http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/barnsley/Football39s-Done-Deals-40July-141.4131812.jp</p> Can't see how a 27 year old from the bottom of the Swiss league, who's been playing left back, is going to be an improvement.</p>
Nothing on the BBC also... SD said that 150k was the trigger to talk to MD, but BFC did not have to accept that price.
Didn't he put the crosses in for the first goal at Anfield and the Chelsea goal?</p> Two of the best crosses I've ever seen ... and I don't just mean by a Barnsley player</p>
Legend .. in his own way. I liked him very much. Often was off the pace, but made up for it with some astounding moves and spectacular goals.</p> I'll miss him, but if he isn't going to get a game due to us moving on, then it's right to let him go. Thanks for the memories Disco me boy.</p>
that's a little much Yes he's a decent player, and yes the two crosses you mentioned were very important. But 2 of the best crosses you've ever seen...?
The one at Anfield... Was genuinely the best cross I've ever seen, absolutely outstanding. Chelsea one was very good but nothing extraordinary.
RE: He did say that a trigger clause never means the club has to sell. If he's under contract to us then we can keep him until the contract runs out. The problem is when a player talks to a new club and he likes what they say and offer, and therefore comes back and puts a transfer request in. Our options are then to let him go for the amount stated, hold out for more and piss the player off, or keep him knowing full well that he will not put in 100%. All SD has said is yes thats the amount to trigger the clause, but it doesn't mean that we have to sell him. It just makes it more difficult to keep him.
The cross for the goal at Anfield was the best I've ever seen It was perfect. I don't think perfection can be bettered.
RE: and then there was that...... goal at plymouth. Not many will have seen it live but that will be a memory forever for me...
RE: That all sounds very odd to me nt why? It happens with every get out clause, it's nothing new. The only funny thing is why SD agreed to a 150K trigger if he had no intention of allowing him to go for that. It's so low that a club would eventually reach it and then ultimately Disco would be pissed off when he wasn't allowed to go. Unless Disco purposely put in a low trigger so he always had a get out of jail card if he wasn't getting a game.
I think that its all designed so the player gets informed. ie, if no clauses exist, then in reality the club don't need to tell the player jack **** if approached. I think this ensures that if anyone offers the 150K or above, we a duty bound to tell them. So like the previous poster said, it could cause unrest if the player is informed but then we say, the offer is unacceptable Or summat like
RE: I've always assumed that a release clause was exactly that. nt yes but it's not a 'release' clause. It's a clause whereby if reached we must inform the player, and allow him to speak to the club. Nothing to do with being released from a contract.
RE: that's a little much Just watch it again.</p> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6o5RBc4W8A0</p> The cross was unbelievable, sheer perfection</p>
