Daniel Bentley - The Ongoing Transfer Saga

[Bkdside]

As a slightly different prospective and the numbers I have made up, as I do not understand how everything is worked out or what the club value him or our league 1 status at.

If we keep him have turned down 1.25M, I don't perceive that as missing out on 1.25M as we would still get some £££ for him in 12 months time.

say we get £500k @ tribrunel but with Bentley's help we manage to stay in league one this year (worth 800k) then are we not better off keepig him?

obviously those two things are not mutually exclusive...but a different view point.

 

[Ricky Otto]

What's the point of a release clause lower than offers we've already rejected? No-one will offer more than that because we will be duty bound to accept it.

Because we won't get anywhere near £1m in Jan for a player who will only have 6 months on his contract. Would Dan want to sign a new contract without that kind of clause? I wouldn't. I'm just living in the real world unlike some

 

[londonblue]

Because we won't get anywhere near £1m in Jan for a player who will only have 6 months on his contract. Would Dan want to sign a new contract without that kind of clause? I wouldn't. I'm just living in the real world unlike some

You've completely defeated your own argument. If he signs a new contract (with your release clause) he won't have only 6 months left on his contract. He'll have at least another 18 months, which is more than he has now. But you want a release clause so that he can leave for less than we've currently been offered. Makes no sense to me.

For what it's worth, I'd do everything you said, but with a bigger release fee. However, I have spoken to an agent friend in the past who says that release clauses are quite rare in this country because clubs aren't keen on them. That said, in this instance I think it would benefit everyone.

 

[Ricky Otto]

You've completely defeated your own argument. If he signs a new contract (with your release clause) he won't have only 6 months left on his contract. He'll have at least another 18 months, which is more than he has now. But you want a release clause so that he can leave for less than we've currently been offered. Makes no sense to me.

For what it's worth, I'd do everything you said, but with a bigger release fee. However, I have spoken to an agent friend in the past who says that release clauses are quite rare in this country because clubs aren't keen on them. That said, in this instance I think it would benefit everyone.

No the point is that he is unlikely to sign a new contract unless the clause is there. Realistically he is going to go sooner rather than than later and it's a money business, it is stupid him signing a new contract with us when he has this kind of interest, his agent will certainly advise against it. If he is still here after the transfer window then the only contract that will make sense for him to sign is one with a significant wage rise and a a low release clause and the benefit for us will be not losing him for next to nothing.

 

[Angell Delight]

I guarantee if we sold him for 1.25m there would have been uproar that we let him go too cheaply.

There would be yes I agree as it seems there is quite a disparity between what some Zoners think Bentley is worth at this stage compared to others. My personal opinion is that with 10 months left on his deal a £1.25m offer plus add-ons (provided the majority is cash up front) is good business for the club. Others want £2m+ minimum. I certainly wouldn't say that I'm right and others are wrong, nor would I say I'm wrong and they're right. Different opinions on valuation is natural and therefore unless we bag a £2m+ fee for Bentley (which in my opinion is unlikely) then not everyone will be happy when he's sold. For the record if he had 3 years to run on his deal I'd also be looking for £2m+ to let him go, it's a crying shame he doesn't. Shades of Eastwood circa 2007.

 

[Evening Echo]

Southend United manager: Daniel Bentley will be disappointed if he misses out on move

SOUTHEND United manager Phil Brown believes Daniel Bentley will be disappointed if he is denied a move to Queens Park Rangers.

More...

 

[londonblue]

No the point is that he is unlikely to sign a new contract unless the clause is there. Realistically he is going to go sooner rather than than later and it's a money business, it is stupid him signing a new contract with us when he has this kind of interest, his agent will certainly advise against it. If he is still here after the transfer window then the only contract that will make sense for him to sign is one with a significant wage rise and a a low release clause and the benefit for us will be not losing him for next to nothing.

I agreed with that, but think that the release clause (should one be agreed) needs to be higher than the amount you suggested since we're unlikely to agree to less that we have already been offered. No-one will offer more than the minimum they can get away with, and we'd be missing out on a lot of cash. You seem to be pandering to DB at the expense of SUFC.

You also have no idea what his agent will or won't advise. It would also make sense to sign a new contract on improved terms knowing that sooner or later a bigger club will come in for him regardless of the length of his contract, and any club serious about him will pay the release clause should there be one.

 

[Jai]

No ****, Sherlock. Just hope it doesn't affect the lad too much.

 

[Jam_Man]

There would be yes I agree as it seems there is quite a disparity between what some Zoners think Bentley is worth at this stage compared to others. My personal opinion is that with 10 months left on his deal a £1.25m offer plus add-ons (provided the majority is cash up front) is good business for the club. Others want £2m+ minimum. I certainly wouldn't say that I'm right and others are wrong, nor would I say I'm wrong and they're right. Different opinions on valuation is natural and therefore unless we bag a £2m+ fee for Bentley (which in my opinion is unlikely) then not everyone will be happy when he's sold. For the record if he had 3 years to run on his deal I'd also be looking for £2m+ to let him go, it's a crying shame he doesn't. Shades of Eastwood circa 2007.

Indeed, people always have a habit of over valuing their own players.

Originally I thought we would be lucky to get a million, but after a couple of bids now 1.5m would be nice but with Smithies transfer to QPR of 1.5 million I think we would be lucky to get 1.5m for Bentley as he has less experience.

Looks like its getting closer to happening. http://www.examiner.co.uk/sport/football/news/alex-smithies-reached-agreement-join-9877130

I agreed with that, but think that the release clause (should one be agreed) needs to be higher than the amount you suggested since we're unlikely to agree to less that we have already been offered. No-one will offer more than the minimum they can get away with, and we'd be missing out on a lot of cash. You seem to be pandering to DB at the expense of SUFC.

You also have no idea what his agent will or won't advise. It would also make sense to sign a new contract on improved terms knowing that sooner or later a bigger club will come in for him regardless of the length of his contract, and any club serious about him will pay the release clause should there be one.

If they could get him to sign a new contract with a minimum release clause then the pay off might be to just get more than a tribunal, not to match what offers we already have.

Its not pandering to him, he doesn't have to sign anything. Him signing would be giving us a guarantee of something which is more than we have right now.

1 million would be better than a tribunal and would reward him for showing a little loyalty. Set it at 1.5 million and we might not get any offers and traps him here.

 

[Jam_Man]

Echo story about maybe missing out

http://www.echo-news.co.uk/sport/blues/13610388.Southend_United_manager__Daniel_Bentley_will_be_disappointed_if_he_misses_out_on_move_to_QPR/?ref=twtrec

 

[mrsblue]

Cash strapped club with currently the smallest squad in world football,turns down over £1,200,000 !

Something not quite right somewhere

 

[Smiffy]

My concern now is has Dan's head gone?

He seems a mature lad for someone so young so sure it won't effect his performances, but you have to wonder just how ****ed off he will be if as now looks he has missed out on a big move...

 

[fatshrimp]

Here's a question. Which situation do you think Phil Brown would rather?

Keep Bently and have a solid #1 that he can fall back on, but potentially less money to strengthen other areas of the squad, OR sell Bentley and have to either find a keeper (I'm not sure that we've had any on trial or has there been any specualtion of us looking for one) or rely on Ted and potentially have cash to spend for other positions?

Just a thought and apologies if it's already been covered. I'm not sure how much say Brown will have in the whole process, but I suspect it's very little.

 

[londonblue]

Indeed, people always have a habit of over valuing their own players.

Originally I thought we would be lucky to get a million, but after a couple of bids now 1.5m would be nice but with Smithies transfer to QPR of 1.5 million I think we would be lucky to get 1.5m for Bentley as he has less experience.

Looks like its getting closer to happening. http://www.examiner.co.uk/sport/football/news/alex-smithies-reached-agreement-join-9877130



If they could get him to sign a new contract with a minimum release clause then the pay off might be to just get more than a tribunal, not to match what offers we already have.

Its not pandering to him, he doesn't have to sign anything. Him signing would be giving us a guarantee of something which is more than we have right now.

1 million would be better than a tribunal and would reward him for showing a little loyalty. Set it at 1.5 million and we might not get any offers and traps him here.

If (and it's a big if) he signs a new deal he'll be under contract at least until the end of next season. A release clause should reflect the length of the contract. Moreover, not having one at all will mean that SUFC have an even better bargaining position. I would say that £1m is less than the total a tribunal would award so would actually be worthless, and even a loss maker for SUFC.

For that reason you either have a release clause that is worthwhile (from both sides) or you don't bother. If he doesn't sign, then I reckon the total package a tribunal would award would actually be at least that anyway. All you're doing is diminishing your own negotiating position.

 

[RobM]

My concern now is has Dan's head gone?

He seems a mature lad for someone so young so sure it won't effect his performances, but you have to wonder just how ****ed off he will be if as now looks he has missed out on a big move...

...for now. It's not as if it's the only chance he'll ever get.

 

[Napster]

...for now. It's not as if it's the only chance he'll ever get.

and QPR aren't exactly world beaters. Only 10 years ago they were in League One and we beat them 4-0 in the LDV. Under the dynamic managerial skills of our worst ever player Chris Ramsey I doubt they'll be Premiership material for a while.

 

[mattitouk]

Hopefully the saga is coming to a close:

I just saw on sky sports news that smithies has agreed personal terms with QPR & the local huddersfield rag, also confirm this in an article published at 10am this morning.

 

[Danshrimper]

Hopefully the saga is coming to a close:

I just saw on sky sports news that smithies has agreed personal terms with QPR & the local huddersfield rag, also confirm this in an article published at 10am this morning.

Hopefully for who? QPR move collapsing may benefit us in the short term but benefits neither the club nor Dan in the long term.

 

[Ricky Otto]

I agreed with that, but think that the release clause (should one be agreed) needs to be higher than the amount you suggested since we're unlikely to agree to less that we have already been offered. No-one will offer more than the minimum they can get away with, and we'd be missing out on a lot of cash. You seem to be pandering to DB at the expense of SUFC.

You also have no idea what his agent will or won't advise. It would also make sense to sign a new contract on improved terms knowing that sooner or later a bigger club will come in for him regardless of the length of his contract, and any club serious about him will pay the release clause should there be one.

Your claim in the previous post was I had "completely defeated my own argument" I can't see how? I'm just looking at it logically, I don't know his agent or what he is advising but when we are turning down £1.25m and QPR are able to get a proven young championship goalkeeper for £1.5m then you don't want to price yourself out of a move. We should obviously try for a higher buy out clause but IMO it wouldn't make much sense looking at it from DB and his agents perspective. Dan obviously has a soft spot for the club and that is the only reason I think a new deal is remotely possible, most would see out their contract go for minimal compensation and get a big fat signing on fee next summer.

 

[mattitouk]

For everyone. For the fans, for the club, and of course Bentley himself. It's been going on for what seems like forever now and personally it's becoming quite tedious now. The phrase "It's like pulling teeth" come to mind.

If he goes then so be it, club has the money, hopefully at least some of it will be reinvested.
If he stays then so be it, just as long as Bentley keeps his head together in time for tomorrow and re-discovers his form asap.