sherlyegg Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 ....But Sportsmail understands Wednesday's issue is focused on their belief that Newcastle knew there was a clause in Bruce's contract that enabled him to speak to other clubs if a compensation offer of around £3.5million was met. In Wednesday's view the existence of that clause was a private agreement between Bruce and the club that was reached when he became their manager in February, and they now want the Premier League to investigate whether Newcastle were told how to activate it. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-7278387/Premier-League-Sheffield-Wednesday-believe-Steve-Bruces-release-clause-leaked-Newcastle.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogers Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 (edited) If release clauses are meant to be secret, how are are other clubs supposed to activate it? Maybe Bruce's agent, who probably has a copy of the contract did his job and told them. Edited July 23, 2019 by Rogers 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitcat Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 These figures are always leaked one way or another... Good to see someone challenging it for a change.. go Big Chans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalthamOwl Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 I’m sure there is more to it than just that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Suzuki_San Posted July 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted July 23, 2019 "Hi! Can I speak to Dejphon Chansiri please? It's regarding us wanting to employ Steve Bruce and we're willing to pay 3.1m compensation." "Sorry, no. "£3.2m?" "No." £3.3m?" "No." £3.4m?" "No." "FFS!" *hangs up* 20 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weshallovercome Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 It's difficult to trigger a release clause if no one knows about it. Not sure we'd have much joy pursuing this, if we got our 3.5 mil we should just move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morepork Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 (edited) 26 minutes ago, WalthamOwl said: I’m sure there is more to it than just that. Lets hope so!!! Unfortunately it’s well past the point where we are speculating on speculation..... You could see a case if a release clause needed to be met to initiate a contact etc. A secret release clause does not make sense. That said it may relate to discussions taking place with our manager before an agreement is in place with the club, In essence, tapping up our man. It’s clear they weren’t just fishing for Bruce, they knew he was a yes. Edited July 23, 2019 by Morepork Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherlyegg Posted July 23, 2019 Author Share Posted July 23, 2019 20 minutes ago, Rogers said: If release clauses are meant to be secret, how are are other clubs supposed to activate it? Maybe when ashley tapped up bruce...wanna work for us, yeah sure, it will cost you £3.5m cos I have release clause....kin ell thanks, was gonna offer £5m 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roaminowl Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 26 minutes ago, Weshallovercome said: It's difficult to trigger a release clause if no one knows about it. They're supposed to make an offer. If the offer meets or exceeds (hopefully) the release clause value, the club is obligated to accept the offer. If the offer is below the release clause threshold, then the club can simply reject it, if they wish. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Night-Owl Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 #5296 by Mattoon on 23 Jul, 2019 23:10 If it was Bruce that disclosed it then we can only hope it's in breach of an NDA or some other disclosure in his contract. You just know if it was Bruce and the PL find out then Ashley will throw him under the bus and he'll have to pay the compo himself 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobness Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 If this was the case, how could Newcastle possibly be responsible? They wouldn't be bound by such an agreement. The responsible party would be the one who agreed not divulge this information. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherlyegg Posted July 24, 2019 Author Share Posted July 24, 2019 4 minutes ago, bobness said: If this was the case, how could Newcastle possibly be responsible? They wouldn't be bound by such an agreement. The responsible party would be the one who agreed not divulge this information. Well if Newcastle knew in advance of the release clause and used the information to their own ends, maybe they have a case to answer. If Bruce gave the information..or his agent did he will have a case to answer....if it gets really messy, ashley will throw him to the dogs. Whatever, morally Newcastle / Bruce have brought the game into disrepute. Of course I'm extremely biased because i know ashley and bruce are a pair of tw@ts, and have form for being so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobness Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 17 minutes ago, sherlyegg said: Well if Newcastle knew in advance of the release clause and used the information to their own ends, maybe they have a case to answer. If Bruce gave the information..or his agent did he will have a case to answer....if it gets really messy, ashley will throw him to the dogs. Whatever, morally Newcastle / Bruce have brought the game into disrepute. Of course I'm extremely biased because i know ashley and bruce are a pair of tw@ts, and have form for being so. How would Newcastle be bound to a confidentiality agreement with Sheffield Wednesday? It's also not like a case of insider-trading, where sensitive information is learned and then exploited for profit. Presumably, our club was satisfied with a minimum of £3.5m, so does it really matter how Newcastle found out? At the end of the day, from a financial perspective our club got what it wanted. So is this just a question of ethics without actual monetary damages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss Toni Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 If this is true then I really can't see it going anywhere. The PL won't rule on it because they would then retrospectively have to look back on numerous transfer deals that have been done in the past and they won't want the hassle. We probably wouldn't have been able to get Bruce without this clause in his contract so the risk was always there. It's just a case of his agent looking out for him by ensuring this caveat was in his contract and also it's more than likely his agent that made contact with Newcastle in which case we won't have a leg to stand on. Unfortunately it appears (from the outside looking in) that DC doesn't really understand fully how football works and has been doing for years. We need to just move on and crack on with the preparations for the new season and find a manager. I'd rather the time be spent trying to get the embargo lifted ASAP than pursuing this fruitless task. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Night-Owl Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 (edited) The Premier League will most probably side with Ashley and the LMA that stood by the likes of Malky Mackay will stand by Bruce. It's likely that we will receive less by involving the lawyers, if it goes to a tribunal? Seems clear to me that Bruce engineered the whole thing, whilst Ashley and Bruce have been using and still are using the media to do their dirty work. That's more an issue of ethics. Nothing can be done it seems, without any proof. Without proof it's merely hearsay. But if there's more to it than that and if there's proof, then we could have a stronger case, than the media suggests. Not sure, if this still stands, after the release clause is triggered and this might be just for compo disagreements? But due to the early termination of the contract the original club will be able to bring the following claims: Breach of contract – by the manager Inducement to breach the contract – by the club obtaining his services It is likely that both these claims are to be heard by a disciplinary tribunal which will decide on the adequate amount of compensation to be paid. However the timing of all this is the worst thing about it all. It's more important we focus on replacing Bruce with a suitable replacement, sort out the soft embargo and bring in the players we need. The disruption and the timing could still have a bearing and consequence upon our season. Edited July 24, 2019 by The Night-Owl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casbahowl Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 The Ashley publicity machine goes into full swing in response to DC reporting him to the PL with an “on board” national newspaper and the amount of people on here willing to just accept it as gospel is nothing short of embarrassing! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nevthelodgemoorowl Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Let the spineless move on, some of us have the backbone for the fight. Top man DC ! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobness Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, casbahowl said: The Ashley publicity machine goes into full swing in response to DC reporting him to the PL with an “on board” national newspaper and the amount of people on here willing to just accept it as gospel is nothing short of embarrassing! Entertaining and picking apart the possibilities is all just a bit of fun, especially if the club is saying nowt. In the vast majority of cases the theories on here end up being total bunk, although I'm still convinced David Jones was on £5b a week. Edited July 24, 2019 by bobness 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluesteel Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 If this is the crux of it then it’s not boiling down to much. That is the whole point of a release clause and both parties agree to them at the outset. If we are seeking over and above it puts the club in a worse position as we would be going back on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRightSide Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Each time a few more people fall for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now