a 40% sell-on-clause (I believe) and we have already paid them £2 or 3m. So to put enough in the kitty to fund our progression we need £20m and everybody and their agent should be made aware of this.

 

[Grimes]

Well, that's your definition of the job as opposed to whoever is setting his remit. If he wasn't doing as asked, you would assume he would be pulled for it, no?

Job title should be amended with a decrease on pay I would suggest to Sky.

 

[sir rowell cummins]

Maybe yesterday’s headline was a last go from Clarkes agent to get some publicity prior to the rumour having no credibility after they signed others. Loses his bargaining tool/ opportunity for a bonus if people drop out.

 

[Georgewhitt]

Think where going to have to get used to selling top players unfortunately, it's clearly the model that we have, sign young players develop them and sell them on for a profit, will break some hearts If he left but he wont be the last

Why is it clear?
When have we done that since KLD has been majority shareholder?
Just because we develope young players, doesn't mean we drop our pants at the first shitty offer that comes along.
People just make stuff up sometimes.

 

[offmenut]

Without wanting to be incredibly controversial, im not sure he's said owt wrong there.

He's a bit hypocritical.
A couple of yrs back when safc were premier league and nufc in the championship, he still concentrated on nufc

 

[Qwerty]

Think where going to have to get used to selling top players unfortunately, it's clearly the model that we have, sign young players develop them and sell them on for a profit, will break some hearts If he left but he wont be the last

The vast majority of clubs sell their best players and we're no different. However the fee is the important bit. We don't have to sell so can hold out for a good offer. If the offer is big enough and the money helps the club great. If it's not we've still got Clarke.

 

[SAFC Wilks]

Job title should be amended with a decrease on pay I would suggest to Sky.

It’s a fair point like, rarely tweets about anything other than Newcastle. It’s as if other North East teams don’t exist.

 

[seedysafc]

Downie needs to start getting a hard time whenever his bosses force him to come to the SOL. He shouldn't be let through the door.

 

[nandos sonic sauce]

The same colback that was playing in the premier League while Sunderland entertained league 1?

Aye the lad who put his hands up and making the 3 0 sign, after one of our derby wins at your place, and laughing his head off (I can't find the pic, if anyone can help?) The one you called the Ginger Pirlo, but then couldn't get him off your wage bill, on 40 or 50 grand a week at the time, Aye that one

 

[Fools]

Aye the lad who put his hands up and making the 3 0 sign, after one of our derby wins at your place, and laughing his head off (I can't find the pic, if anyone can help?) The one you called the Ginger Pirlo, but then couldn't get him off your wage bill, on 40 or 50 grand a week at the time, Aye that one

Aye that's him yep he was a prem player while yous nose dived through the league's. Canny player on his day

 

[nandos sonic sauce]

Logon or register to see this image

Aye that's him yep he was a prem player while yous nose dived through the league's. Canny player on his day

Aye but his day was a Monday, and you played on a Saturday. Newcastle fan through and through, as you could tell after one of them 3 nil Derby wins. I can't remember which one

 

[essex boy]

20m. If Lewis Potter cost that then that should be the benchmark for Clarke. You've got likes of Bristol city putting valuations of 20m for Scott aswell. About time got a really good worthwhile fee for somebody.

I am no expert on setting fees for players but Soctt has had two consistent seasons in the Championship. Clarke has had one. Scott is only 19 and Clarke is 22 so three less years left on his career in theory

I am not expressing a view btw on the prices themselves as I think Clarke is worth just as much if not more as scoring goals is the hardest part of football

 

[woodlebert]

Without wanting to be incredibly controversial, im not sure he's said owt wrong there.

He doesn’t need to be in the camp for our tour but he hasn’t reported on it - or our signings bar Bellingham (iirc). It’s quite literally his job

 

[nandos sonic sauce]

Aye that's him yep he was a prem player while yous nose dived through the league's. Canny player on his day

He never made one single appearance for you in the Prem after we were relegated, so to say he was I the prem while we nosedived through the leagues , is a bit of an odd comment. He was loaned to Forest in the Championship

 

[Coeus]

He doesn’t need to be in the camp for our tour but he hasn’t reported on it - or our signings bar Bellingham (iirc). It’s quite literally his job

Apparently not.

 

[Coeus]

Right

You're telling me you know his job better than him and his employers?

 

[Joebaker1]

Is there one?
In my opinion, if we sell Clarke a replacement for him and the striker we need to buy to make our squad competitive, will total at least £10m
To get that from Clarke's sale, the fee would have to be north of £20m, because Spurs have a 40% sell-on-clause (I believe) and we have already paid them £2 or 3m. So to put enough in the kitty to fund our progression we need £20m and everybody and their agent should be made aware of this.

Given Clarke's age and the length of contract he signed with us then there will almost certainly be a buy out clause.
It protects us and him.
He signed knowing that we will listen to offers above a certain threshold. If he plays well and an offer comes in above the threshold and that interests him then he is free to discuss.
SAFC signed knowing that if other clubs are interested in taking him then they have to meet the asking price or we are not obliged to consider the offer.
We still then have the opportunity to improve his terms as part of the negotiation if an acceptable offer comes in from another club.
I would guess that a lot of our young players have a similar clause.

 

[Georgewhitt]

Given Clarke's age and the length of contract he signed with us then there will almost certainly be a buy out clause.
It protects us and him.
He signed knowing that we will listen to offers above a certain threshold. If he plays well and an offer comes in above the threshold and that interests him then he is free to discuss.
SAFC signed knowing that if other clubs are interested in taking him then they have to meet the asking price or we are not obliged to consider the offer.
We still then have the opportunity to improve his terms as part of the negotiation if an acceptable offer comes in from another club.
I would guess that a lot of our young players have a similar clause.

So to summarise, lots of words for you to end up saying you don't know.

 

[Joebaker1]

So to summarise, lots of words for you to end up saying you don't know.

Total speculation on my part.