Ramsey No sell on clause

Latest rumour is Chelsea are going to table a £30 million offer for Ramsey.

Unfortunately we didn't agree a sell on clause Ridsdale at the time said this:

“There was no sell-on clause in Aaron’s contract because Arsenal paid the full price which we thought Aaron was worth at that moment in time, plus Arsenal paid in full, in cash,” explained Ridsdale.

“You don’t have sell-on clauses when you’re talking moves of this nature.

30m?in the current climate of over inflated prices for non established names like grealish and mawson,he has to be worth more than that??

Typical Ridsdale unfortunately.

Was scraping round for every penny he could get at the time, even looking under the settee and behind the mantelpiece.

Contrary to what he says, it must have been about the ONLY transfer of that kind NOT to have a sell on clause.

Look how clever Barnsley have been recently with sell on clauses for the likes of Stones and Mawson.

Ridsdale was happy to sell the family jewels at Cardiff for a fraction of their true worth because of the financial predicament that the club was in, due partly to him but mostly of course to Mr Hammam.

30m?in the current climate of over inflated prices for non established names like grealish and mawson,he has to be worth more than that??

Last year of his contract mate... Just like the Courtios ( if that's how its spelt ) situation.

30m?in the current climate of over inflated prices for non established names like grealish and mawson,he has to be worth more than that??

Last year of his contract mate... Just like the Courtios ( if that's how its spelt ) situation.

Didn't realise that mate ,time to put a cheeky bid in eh

Say there had been a sell on clause of 10% and he goes to Chelsea for £30m. Arsenal would make a profit of £25m and we would get £2.5m.

Any income is always welcome but in the days of £100m+ PL cash £2.5m isn't exactly a financial game changer. That said Ridsdale was a prick for not inserting a sell on clause.

Say there had been a sell on clause of 10% and he goes to Chelsea for £30m. Arsenal would make a profit of £25m and we would get £2.5m.

Any income is always welcome but in the days of £100m+ PL cash £2.5m isn't exactly a financial game changer. That said Ridsdale was a prick for not inserting a sell on clause.

exactly, and as of right now a sell on clause would have been absolutely no benfit to us

Typical Ridsdale unfortunately.

Was scraping round for every penny he could get at the time, even looking under the settee and behind the mantelpiece.

Contrary to what he says, it must have been about the ONLY transfer of that kind NOT to have a sell on clause.

Look how clever Barnsley have been recently with sell on clauses for the likes of Stones and Mawson.

Ridsdale was happy to sell the family jewels at Cardiff for a fraction of their true worth because of the financial predicament that the club was in, due partly to him but mostly of course to Mr Hammam.

Sam overstretched yes...and for a while it looked precarious..BUT.
we had languished in the lower leagues for years ,had just suffered yet another relegation with no light at the end of the tunnel and no local or welsh interest in pushing our club. Sam believed in us when nobody else did.
had he not jumped in when he did we might still be lower leagues..have to say that had our fans started to turn up in numbers as so many people had promised Sam they would..all that mess would have been avoided..

Shocking deal for the club to do,if memory is correct the fee agreed was 5m,but we took 4.8 million because they paid in a one off payment

Typical Ridsdale unfortunately.

Was scraping round for every penny he could get at the time, even looking under the settee and behind the mantelpiece.

Contrary to what he says, it must have been about the ONLY transfer of that kind NOT to have a sell on clause.

Look how clever Barnsley have been recently with sell on clauses for the likes of Stones and Mawson.

Ridsdale was happy to sell the family jewels at Cardiff for a fraction of their true worth because of the financial predicament that the club was in, due partly to him but mostly of course to Mr Hammam.

Sam overstretched yes...and for a while it looked precarious..BUT.
we had languished in the lower leagues for years ,had just suffered yet another relegation with no light at the end of the tunnel and no local or welsh interest in pushing our club. Sam believed in us when nobody else did.
had he not jumped in when he did we might still be lower leagues..have to say that had our fans started to turn up in numbers as so many people had promised Sam they would..all that mess would have been avoided..

Shocking deal for the club to do,if memory is correct the fee agreed was 5m,but we took 4.8 million because they paid in a one off payment

But doesn't that tell you just how desperate the club was for every penny at the time? Rather than being a 'shocking deal' it was probably more like a life saver at the time. I am not saying that it was a great deal but it is so easy to be critical in hindsight, 10 years on and without all the facts.

Shocking deal for the club to do,if memory is correct the fee agreed was 5m,but we took 4.8 million because they paid in a one off payment

That was the deal..we knocked £200k off because they paid upfront

Why there was no sell on clause is beyond me..well actually we all know why because the Riddler was an idiot when it came to transfer dealings

Shocking deal for the club to do,if memory is correct the fee agreed was 5m,but we took 4.8 million because they paid in a one off payment

But doesn't that tell you just how desperate the club was for every penny at the time? Rather than being a 'shocking deal' it was probably more like a life saver at the time. I am not saying that it was a great deal but it is so easy to be critical in hindsight, 10 years on and without all the facts.

Was it a deal that saved the club??,we ll never know?as far as im concerned it was bad business,both man united and arsenal wanted him,so the price could and should have been higher

Say there had been a sell on clause of 10% and he goes to Chelsea for £30m. Arsenal would make a profit of £25m and we would get £2.5m.

Any income is always welcome but in the days of £100m+ PL cash £2.5m isn't exactly a financial game changer. That said Ridsdale was a prick for not inserting a sell on clause.

exactly, and as of right now a sell on clause would have been absolutely no benfit to us

Really?? A £2.5 million windfall would be no benefit to us at all??

Would pay the loan fee and wages for someone like Snodgrass for a season.. hardly no benefit!!!

Say there had been a sell on clause of 10% and he goes to Chelsea for £30m. Arsenal would make a profit of £25m and we would get £2.5m.

Any income is always welcome but in the days of £100m+ PL cash £2.5m isn't exactly a financial game changer. That said Ridsdale was a prick for not inserting a sell on clause.

exactly, and as of right now a sell on clause would have been absolutely no benfit to us

Really?? A £2.5 million windfall would be no benefit to us at all??

Would pay the loan fee and wages for someone like Snodgrass for a season.. hardly no benefit!!!

"as of right now"

did you miss that part?

Shocking deal for the club to do,if memory is correct the fee agreed was 5m,but we took 4.8 million because they paid in a one off payment

But doesn't that tell you just how desperate the club was for every penny at the time? Rather than being a 'shocking deal' it was probably more like a life saver at the time. I am not saying that it was a great deal but it is so easy to be critical in hindsight, 10 years on and without all the facts.

There was no doubt that the club was in a desperate state at the time.. but whatever way you look at it, the deal was a shocker for the club

But it probably paid for the Riddlers bonus.. so he was happy

Not getting a sell on clause was probably a mistake, but then the £5 million we got for him was probably generous at the time.

Don't forget he was only 17/18, had played what a few dozen games for us and Arsenal were buying into a potential, we could all see he had talent but nobody knew how good he would go on to be, transfer fee's were not what they are now then.

I think to call it a shocking deal is a bit unfair.

Although it doesn’t sound like a huge amount now, £5 million for an 18 year old who had only played 20 games for us was a big deal back then. We were skint also.

We were hardly in a strong negotiating position at the time. If we had insisted on a sell on clause then we would have had to have sold him for somewhere nearer £3m.
The cash was more important at the time.