The clause was initially 20% but it was renegotiated in the interests of all three clubs to allow the deal to go through.
Aye, transformative money all the same, just don't like that it's too big boys taking advantage of someone who needs the money mostStill, £4m isn't to be sniffed at...
Wasn't there a user on here (Wel Doppio or something) having a moan that we hadn't given Maidenhead some money to buy out the sell on clause a few weeks or so back?You think £4m is better than £8m?
Haven't said that have I?You think £4m is better than £8m?
Only because we did it to them on Joe GallagherWhile the 'renegotiation' stinks, we could have done what Blues/Everton did to us with Wayne Clarke/Stuart Storer. At least this way they get decent money and don't lose the lot.
It's easy if you try
Thought we just stiffed them on monies owed because we went into admin* and the Football Creditors rule wasn't a thing thenOnly because we did it to them on Joe Gallagher
Yes, Ellis taking us into admin was a choice. He thought he could buy us out again on the cheap. Knocking Blues for Gallagher was part of that and Whelden held a grudgeThought we just stiffed them on monies owed because we went into admin* and the Football Creditors rule wasn't a thing then
*Before my time but the long held conspiracy theory has been that we didn't need to go into admin at all in 1982. We did in 1986 though
They were probably thinking 10% of 40 is better than 20% of fuck all, West ham might come to their senses lolOf course it may have been Maidenhead who were the drivers behind the re-negotiation.
My Dad reckons Joe Gallagher was Vallejo levels of shite for usYes, Ellis taking us into admin was a choice. He thought he could buy us out again on the cheap. Knocking Blues for Gallagher was part of that and Whelden held a grudge