Jump to content

The 'Magnificent' David Turnbull Discussion Thread


sailor_h
 Share

On Motherwell's handling of the David Turnbull situation, what are your thoughts (assuming no minimum release clause)?  

123 members have voted

  1. 1. On Motherwell's handling of the David Turnbull situation, what are your thoughts (assuming no minimum release clause)?

    • Happy we have accepted the quoted fee of 3.25m + add ons.
    • Think we should have held out for more, but still sold this summer
    • Think we should have kept David for at least one more season
    • Happy we have accepted the quoted fee of 3.25m + add ons, but shouldn't have accepted a bid from a club in Scotland
    • Other thoughts. Please comment


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, weeyin said:

If he follows the Lewis Morgan development path, you'll no be seeing him next season.

While I understand the reasons behind Turnbull taking the Celtic path, the best thing that happened to McGinn's career was moving to Villa. 

Morgan is pish.

 

Turnbull isnae.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dennyc said:

The only doubt is that Celtic don’t usually  include them as part of any deal with Scottish clubs. In that way they maximise their profit when they cash in. I don’t recall Burrows or anyone from within MFC confirming a sell-on clause in any statement or on Twitter. 

Normally he is shouting it from the rooftops. As in the Johnson deal you highlight. And the question has been asked.  All speculation of course but I’ll believe the existence of such an arrangement when Motherwell announce it formally.

 

If Celtic requested we keep the details of the deal confidential, we won't be announcing anything, though.

I can't see any reason why, given the fact that we hold all the negotiation cards, we wouldn't insist on sell-ons. It makes absolutely no difference to the buying club because they just include the premium when it comes time to sell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, weeyin said:

If Celtic requested we keep the details of the deal confidential, we won't be announcing anything, though.

I can't see any reason why, given the fact that we hold all the negotiation cards, we wouldn't insist on sell-ons. It makes absolutely no difference to the buying club because they just include the premium when it comes time to sell.

And maybe Celtic went the extra million on the basis of no sell on. It was a huge leap from £2m to £3m. Money up front and all that in a once and for all settlement?   Or maybe Alan Burrows is just a great negotiator.

I do agree we should insist on such a clause but unless the Club confirm it in some way then the doubt exists. Even a bland statement as has been done in the past ......” Protecting our future interests” . Weeyin, would the lack of a sell on clause change your view about how good a deal has been agreed?

As a comparison ....Aberdeen got £440k for Gary Fraser joining Bournemouth. Talk of them getting an additional £6m if he goes to Arsenal for £30m. Even half that sum nets them £3m. That’s why I think the sell on is almost as vital as the original fee. My opinion only, But just watch Celtic sell Turnbull for a massive profit in 3 years. That’s their operating model. I wonder how much Dundee Utd received when Armstrong joined Southampton ? I hope I am wrong though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s no way we didn’t include a sell on, it has been clear over that last few years that that’s just standard procedure for us and most other clubs. We even negotiate sell ons for guys we let go for nothing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, steelboy said:

Good to see that Lawell decides how the Well Society operates.

It’s often standard practice for the buying club, I know that does not fit in to the agenda though so apologies.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Yorkyred said:

It’s often standard practice for the buying club, I know that does not fit in to the agenda though so apologies.

And what if it isn't standard practice for the selling club?

We are a fan owned club and should be transparent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, wellowell said:

Will have to be declared in accounts though so will come out at some stage fee paid 

They only have to declare the total transfer income. So if there is more than one undisclosed fee (and we already have McKinstry) then it's impossible to tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, steelboy said:

Good to see that Lawell decides how the Well Society operates.

  Steelboy, as you fine well know, the society does not deal with the day to day running of the club as that is the job of the board. So Lawell or any other person/club asking for confidentiality has no say in how the society operates.  If I’m wrong please enlighten me to the truth. 

Every post from you is either negative and or mostly wrong or a twisted version of the truth but I’m sure you know that when posting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, stuwell said:

  Steelboy, as you fine well know, the society does not deal with the day to day running of the club as that is the job of the board. So Lawell or any other person/club asking for confidentiality has no say in how the society operates.  If I’m wrong please enlighten me to the truth.  

Every post from you is either negative and or mostly wrong or a twisted version of the truth but I’m sure you know that when posting

The society has the controlling interest in the club.

They employ Burrows. If the Society say no undisclosed fees then the board has to comply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, steelboy said:

The society has the controlling interest in the club.

They employ Burrows. If the Society say no undisclosed fees then the board has to comply.

Change the record. It will be on a need to know basis and you and most of us dont really need to know . Do we ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • David locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...