seasonsinthesun wrote:Lancs Evening Post said today that Morecambe have turned down an offer from Blackpool for Jack as it wasn't near to their valuation of the player.
goneshrimping wrote:1. At the moment, I'd want Karl Oyston's money up front and no sell on - we'd never get it.
2. Forget number 2, I was going to say about a tribunal if he's under 24 - he'll be 25 at the end of the contract.
at a club he likes........
George Dawes wrote:goneshrimping wrote:1. At the moment, I'd want Karl Oyston's money up front and no sell on - we'd never get it.
2. Forget number 2, I was going to say about a tribunal if he's under 24 - he'll be 25 at the end of the contract.
at a club he likes........
it's a legal binding contract, they would have to pay.
cant help but feel, it's like our luck for us to lose Redshaw to injury this season and we'll be kicking ourselves when he leaves for nothing at the end of next season. wishing we took that offer.
but on the other hand, he will be playing with the best midfield we've ever had on paper, he will be getting more chances in-front of goal and could finish top scorer in L2
mrpotatohead wrote:Lets be realistic here, he's a decent player, who scored 12 last season, he's 24, so he's not setting the world of footy on fire is he?
we are not going up or down with our present squad, so any transfer fee, albeit for overall team strenghthening, debt reduction, or a bit of both, is a very welcome no brainer, if we keep him and he has a good season, we get nothing, if we keep him and he has a bad season or gets injured we also get nothing, so its thanks and tata, Jack.
Now_Then wrote:Would Jack want to go to Blackpool? Oyston is famous for handing out incentive based contracts rather than paying decent wages. After reading what Chopra said about the training facilities(Turners field sounded better) and having to bring your own lunch into training everyday, would it be a good move for him?
I agree that having a fit and firing Jack Redshaw for the whole of the next season is better than watching £150k getting swallowed up with nothing to really show for it.
RedRedWine wrote:Eyes on the prize: people thought selling Duffy at Christmas a few years ago was a good idea through fear of missing out on a transfer fee. He was one of a few creative players we had on our books at the time yet was sold. We nearly went down.
If Jack left us for nothing in a years time it wouldn't be the end of the world; we've had our moneys worth from the fee we paid Alty.
RedRedWine wrote:I think I'm right in saying that our players have to pay for their lunch.... I think its comes straight out of their wages?
George Dawes wrote:it's a legal binding contract, they would have to pay.
goneshrimping wrote:George Dawes wrote:it's a legal binding contract, they would have to pay.
He'll find a way if he thought he could and doesn't give a monkeys about anything anymore. See the Nile Ranger situation for more evidence on that, a victory for quite literaly no-one.
I'd be avoiding Blackpool like the plague. Club in freefall and turmoil, and I think the Redshaw family saw through the Peterborough nonsense and I think they'll see through this.
From what I know of Blackpool, their basic wage will probably be lower than what he's on with us, he'll only earn if he's playing.
Given he's made of balsa wood, that alone would mean I'd not be one for going to the Tangerines.
Kendalshrimp wrote:What would be better...selling jack for £200k or keeping him which could be the key in our promotion push this year were going up would see us get a lot more prize money than that ?
The Marksman wrote:Kendalshrimp wrote:What would be better...selling jack for £200k or keeping him which could be the key in our promotion push this year were going up would see us get a lot more prize money than that ?
Selling Jack for £200k. League Two winners prize money is £25k.
Users browsing this forum: Billy bodger, Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 44 guests