• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Bid rejected for Clarke

HoxtonMackem said:
No proof that any offer was even made in the first place.

That 'article' (does it even count as one?) is utter gash.

On a serious note, £25m should be the minimum we'd consider for him.

This.

They've made some of the big money clubs (Spurs, Chelsea) look like utter idiots in the process.

The real success story of the season.
Click to expand...
Villa up there too mind, Brighton were stable villa looked like a club in turmoil when stevvvvvie was given the boot, to qualify for Europe after that start and the turmoil is crazy achievement.
 

Rizla said:
A player like Clarke can be the catalyst for promotion, he is vital to us and the way we play. A promotion that increases revenue by 170 million at least, so I reject the argument that a 10 to 15 million profit represents a goid deal. It simply doesn't and the fact that a number of PL teams are interested tells you that he is seen as a cut above championship level.

The idea that we go out and buy 5 quality players is fanciful, it doesn't work like that. There are no guarantees these players are out there, that they will perform and more crucially the club definitely are not in the business of lumbering themselves with relatively expensive new signings on decent contracts who become a millstone around the neck.

Clarke is proven at this level, can help us go up and we should do everything to keep him.
Click to expand...

You’ve completely missed the point.

As I said the club likely don’t want to sell, but their hands are tied. If the most we can offer the lad I’d say 30k based on ffp, and a prem team want to offer him say 60 or maybe even more, whilst paying us 20 million, its less than we’d probably want, but realistically, 20 million, with 15 million to reinvest. Or 0 with a player we’ve refused an addition 30 to 40 grand a week.

If Jack Clarke is happy to stay the club and us as fans will be absolutely buzzing, but can you blame him for not?

If a company offered to double your wage and pay your current company a hefty compensation for taking you, would you be pissed off if you couldn’t go? I certainly would be regardless of how happy I am.

Money rules football, and frankly ya can’t blame any party, it’s the way it is.
 
Rizla said:
A player like Clarke can be the catalyst for promotion, he is vital to us and the way we play. A promotion that increases revenue by 170 million at least, so I reject the argument that a 10 to 15 million profit represents a goid deal. It simply doesn't and the fact that a number of PL teams are interested tells you that he is seen as a cut above championship level.

The idea that we go out and buy 5 quality players is fanciful, it doesn't work like that. There are no guarantees these players are out there, that they will perform and more crucially the club definitely are not in the business of lumbering themselves with relatively expensive new signings on decent contracts who become a millstone around the neck.

Clarke is proven at this level, can help us go up and we should do everything to keep him.
Click to expand...

Personally, I'd sell for 25. While the lad has had an excellent season, I think that money in the right hands provides both a better opportunity for a stronger squad and for further value to be created.

Rather than lumbering themselves with decent contracts, I imagine the idea would be too find 5 new Clarkes but slightly further along from a far larger pool.
 
jesus juice said:
In an ideal world aye for sure, but a better player than Clarke for half the price in the championship? Not likely to be honest.

We will sell if we get a much bigger offer IMO.
Click to expand...
It doesn't necessarily need to be a one-for-one replacement, though. Of course ideally you get a new player as good as the one who left. However, so long as the replacement is 'good enough', you improve the team by also spending in other areas. Best example off the top of my head is Liverpool selling Coutinho and bringing in Van Dijk and Salah. Not direct replacement, but a much stronger team overall
 
Why would Villa be in for him, I doubt they are going to spend around 20M on him to take them closer to the FFP limit when they already have Buendia, Traore, Duran, Coutinho, Bailey and are about to sign Asensio.
 
He's certainly worth more than £9m, but the £25m everyone is talking about is complete pie in the sky.

It doesn't matter what figures for other players you quote, Clarke isn't going to fetch anything like £25m.

The fact three different clubs have all made bids of around the £9m mark gives you a clear picture of what his market value is perceived as. This will be partly influenced by the fact he is perceived to have already failed once at a big club as well as some unsuccessful loan spells.

We all rate him really highly after watching him every week, but whether it's fair or not, those things do have an influence. I'm sure by driving a hard bargain the bidding could go a lot higher, but clubs aren't going to nearly triple their offer.

Personally I can't see anyone bidding up the price to a high enough level where it would be the right decision to sell him, assuming he does indeed have 3 years left on his contract.
 
woodlebert said:
European football
Click to expand...
Funny how Emery was waxing lyrical about about attacking play last week in his press conference. If they are in for him then it's a no brainer. Plus, they are spending a boat load of £££ this summer apparently.
Super Ted said:
Why would Villa be in for him, I doubt they are going to spend around 20M on him to take them closer to the FFP limit when they already have Buendia, Traore, Duran, Coutinho, Bailey and are about to sign
Click to expand...
It's already been said on various stations that Villa are going big this summer on spending.
 
Last edited:
Why would Villa be in for him, I doubt they are going to spend around 20M on him to take them closer to the FFP limit when they already have Buendia, Traore, Duran, Coutinho, Bailey and are about to sign Asensio.
 
Hulkster said:
He's certainly worth more than £9m, but the £25m everyone is talking about is complete pie in the sky.

It doesn't matter what figures for other players you quote, Clarke isn't going to fetch anything like £25m.

The fact three different clubs have all made bids of around the £9m mark gives you a clear picture of what his market value is perceived as. This will be partly influenced by the fact he is perceived to have already failed once at a big club as well as some unsuccessful loan spells.

We all rate him really highly after watching him every week, but whether it's fair or not, those things do have an influence. I'm sure by driving a hard bargain the bidding could go a lot higher, but clubs aren't going to nearly triple their offer.

Personally I can't see anyone bidding up the price to a high enough level where it would be the right decision to sell him, assuming he does indeed have 3 years left on his contract.
Click to expand...

I'm using Keane Lewis Potter as a yard stick, I'm assuming you believe Jack Clarke is worth less than him?
 
Last edited:
Rizla said:
A player like Clarke can be the catalyst for promotion, he is vital to us and the way we play. A promotion that increases revenue by 170 million at least, so I reject the argument that a 10 to 15 million profit represents a goid deal. It simply doesn't and the fact that a number of PL teams are interested tells you that he is seen as a cut above championship level.

The idea that we go out and buy 5 quality players is fanciful, it doesn't work like that. There are no guarantees these players are out there, that they will perform and more crucially the club definitely are not in the business of lumbering themselves with relatively expensive new signings on decent contracts who become a millstone around the neck.

Clarke is proven at this level, can help us go up and we should do everything to keep him.
Click to expand...
Spot-on
 
The Cabbage said:
It doesn't necessarily need to be a one-for-one replacement, though. Of course ideally you get a new player as good as the one who left. However, so long as the replacement is 'good enough', you improve the team by also spending in other areas. Best example off the top of my head is Liverpool selling Coutinho and bringing in Van Dijk and Salah. Not direct replacement, but a much stronger team overall
Click to expand...
Or, you have us selling Henderson and bringing-in Larrson, Gardner and Vaughan or, selling Bent and buying Wickham and Ji.
Yes, our recruitment team have done brilliantly but after already losing Amad, Clarke gone would be 41 goals from last season. That's a huge ask to replace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top