Official Gary Cahill transfer thread

[Lord Kangana]

Nolan?

[hisroyalgingerness]

Some perspective. £18m would be a record sale for the club, profit of £15m and allow us to invest in possibly 2 decent players as replacement

He's not won anything, not really achieved anything, barely standard out in our back line and has had 2 glimpsing appearances for his country, of which he's behind Lescott, Upson and Jagielka in the pecking order.

£18m is start the car time.

[TKIZ!]

When do we ever get what we want in paying for or receiving what we want in the transfer market?

Anelka, paid £8m and got back £15m for a 29 year old striker (they've got 3 years out of him)

[m_taylor]

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Tr ... 40795.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I would take Onuoha, Boyata and Cash!!!!!

[GeraldCid]

Its a real possibility that he'll go on a free next summer. He's still young as centre-backs go, so the big clubs might see the sense in waiting another year for him and saving a bundle. I can imagine the likes of Citeh will see the benefits of giving him another year of Premier League experience before he makes the big step up to Champions League football. Hopefully Arsenal will come in this summer, because they cant afford another season with League 1 players at the back & that could spark the bidding war.

[jimbo_bwfc]

I can't really see a Spurs, Liverpool or Arsenal stumping up a penny more than 12M, so we really have lucked out that City want him.

If we could recoup 12M plus Onouha (perma) and Boyata (loan) then we've done excellent out of the deal.

[thebish]

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Tr ... 40795.html

I would take Onuoha, Boyata and Cash!!!!!

Pat Cash? Johnny Cash?

[Choppers]

Upson is damaged goods... OC won't go there

Disagree completely.

Imho, if Cahill goes, Upson will be the first name on Coyle's list to replace him.

[Horza]

Yeah, 'cause Coyle's got a reputation for signing expensive, overrated shite.

[jimbo_bwfc]

Well...Petrov.

I don't think Coyle will go in for Upson either though. Especially if we can get a defender or two off City.

[Mar]

I hope he goes soon. We've got a want away central defender whose looking to secure a position at one of the top clubs. It'd be good business for us and good business for Cahill and the other club. I'd like a player who actually wanted to be here as opposed to just liked to be here while he was aiming for something else. Gudni Bergsson was a prime example of this, after his spell at Tottenham he really enjoyed being at Bolton and gave us his all.

[bobo the clown]

I can't really see a Spurs, Liverpool or Arsenal stumping up a penny more than 12M, so we really have lucked out that City want him.

Well, Jim, given that we have a £17m buy out clause that will be the very minimum we get.

Given his clear ability, that'll be a bargain for a rich club. Given that, however good he is his performances this year have been average, we'll be stealing it.

But there are a few big boys, with real money available, in need of a good centre-hal. We'll get a minimum of £20m, we'll thank him for his performances, we'll wish him well & we won't miss him half as much as we may have thought.

[bobo the clown]

Upson is damaged goods... OC won't go there

Disagree completely.

Imho, if Cahill goes, Upson will be the first name on Coyle's list to replace him.

Are you fecking mad ???

[jimbo_bwfc]

I can't really see a Spurs, Liverpool or Arsenal stumping up a penny more than 12M, so we really have lucked out that City want him.

Well, Jim, given that we have a £17m buy out clause that will be the very minimum we get.

That's not quite how it works, Bobo. Infact, quite the opposite.

If that clause really is there, no-one has ever officially acknowledged it, it means if someone offers us 17M, we HAVE to accept. If someone offers us less, we can accept if we like (and given he has 12 months left, we'd probably snatch someones hand off if we got a 12-15M bid)

The type of clause you are talking about doesn't even exist, as I imagine it would infringe under some sort of slave labour laws...

[Tombwfc]

Yeah, I don't think the £17mil clause exists (otherwise Owen would look a bit of a nice person talking about £20mil+), but regardless, I'd be amazed if we reject £15mil from anyone.

[calcalstar]

I would sell Gaz to Manure and part of the deal take Smalling on a season long loan???

[jimbo_bwfc]

Although I'll agree that the term 'minimum release fee' is quite oxymoronic.

What it means though is that it is the lowest a club can bid in which a club HAS to accept. If City offer 17M or a penny over, we have to accept it. They are quite entitled to offer us 17M, 20M or 30M. We have to accept them all just the same. If United come in with a 17M bid and then City come in with a 40M bid it doesn't make a blind bit of difference, we'd have to accept both and pray the player chooses the bigger bid.

Clubs can quite easily offer less, and if the selling club wants to sell, the player can go. Without City, that's the most likely option for Cahill.

I'm pretty sure every Spanish player has a minimum release fee (I think it's part of their league contract law), but it is very rarely matched when clubs buy/sell because it's usually some crazy figure- I imagine the likes of Messi and Ronaldo's release fees are in the high 200M's.

Again, not sure if Cahill really has that clause or whether it was all speculation that led to accepted 'fact', but if it's there, most buying clubs will be aware of it, and will not likely be paying a penny more than the minimum.

Seeing as City are linked with 20m bids and Coyle has spent most of the last year talking Cahill up as a 20-25M player, I'd guess that the clause probably isn't anything more than fabrication.

He definitely had an 8M clause in his last contract though which gave Phil Gartside quote unquote "nightmares".

[bobo the clown]

I can't really see a Spurs, Liverpool or Arsenal stumping up a penny more than 12M, so we really have lucked out that City want him.

Well, Jim, given that we have a £17m buy out clause that will be the very minimum we get.

That's not quite how it works, Bobo. Infact, quite the opposite.

If that clause really is there, no-one has ever officially acknowledged it, it means if someone offers us 17M, we HAVE to accept. If someone offers us less, we can accept if we like (and given he has 12 months left, we'd probably snatch someones hand off if we got a 12-15M bid)

The type of clause you are talking about doesn't even exist, as I imagine it would infringe under some sort of slave labour laws...

Well James, bless you, but it HAS been acknowledged numerous times. It was part of the contract extension signed (12 months ago ??) and it was £15m, rising to £17m if he got an England cap.

Now, of course it's nominal if no-one offers it, but they will. He's in demand & a good few clubs have cash to burn. At an offer of that we are obliged to inform him and allow him to discuss the option with the bidding club.

Regarding the suggestion that these can't exist due to employment laws well, that's horse shit.

[jimbo_bwfc]

Find me a link on the club's official website Bobo and I'll agree. I remember plenty of rumours about that being the case, but I've never seen anything official...

The last bit, I was simply riffing, as I said 'I imagine'. It probably has nowt to do with employment law, but it's certainly not a clause that a football club has ever imposed.

It's a free-market, clubs can bid whatever they like.

We don't have to accept them, but we're certainly not in a position to be turning down 14-15M for a player who can walk away for free in 12 months time.

[William the White]

Now, of course it's nominal if no-one offers it, but they will. He's in demand & a good few clubs have cash to burn. At an offer of that we are obliged to inform him and allow him to discuss the option with the bidding club.

Regarding the suggestion that these can't exist due to employment laws well, that's horse shit.

Wish they'd get on with it then... If he's going, best to go early...