Lund, Mandeville and Garratt

[Cantley Rover]

I can't wait to see the sell on clause ha ha. Or how much compensation we get.

[drfchound]

I can't wait to see the sell on clause ha ha. Or how much compensation we get.

Of course, it may not be made public.

[Cantley Rover]

I can't wait to see the sell on clause ha ha. Or how much compensation we get.

Of course, it may not be made public.

Or Liam Hoden could report it in the DFP, but then it wouldn't be true would it.

[oggycompton]

An excellent read, very enjoyable.

So I get this straight in my head, is Cantlay Rover implying that should a club want someone we have under contract, even though we dont want him.....then we have no say in the negotiations and cant stipulate a sell on clause? And that player in fact just leaves despite us owning his registration?

Try and use a bit of common sense.
The club have told a player to go and find another club.
Assuming they go and do this, do you really think the club he has approached are going to agree to take him with a sell on clause?
Yes they are under contract and yes we could ask for a sell on clause but no club in their right mind are going to agree this for a player his parent club doesn't want.
That is obviously why Mandeville has gone on loan for a season and then he will be on his way at the end of the season.

You realise this happens all the time? If hes still under contract of course we will get a sell on clause. Do you think every single person on this thread (i've counted 8) are wrong and you are right? Also bear in mind that some of us have had dealings in this kind of thing and are assuring you that this is the case.