' Fraizer Campbell looks like he's off '

:lol: some slating Mackay again...maybe, Just possibly, Campbell wouldn't have signed without the clause in place at all.

He's played here & he's done well and we've sold him for more than we paid for him. Thanks for the memories Fraizer.

well i dont like Malky..but think this was not bad business at all, we lost no money..got a good player for 18 months....and call a spade a spade it must have taken a bit of persuading and giving in to demands like the release clause to get him here......
or do people want to be signing John Parkin with no release clause...........
i think your correct....no clause..no player.
if Malky got him here..well done Malky.............if it was Lim ,well done Lim.

Good luck to him.

Striker deal close

LCFCWorld June 23, 2014 LCFC News
Yorkshireman Fraizer Campbell, who scored nine goals in all competitions for the Cardiff City last season is set to complete his rumoured £800,000 transfer to Premier League Leicester City. Speculation is that Campbell is due to meet Leicester manager Nigel Pearson this week after transfer talks between Leicester City and Campbell’s representatives have continued for a number of weeks. The Foxes fans will be hoping the deal is finalised, personal terms will have been agreed and that nothing can get in the way of this deal and hopefully making a seamless transfer to the East Midlands.

Most ambitious players demand a release clause so this is no different, BUT to set it so low is just bad business. There could have been increments for goals scored for example. 9 is a great haul for a youngster!!

Leicester must be laughing their heads off at getting such a bargain: An experienced PL player with goals in him for less than £1m.

I don't care who was to blame, is was naïve in the extreme.

Most ambitious players demand a release clause so this is no different, BUT to set it so low is just bad business. There could have been increments for goals scored for example. 9 is a great haul for a youngster!!

Leicester must be laughing their heads off at getting such a bargain: An experienced PL player with goals in him for less than £1m.

I don't care who was to blame, is was naïve in the extreme.

Youngster?!

Most ambitious players demand a release clause so this is no different, BUT to set it so low is just bad business. There could have been increments for goals scored for example. 9 is a great haul for a youngster!!

Leicester must be laughing their heads off at getting such a bargain: An experienced PL player with goals in him for less than £1m.

I don't care who was to blame, is was naïve in the extreme.

He was decent but not as good as some make out, was thinking it could be the system and tactics and a low quality of team mates that didn't help..but it's not only us he has played with and he's never set the league on fire.
Sunderland were happy to take £650,000 as it was a gamble for us to take him on the back of his injuries so the more you think about it maybe £800,000 wasn't THAT bad at the time...not everyone has the advantage of hindsight.

Good luck to him, he will need it.

Will always like him for "That celebration "
#TheTAN

image.jpg

Doubt he will ever be an elite level striker because of his limited ability.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Most ambitious players demand a release clause so this is no different, BUT to set it so low is just bad business. There could have been increments for goals scored for example. 9 is a great haul for a youngster!!

Leicester must be laughing their heads off at getting such a bargain: An experienced PL player with goals in him for less than £1m.

I don't care who was to blame, is was naïve in the extreme.

we got him cheap too............which is why his agent was able to put it similar amount in his contract..........bloody hell..

Most ambitious players demand a release clause so this is no different, BUT to set it so low is just bad business. There could have been increments for goals scored for example. 9 is a great haul for a youngster!!

Leicester must be laughing their heads off at getting such a bargain: An experienced PL player with goals in him for less than £1m.

I don't care who was to blame, is was naïve in the extreme.

Youngster?!

Hahaha! Fair point.

25/6 is YOUNG compared to me.

Hahaha! Fair point.

25/6 is YOUNG compared to me.

fair enough, but at 26, Campbell certainly ain't a "youngster" in footballing terms.

No comment.

Hahaha! Fair point.

25/6 is YOUNG compared to me.

fair enough, but at 26, Campbell certainly ain't a "youngster" in footballing terms.

Agreed, but is he worth more than £1m?....... I'd say at least £3m.

What do you think??

Hahaha! Fair point.

25/6 is YOUNG compared to me.

fair enough, but at 26, Campbell certainly ain't a "youngster" in footballing terms.

I was trying to imply this.

Hahaha! Fair point.

25/6 is YOUNG compared to me.

fair enough, but at 26, Campbell certainly ain't a "youngster" in footballing terms.

Agreed, but is he worth more than £1m?....... I'd say at least £3m.

What do you think??

Doesn't matter what he's worth, he's going for the release clause. It undervalues him, but at the time the contract was made, we had just bought him ourselves for less and he may not have even signed at all without this contract in place.

He's done well, we got our monies worth and we get even more back. It's not ideal, but it could be much worse.

Hahaha! Fair point.

25/6 is YOUNG compared to me.

fair enough, but at 26, Campbell certainly ain't a "youngster" in footballing terms.

Agreed, but is he worth more than £1m?....... I'd say at least £3m.

What do you think??

Doesn't matter what he's worth, he's going for the release clause. It undervalues him, but at the time the contract was made, we had just bought him ourselves for less and he may not have even signed at all without this contract in place.

He's done well, we got our monies worth and we get even more back. It's not ideal, but it could be much worse.

Wonder how your copy/paste would look like if he scored 25 goals last season. ("im not a hypocrite")

Release clause or not when we signed him he wasn't a regular in the Sunderland squad and we were top of the championship and favourites for promotion after a top Christmas period. So you could say his ambitions matched ours. If this clause is correct either we were desperate for him to sign or it is another example of the bad transfer dealings our club has conducted for as long as I can rremember. Leicester will have a bargain for that money. You'd be lucky to get a good championship striker for that. Will be sad to see him go.

Hahaha! Fair point.

25/6 is YOUNG compared to me.

fair enough, but at 26, Campbell certainly ain't a "youngster" in footballing terms.

Agreed, but is he worth more than £1m?....... I'd say at least £3m.

What do you think??

Doesn't matter what he's worth, he's going for the release clause. It undervalues him, but at the time the contract was made, we had just bought him ourselves for less and he may not have even signed at all without this contract in place.

He's done well, we got our monies worth and we get even more back. It's not ideal, but it could be much worse.

Of course he did well for us. That's not up for question.

The release clause amount is the bugbear to me. As soon as we were promoted, his value went up and as he grabbed some goals, it can't have harmed his stock. The profit on his original purchase price is largely irrelevant and doesn't take into account his wages, medical care, coaching and extras.

I am more annoyed by this than by Caulker or Medel leaving. It's yet another example of wastefulness and we are supplying Leicester who, let's face it, don't need to save money. If we get promoted, Leicester will be our competitors!!!

You say it could be worse. That's a phrase I normally use when things are bad, but nobody died. I think things could be much better.

Of course he did well for us. That's not up for question.

The release clause amount is the bugbear to me. As soon as we were promoted, his value went up and as he grabbed some goals, it can't have harmed his stock. The profit on his original purchase price is largely irrelevant and doesn't take into account his wages, medical care, coaching and extras.

I am more annoyed by this than by Caulker or Medel leaving. It's yet another example of wastefulness and we are supplying Leicester who, let's face it, don't need to save money. If we get promoted, Leicester will be our competitors!!!

You say it could be worse. That's a phrase I normally use when things are bad, but nobody died. I think things could be much better.

Wastefulness what rubbish. He signed for us as a gamble, maybe without that there in the first place, he wouldn't have signed at all?!

Before he signed for us, he was constantly injured, on a poor run & not really playing any meaningful football, the release Clause probably was about right. That wouldn't be renewed until he signed a new contract.

Of course he did well for us. That's not up for question.

The release clause amount is the bugbear to me. As soon as we were promoted, his value went up and as he grabbed some goals, it can't have harmed his stock. The profit on his original purchase price is largely irrelevant and doesn't take into account his wages, medical care, coaching and extras.

I am more annoyed by this than by Caulker or Medel leaving. It's yet another example of wastefulness and we are supplying Leicester who, let's face it, don't need to save money. If we get promoted, Leicester will be our competitors!!!

You say it could be worse. That's a phrase I normally use when things are bad, but nobody died. I think things could be much better.

Wastefulness what rubbish. He signed for us as a gamble, maybe without that there in the first place, he wouldn't have signed at all?!

Before he signed for us, he was constantly injured, on a poor run & not really playing any meaningful football, the release Clause probably was about right. That wouldn't be renewed until he signed a new contract.

Rubbish? There is no real profit in this deal for reasons I just gave you. Quite the opposite! Given that there is a nett deficit, my assertion of wastefulness is valid by definition.

The club took the gamble as well as Fraizer. It paid off for both parties in terms of performances, but not in terms of selling price.

Are you seriously saying that a 9-goal PL player of last season is worth only 800,000??

If the board were keen to keep him, they should have tabled a new contract with a release clause to reflect Fraizer's form.

Rubbish? There is no real profit in this deal for reasons I just gave you. Quite the opposite! Given that there is a nett deficit, my assertion of wastefulness is valid by definition.

yes, rubbish. He also contributed vital goals towards promotion, which, had he not, we would have not had so much money from promotion eh? It's swings and roundabouts. To say we haven't had good use out of a player and turned a profit on him, is total rubbish.

The club took the gamble as well as Fraizer. It paid off for both parties in terms of performances, but not in terms of selling price.

that's part of the gamble. Which is why the clause was there in the first place.

Are you seriously saying that a 9-goal PL player of last season is worth only 800,000??

no. where have I said that?

If the board were keen to keep him, they should have tabled a new contract with a release clause to reflect Fraizer's form.

maybe they did and he rebuffed them? Maybe he said I'll wait until the end of the season? unless you know for sure that they didn't, maybe you should stop pointing the finger.

Rubbish? There is no real profit in this deal for reasons I just gave you. Quite the opposite! Given that there is a nett deficit, my assertion of wastefulness is valid by definition.

yes, rubbish. He also contributed vital goals towards promotion, which, had he not, we would have not had so much money from promotion eh? It's swings and roundabouts. To say we haven't had good use out of a player and turned a profit on him, is total rubbish.

The club took the gamble as well as Fraizer. It paid off for both parties in terms of performances, but not in terms of selling price.

that's part of the gamble. Which is why the clause was there in the first place.

Are you seriously saying that a 9-goal PL player of last season is worth only 800,000??

no. where have I said that?

If the board were keen to keep him, they should have tabled a new contract with a release clause to reflect Fraizer's form.

maybe they did and he rebuffed them? Maybe he said I'll wait until the end of the season? unless you know for sure that they didn't, maybe you should stop pointing the finger.

Sorry to wake you.

Glad you agree by implication that Fraizer is worth a lot more than 800k. However, it does matter (ref. earlier post) that he has been sold below value as this is wasteful.

Where have I said we didn't have good service? Now who's putting words in mouths??

You also state he was instrumental in assuring promotion, fair enough, so why the hell are we so badly in debt!!

I'll tell you exactly why: it's because the club is badly run financially and the fact that OGS is to be given yet more fills me with dread.

Point the finger? Too bloody right!!!! Either Fraizer was offered an extension in which case he's shown no loyalty, or he wasn't offered in which case the club is at fault. Both of those scenarios are not good.

I don't know why you are defending this when clearly we are losing out on millions in transfer fees not because of the release clause, but because it wasn't adjusted to reflect his true value.

You can go back to sleep now. Like the rest of those who see no wrong as we sleepwalk towards disaster.

I think we should use some of the money we get for Campbell to buy Leo Fortune-West again.

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

Rubbish? There is no real profit in this deal for reasons I just gave you. Quite the opposite! Given that there is a nett deficit, my assertion of wastefulness is valid by definition.

yes, rubbish. He also contributed vital goals towards promotion, which, had he not, we would have not had so much money from promotion eh? It's swings and roundabouts. To say we haven't had good use out of a player and turned a profit on him, is total rubbish.

The club took the gamble as well as Fraizer. It paid off for both parties in terms of performances, but not in terms of selling price.

that's part of the gamble. Which is why the clause was there in the first place.

Are you seriously saying that a 9-goal PL player of last season is worth only 800,000??

no. where have I said that?

If the board were keen to keep him, they should have tabled a new contract with a release clause to reflect Fraizer's form.

maybe they did and he rebuffed them? Maybe he said I'll wait until the end of the season? unless you know for sure that they didn't, maybe you should stop pointing the finger.

By the way, this is what you wrote on this forum on Dec 17th 2013 about Fraizer Campbell's value (only a few months into the PL campaign:


6-7 million?
"
"Roathie is right - 2.5million is about right.

So you obviously acknowledge he is worth over 3 times the amount being quoted for his move to Leicester. WASTEFUL.

By the way 2:

You made a proper mug of yourself in another post recently when you dismissed the existence of Jesus, flying in the face of the facts. Probably best you quit now.

That post would be relevant if I had said he's only worth 800k now. in fact, You've even acknowledged that fact yourself in this topic.

Glad you agree by implication that Fraizer is worth a lot more than 800k. However, it does matter (ref. earlier post) that he has been sold below value as this is wasteful.

So don't understand the relevance of that... Just makes you look silly.

Doesn't matter how much you think or I think he's worth, he has a release clause, which would only be changed if Campbell agreed a new contract.

It's a shame he's being sold for a relative cheap sum, but the fact he has a such a release clause may just be because he demanded it in the first place.

The club may well have tried to adjust it by way of a new contract and FC refused.

To slate the club and it's staff automatically, is wrong, in my eyes.

& what the existence of what I see as a mythical creature has to do with anything, I don't know.

That post would be relevant if I had said he's only worth 800k now. in fact, You've even acknowledged that fact yourself in this topic.

Glad you agree by implication that Fraizer is worth a lot more than 800k. However, it does matter (ref. earlier post) that he has been sold below value as this is wasteful.

So don't understand the relevance of that... Just makes you look silly. HMMM. I CANT HELP IT IF YOU CANT SEE THE RELEVANCE.....

Doesn't matter how much you think or I think he's worth, he has a release clause, which would only be changed if Campbell agreed a new contract. THE RELEASE CLAUSE IS TRIGGERED BY A MINIMUM BID SET AT THE TIME THE CONTRACT IS SIGNED. IF SOMEONE CAME IN WITH A HIGHER OFFER, HE WOULD GO FOR THAT AMOUNT. TRUTH IS THAT HIS CONTRACT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REVIEWED AS SOON AS WE WERE PROMOTED, ESPECIALLY AS IT WAS SO LOW.

It's a shame he's being sold for a relative cheap sum, but the fact he has a such a release clause may just be because he demanded it in the first place. OF COURSE HE ASKED FOR IT!!! DOESNT MEAN THAT THE CLUB GIVES IN OUT OF DESPERATION.

The club may well have tried to adjust it by way of a new contract and FC refused. IF HE REFUSED THAT WAS A CLEAR STATEMENT OF INTENT AND HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOUTED BY THE CLUB TO GET A BETTER PRICE.

To slate the club and it's staff automatically, is wrong, in my eyes. I'M ENTITLED TO SAY IF I THINK SOMETHING IS GOING BADLY. MY ATTITUDE TO THE SITUATION IS THAT WE DONT NEED MORE DEBT

& what the existence of what I see as a mythical creature has to do with anything, I don't know.

. WHERE DID I MENTION A MYTHICAL CREATURE? I MENTIONED A MAN WIDELY BELIEVED TO HAVE LIVED. NOTHING ABOUT THE SUPERNATURAL OR MYTHOLOGY.


(Sorry about the capital letters but I'm using a phone so it's difficult to format and colour text.)


Here is the crux of the matter for me: Fraizer Campbell would be staying with us this year ideally because for the amount we are getting, a good quality forward is going to be nigh on impossible to find. This will mean yet more spending and no guarantees.

Meanwhile, Leicester get a bargain which should help them consolidate a PL place.

We always seem to pay top dollar for players and high wages as well. I hate to admit it but when I see Sw****a getting top players on free transfers it makes me sick!

You don't seem to understand what a release clause is. It means that anyone who bids that amount automatically gets that bid accepted..

Why would clubs bid higher amounts than the release clause, when it would have to be accepted at the release clause.

Example: if Stoke came in now and bid 2million, they would have the chance as Leicester to then agree terms with FC. Why on earth you think a team would bid more than the release clause, when they would get the same chance to agree terms with the lower transfer fee, I don't know.

You don't seem to understand what a release clause is. It means that anyone who bids that amount automatically gets that bid accepted..

Why would clubs bid higher amounts than the release clause, when it would have to be accepted at the release clause.

Example: if Stoke came in now and bid 2million, they would have the chance as Leicester to then agree terms with FC. Why on earth you think a team would bid more than the release clause, when they would get the same chance to agree terms with the lower transfer fee, I don't know.

I understand perfectly. The release clause only gives a club the right to talk. If a higher bid comes in, then that can be accepted too. Why would a player want to go for no more than the release clause threshold? If another club comes in with an improved offer, the player, subject to terms would go there instead if that is what he wanted.

The release clause amount is too low. I keep saying it but somehow you aren't acknowledging this. Don't forget, you stated yourself he was worth £2.5m.

I understand perfectly. The release clause only gives a club the right to talk. If a higher bid comes in, then that can be accepted too. Why would a player want to go for no more than the release clause threshold? If another club comes in with an improved offer, the player, subject to terms would go there instead if that is what he wanted.

Exactly! Why on earth would a club bid 2.5million, when they would have a bid accepted at 800k?!

The release clause amount is too low. I keep saying it but somehow you aren't acknowledging this. Don't forget, you stated yourself he was worth £2.5m.

Wow. I've already said this once. At the time of purchase, it was probably just about right. He may not have signed at all if that clause wasn't there. You aren't acknowledging this.

What I value him at, or what YOU value him at, it doesn't matter.

I understand perfectly. The release clause only gives a club the right to talk. If a higher bid comes in, then that can be accepted too. Why would a player want to go for no more than the release clause threshold? If another club comes in with an improved offer, the player, subject to terms would go there instead if that is what he wanted.

Exactly! Why on earth would a club bid 2.5million, when they would have a bid accepted at 800k?!

The release clause amount is too low. I keep saying it but somehow you aren't acknowledging this. Don't forget, you stated yourself he was worth £2.5m.

Wow. I've already said this once. At the time of purchase, it was probably just about right. He may not have signed at all if that clause wasn't there. You aren't acknowledging this.

What I value him at, or what YOU value him at, it doesn't matter.

You are obviously going to take an opposing view so I won't go back through each point again, but I will state the fact that the cast majority of members on this forum will agree: Fraizer Campbell is worth at least 3 times the £800,000 on offer at present. Therefore, we are losing million/s. Let's see how many apart from you disagree with that.

I understand perfectly. The release clause only gives a club the right to talk. If a higher bid comes in, then that can be accepted too. Why would a player want to go for no more than the release clause threshold? If another club comes in with an improved offer, the player, subject to terms would go there instead if that is what he wanted.

Exactly! Why on earth would a club bid 2.5million, when they would have a bid accepted at 800k?!

The release clause amount is too low. I keep saying it but somehow you aren't acknowledging this. Don't forget, you stated yourself he was worth £2.5m.

Wow. I've already said this once. At the time of purchase, it was probably just about right. He may not have signed at all if that clause wasn't there. You aren't acknowledging this.

What I value him at, or what YOU value him at, it doesn't matter.

You are obviously going to take an opposing view so I won't go back through each point again, but I will state the fact that the cast majority of members on this forum will agree: Fraizer Campbell is worth at least 3 times the £800,000 on offer at present. Therefore, we are losing million/s. Let's see how many apart from you disagree with that.

We are not losing anything we are gaining £150,000 and he is going for his agreed release clause.

I very much doubt we would of got him without it.

When did you want him to sign a new contract to put in a higher release clause?
I doubt he was worth much more the summer after we went up, so not then.
And knowing we were likely to go down I doubt he would of agreed to sign one in January as it makes a move away harder.
Obviously not going to sign one in the summer as we are down and he wants out..