• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

I don't think anyone's missing that point, but the case you cite potentially proves both why the buying club might be more motivated to wait for a tribunal rather than agree to a fee. I'm pretty sure Liverpool would have been willing to pay more than £6m but the tribunal maybe saved them from having to. I'm also pretty sure they banked on that as will any club looking to pick up Bentley at the end of his contract.

That's just my perception though that tribunals will often undervalue the player but I'm absolutely open to being proved wrong if someone can do so. In fact, I'd welcome that.



Either you're misunderstanding me or I'm misunderstanding you, but you were using QPR's offers as a yardstick to demonstrate to the tribunal what the player is worth? Of course "length of the contract" will no longer be a factor in the tribunal's view as it will have run out. But it would have been a significant factor in QPR's bid, and a factor that will be fundamentally different at the end of the season if and when the tribunal makes its deliberations. We could hardly argue that Bentley was worth the maximum bid we received mid-contract once his contract had run out. Unless of course, that's EXACTLY what the tribunal is intending to do.

Again, my own opinion based on what seems fair and logical, but it could be complete bobbins so I'm very happy to be proved wrong.

Reading the Guardian article there does appear to be a degree of common sense applied in the panels procedures. Ie they take into account what the buying club is going to pay him, and what we have offered. So hopefully the contract we offered was a generous one. The fact that we get an opportunity to state our case means that you would assume that we would include bids that we had turned down , and the fact that Dan had improved since those bids were made
 
^^ and so it's in our interest that he's still happy playing for us and not booing him etc! We can't control what's going on/going to happen apart from making it worse! They way I see it is we gambled by not accepting the bids so we'll just have to go with the tribunal result. The lad's a hero after last season and we'll be replacing the future England #1 with another.
 
I don't think anyone's missing that point, but the case you cite potentially proves both why the buying club might be more motivated to wait for a tribunal rather than agree to a fee. I'm pretty sure Liverpool would have been willing to pay more than £6m but the tribunal maybe saved them from having to. I'm also pretty sure they banked on that as will any club looking to pick up Bentley at the end of his contract.

That's just my perception though that tribunals will often undervalue the player but I'm absolutely open to being proved wrong if someone can do so. In fact, I'd welcome that.



Either you're misunderstanding me or I'm misunderstanding you, but you were using QPR's offers as a yardstick to demonstrate to the tribunal what the player is worth? Of course "length of the contract" will no longer be a factor in the tribunal's view as it will have run out. But it would have been a significant factor in QPR's bid, and a factor that will be fundamentally different at the end of the season if and when the tribunal makes its deliberations. We could hardly argue that Bentley was worth the maximum bid we received mid-contract once his contract had run out. Unless of course, that's EXACTLY what the tribunal is intending to do.

Again, my own opinion based on what seems fair and logical, but it could be complete bobbins so I'm very happy to be proved wrong.

I just think we interpret differently- the tribunal will make a valuation as if he were under contract (just like he was when QPR made the offer). Hence ref ''We could hardly argue that Bentley was worth the maximum bid we received mid-contract once his contract had run out.'' yes that's precisely what we can do. We will probably talk it up saying he is now proven at L1 level and the fee should now be higher- against that valuations at tribunal tend to be conservative (so I suspect if he has a good season in L1 we will get around the QPR offer).
 
Back
Top