• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Jhon Lucumi - Transfer Rumour

John J Rambo said:
I'm certainly not complaining about us spending money here, but does seem little odd we're now apparently offering more than his original release clause.
Click to expand...

Why? The clause would have been written when he signed his contract and now they may value him higher. If we didn't get it done in time then we are starting from scratch again with regards to the fee.
 

brains said:
Why? The clause would have been written when he signed his contract and now they may value him higher. If we didn't get it done in time then we are starting from scratch again with regards to the fee.
Click to expand...
Because my understanding of a release clause, is that if you meet it, however much club want to keep him they can't stop him.
 
John J Rambo said:
Because my understanding of a release clause, is that if you meet it, however much club want to keep him they can't stop him.
Click to expand...
The club deliberately let the release clause deadline run out, so they can negotiate a better price, he has a year left and time is running out for bologna to get any money for him and the upping our offer to more than the release clause price at this moment is conjecture!
 
Super Colin Todd said:
The club deliberately let the release clause deadline run out, so they can negotiate a better price, he has a year left and time is running out for bologna to get any money for him and the upping our offer to more than the release clause price at this moment is conjecture!
Click to expand...
Aye why i said apparently. Just sharing an opinion and thought.
brains said:
Yes, if you do it whilst it is valid. If it expires then it's no longer applicable.
Click to expand...
Aye, so why I originally said if true, we could have had him for less. Haway Brains 😂
 
Last edited:
Fetch Fletch said:
We could have But we would have to pay one lump sum.

This way we spread the cost over 5 years.
Click to expand...
I think that the more likely reason for allowing the release clause deadline to elapse was because it fell within a different accounting period for calculating the rolling three years losses. Given the club has arranged a line of credit, I doubt that the 'lump-sum' issue was prohibitive.
 
John J Rambo said:
I'm certainly not complaining about us spending money here, but does seem little odd we're now apparently offering more than his original release clause.
Click to expand...
Will be paid differently I’d have thought mate, from what I gather with those release clauses it’s pretty much a lump sum. This will be broken down into add ons etc I’d have thought.
 
John J Rambo said:
I'm certainly not complaining about us spending money here, but does seem little odd we're now apparently offering more than his original release clause.
Click to expand...
It’s already been said a few times that the release clause would have needed to be paid in full upfront. This allows us to spread the cost or include add ons.
 
LineTrash said:
It's also conjecture that he wants to come to SAFC.
Click to expand...
we might not get him, considering who his agent is.....

"On the personal side of the deal, Lucumí is reportedly "keen" on the move, and Sunderland already has a history with Lucumí's agency, as he is with
You must be logged on to see external links
, who also represent three current Sunderland players - Simon Moore, Dennis Cirkin and Dan Neil."


You must be logged on to see external links
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top