Jason Byrne now on again - Set to sign in Jan

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

19/12/2005, 1:50 PM
KK77

Lads in all fairness we have done nothing wrong here all we have done is claim what would have been rightly ours at the end of the day Shels stopped the deal because they wanted more money for him because as Pat Fenlon said last week with Bray entitled to their share he wanted to make sure Shels got their's as well which means he wanted more than the 200,000 they would have got so it's Shels problem not Bray's.
19/12/2005, 1:55 PM
Raheny Red

Quote:

Rafa B wrote:

it's Shels problem not Bray's.

Oh yes what a terrible problem we have by having the best striker in the eL!!
19/12/2005, 1:58 PM
Slash/ED

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rafa B

it's Shels problem not Bray's.

That's my point, is it? Our 'problem' is we retain the best striker in the country who will mroe than likely get another 25 or so league goals next season and win the golden boot again. A problem frankly I'm loving.

Brays issue is different. They could have made alot of money and given nothing up in return but now miss out on that chance and instead end up with absolutley nothing. If I was involved in Bray I would have been approaching Shels offering to reduce the clause, not by a great deal, if it was the difference between getting alot of money and no money at all. To me, that just makes sense.

From Shels point of view, the options were simple. Option one, gain 200,000, lose Byrne, option two, keep Byrne get no money in. We made the right choice on that front, so I'm happy.
19/12/2005, 2:14 PM
Roo69

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slash/ED

If you want to put words in my mouth, get outraged over them and argue against points that were never made don't waste my time with it.

I never said Bray prevented anything, or pretty much anything your ranting about there. I said IF, and it's a hypotetical if, Shels would have accepted the deal if Bray reduced the sell on clause, if I was Bray I would have been eager to do so, as that beats getting nothing should Byrne remain at Shels or leave later on at much less money possibley nothing depending on his age and contract situation. Bray will never be in a position to recieve this much money for Byrne again, it would make sense on their part to accept a reduction percentage wise and in the process earn far more than they ever expected in what was essentially free money for them.

Byrne consistently scored more goals than Doyle here, won more trophys and won more awards. All Doyle has on Byrne is age.

To quote you - "The only thing Bray may have done is stop their chance of getting a nice little earner from Byrne" What is that suppoed to mean ?

Again, why should we accept a reduction in the fee when it was what both clubs agreed on in the 1st place ? why should Bray sell themselves short to suit Shelbourne......
19/12/2005, 2:15 PM
Roo69

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slash/ED

Yes but that's entirely different. From Shels point of view, the 200,000 they would recieve is below their valuation of Jason Byrne and why they wont sell him. To get that 200,000, they would lose their main striker and one of their most important players. They value him higher, so no deal. Bray on the other hand would not actually be loseing anything in their case

Yes we would, we would be missing out on money that is rightly ours.
19/12/2005, 2:20 PM
Tenderloins

Did Shels not realise what they were doing when the 50% sell on clause was put in? It does seem to be a high %. Is this the normal figure?
19/12/2005, 2:35 PM
bigmac

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roo69

Yes we would, we would be missing out on money that is rightly ours.

As distinct from missing out completely you mean? I don't think anybody is blaming Bray for destroying a deal, I'm quite happy that an Irish club can reject a significant sum of money, regardless of the terms of the deal. The deal fell through because Shels value Byrne higher than Djurgardens, simple as that.

The point that people raised here is a valid discussion in the abstract, leaving aside the actual clubs involved. If Shelbourne were to (hypothetically, because I don't hear anyone say that they actually approached Bray) approach Bray and say, "300K is lower than we are willing to accept for this player, but if you were willing to renegotiate this part of the contract and accept a 200K cut of the deal, we would then sell him" what should Bray do?

There is no denying that a contract is a contract, but there is also scope in every contract for the contract to be renegotiated if both parties think it will be beneficial to them. Therefore, there are basically two ways of thinking of it.
1. A contract is a contract is a contract, we don't care about whether we will or won't get any money, as long as the contract is adhered to correctly.
2. Ok, if the deal doesn't go through, then we won't get anything, so let's take a cut and walk away with some unexpected money.
Clearly, a lot of people on this forum would do the latter, to be honest, I'm not that bothered about it, I'm just as happy that a potential relegation rival doesn't have a couple of hundred grand of a cash injection.

On a related note, there have been lots of psychological studies done on a similar problem (I forget the classic case name). Essentially, there are two subjects. One of them is given one hundred euros. He is told that he must split it with the other person, in whatever ratio he wants, however, if the other person is not willing to accept the split, neither party gets anything. Interestingly, even though everybody (no matter what the split) ends up with more than they had before, most people won't accept less than about 25 to 35 percent (it varies) and conversely, most people offer around 30 to 50%, with quite a high percentage at 50. The point of this is that some strange innate sense of "fairness" completely overrides good business sense, and I think that is what some posters here believe has happened with Bray.

For the record, I personally don't believe that Bray were ever asked anything, and this whole transfer has been exaggerated beyond belief. Shels were offered 400K, turned it down straight away, no hesitation, and that was the end of it. Everything else is just hypothetical. Interesting, but hypothetical.
19/12/2005, 2:48 PM
Roo69

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigmac

As distinct from missing out completely you mean? I don't think anybody is blaming Bray for destroying a deal, I'm quite happy that an Irish club can reject a significant sum of money, regardless of the terms of the deal. The deal fell through because Shels value Byrne higher than Djurgardens, simple as that.

The point that people raised here is a valid discussion in the abstract, leaving aside the actual clubs involved. If Shelbourne were to (hypothetically, because I don't hear anyone say that they actually approached Bray) approach Bray and say, "300K is lower than we are willing to accept for this player, but if you were willing to renegotiate this part of the contract and accept a 200K cut of the deal, we would then sell him" what should Bray do?

There is no denying that a contract is a contract, but there is also scope in every contract for the contract to be renegotiated if both parties think it will be beneficial to them. Therefore, there are basically two ways of thinking of it.
1. A contract is a contract is a contract, we don't care about whether we will or won't get any money, as long as the contract is adhered to correctly.
2. Ok, if the deal doesn't go through, then we won't get anything, so let's take a cut and walk away with some unexpected money.
Clearly, a lot of people on this forum would do the latter, to be honest, I'm not that bothered about it, I'm just as happy that a potential relegation rival doesn't have a couple of hundred grand of a cash injection.

On a related note, there have been lots of psychological studies done on a similar problem (I forget the classic case name). Essentially, there are two subjects. One of them is given one hundred euros. He is told that he must split it with the other person, in whatever ratio he wants, however, if the other person is not willing to accept the split, neither party gets anything. Interestingly, even though everybody (no matter what the split) ends up with more than they had before, most people won't accept less than about 25 to 35 percent (it varies) and conversely, most people offer around 30 to 50%, with quite a high percentage at 50. The point of this is that some strange innate sense of "fairness" completely overrides good business sense, and I think that is what some posters here believe has happened with Bray.

For the record, I personally don't believe that Bray were ever asked anything, and this whole transfer has been exaggerated beyond belief. Shels were offered 400K, turned it down straight away, no hesitation, and that was the end of it. Everything else is just hypothetical. Interesting, but hypothetical.

If Shels really wanted a bigger slice of the fee they could have came to us to bargin a better deal, but they didnt.

For example if they had of come to us and said, right you can have 150k and we will offer you David Tyrrell as well i would have snapped the hand off them for that no problems what so ever, or even David Tyrrell, Kevin Doherty and Gary O'Neill plus 75/100k, there was was around this but Shels did'nt bother looking into them.

I know for a fact that we were never consulted once about the deal, and as i said why should we have been, this was between Shels, Jason and DIF. They didnt agree to terms and cancelled it.

I wonder would any of the so called "bigger" clubs renegotiate if they were in Bray's suitation ? Doubt they would sell themselves short either really.
19/12/2005, 2:59 PM
CuanaD

Actually, I think its GOOd that Shels rejected the deal, without asking Bray to renegociate the sell-on clause. That says that Shels are happy that Bray will get their fair cut from any deal, but that €400k is too low a valuation for Jason. Spot on IMO

Have a figure in my head - 600-800k would be a fair valuation for Jason Byrne. I think, if 600k was offered then that would probably be good business for all concerned.
19/12/2005, 3:02 PM
Roo69

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuanaD

Actually, I think its GOOd that Shels rejected the deal, without asking Bray to renegociate the sell-on clause. That says that Shels are happy that Bray will get their fair cut from any deal, but that �400k is too low a valuation for Jason. Spot on IMO

Have a figure in my head - 600-800k would be a fair valuation for Jason Byrne. I think, if 600k was offered then that would probably be good business for all concerned.

If Shels can get between 600-800k for Jason then excellent, even better for Bray.
19/12/2005, 3:13 PM
KK77

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raheny Red

Oh yes what a terrible problem we have by having the best striker in the eL!!

I am talking about agreeing the deal as you well know not Jayo as a player
19/12/2005, 3:15 PM
higgins

Quote:

The deal fell through because Shels value Byrne higher than Djurgardens, simple as that.

Shels value Jason Byrne higher then half of what Djurgardens do!

If Shels were to get 100% of any deal then I think they may have agreed to 400K. Maybe as it was an initial offer they thought they could say no and at least Djurgarden would come back saying 400K is our max?

But shels getting 200K and losing Byrne is not good business.

Shels getting 400K and above would be good business but for that to happen you need Bray, Djurgarden or both to move on the initial offer.

Your all saying why should Bray move and I agree why should they.

as for offering David Tyrell Kevin Doherty or Gary O'Neill??? are you crazy!! We are about to lost our main striker and to make the deal happen we show someone else the door who may not even want to go to Bray.. We would really win the league next year having got rid of Fitzpatrick Jayo and O'Neill in two weeks :eek:
19/12/2005, 3:21 PM
bigmac

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roo69

I know for a fact that we were never consulted once about the deal, and as i said why should we have been, this was between Shels, Jason and DIF. They didnt agree to terms and cancelled it.

Eh, didn't I say that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigmac

Shels were offered 400K, turned it down straight away, no hesitation, and that was the end of it. Everything else is just hypothetical. Interesting, but hypothetical.

I completely agree with what you've said Roo. If Shels had come looking to negotiate then Bray would have sat down and tried to work something out that would maximise their gains. But they didn't, so they didn't :D
19/12/2005, 3:27 PM
Roo69

Quote:

Originally Posted by higgins

Shels value Jason Byrne higher then half of what Djurgardens do!

If Shels were to get 100% of any deal then I think they may have agreed to 400K. Maybe as it was an initial offer they thought they could say no and at least Djurgarden would come back saying 400K is our max?

But shels getting 200K and losing Byrne is not good business.

Shels getting 400K and above would be good business but for that to happen you need Bray, Djurgarden or both to move on the initial offer.

Your all saying why should Bray move and I agree why should they.

as for offering David Tyrell Kevin Doherty or Gary O'Neill??? are you crazy!! We are about to lost our main striker and to make the deal happen we show someone else the door who may not even want to go to Bray.. We would really win the league next year having got rid of Fitzpatrick Jayo and O'Neill in two weeks :eek:

Yep, just a little..... :p
19/12/2005, 4:26 PM
pineapple stu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tenderloins

Did Shels not realise what they were doing when the 50% sell on clause was put in? It does seem to be a high %. Is this the normal figure?

UCD will get 50% of any money Derry ever receive for selling Ciar�n Martyn, so it's not unique anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slash/Ed

I said IF, and it's a hypotetical if, Shels would have accepted the deal if Bray reduced the sell on clause, if I was Bray I would have been eager to do so, as that beats getting nothing should Byrne remain at Shels or leave later on at much less money possibley nothing depending on his age and contract situation...[I]t would make sense on their part to accept a reduction percentage wise and in the process earn far more than they ever expected in what was essentially free money for them.

Whie I appreciate that everything on this thread about Bray seems to have arisen out of conjecture with no evidence to suggest anything happened at all, it would set a very dangerous precedent for Bray to agree to settle for less than what is theirs. If Bray were to agree to, say, 35%, then you'd have bigger clubs everywhere trying to pressure smaller clubs into re-writing their own agreements. While, in this one case, Bray could arguably gain, they'd stand to lose in the long-term if this sort of thing became a regular occurrence. If it were UCD, and if it had actually happened, I'd be pleased that we hadn't given into such bullying.
19/12/2005, 8:59 PM
Slash/ED

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Whie I appreciate that everything on this thread about Bray seems to have arisen out of conjecture with no evidence to suggest anything happened at all, it would set a very dangerous precedent for Bray to agree to settle for less than what is theirs. If Bray were to agree to, say, 35%, then you'd have bigger clubs everywhere trying to pressure smaller clubs into re-writing their own agreements. While, in this one case, Bray could arguably gain, they'd stand to lose in the long-term if this sort of thing became a regular occurrence. If it were UCD, and if it had actually happened, I'd be pleased that we hadn't given into such bullying.

Well that is a fair point, the best one raised on this so far, but how likely is it that this amount of money will ever be talked about in this regards in the future for Bray in a situation like this? In this case I'd still say they'd be better off taking the money. But it's all hypotetical, but if roles were reversed and it was Shels in the position of earning more money on the deal then they're ever likely to on another deal like it and far more than budgeted for I'd be looking for them to try and negociate.

Quote:

Yes we would, we would be missing out on money that is rightly ours.

Sentiments don't pay wages, or roofs for stadiums for that matter.

Quote:

To quote you - "The only thing Bray may have done is stop their chance of getting a nice little earner from Byrne" What is that suppoed to mean ?

Again, why should we accept a reduction in the fee when it was what both clubs agreed on in the 1st place ? why should Bray sell themselves short to suit Shelbourne

If you consider earing more money than nothing selling yourself short you've an odd view of the business world. and what I said was essentially that.

But as has been said, there is no evidence at all to suggest Shels approached Bray, it's all hypotetical on here. In fact you even said "I know for a fact that we were never consulted once about the deal" so what in the name of christ are you whinging about? And us give you Tyrrell, Doherty and Gary O'Neill? :D :D Sure we'll throw in Ronaldinho too.
19/12/2005, 9:14 PM
MrJoeSoap

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slash/ED

Well that is a fair point, the best one raised on this so far, but how likely is it that this amount of money will ever be talked about in this regards in the future for Bray in a situation like this? In this case I'd still say they'd be better off taking the money. But it's all hypotetical, but if roles were reversed and it was Shels in the position of earning more money on the deal then they're ever likely to on another deal like it and far more than budgeted for I'd be looking for them to try and negociate.

There is also the fact that had Bray (hypothetically) accepted a 'comprimise' deal, at say 30% or 35% that they wouldn't have had Jayo banging another 4 or 5 goals past them next season! Thats gotta be worth something to them! :D

I can see both sides of the argument though, Bray shouldn't be forced to comprimise, but not doing so means they probably lose out on getting any money whatsoever. I'm sure if the roles were reversed I would like to get a chunk of the money, especially if it meant a player who is a major goal threat leaving the country!
20/12/2005, 7:12 AM
rerun

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

UCD will get 50% of any money Derry ever receive for selling Ciar�n Martyn, so it's not unique anyway.

Really???!!! I wonder is that the standard deal in transfers in Ireland? It's weird, means the club that initially sold the player always stands to make more from the sale than the current club.
20/12/2005, 7:23 AM
Macy

Quote:

Originally Posted by rerun

Really???!!! I wonder is that the standard deal in transfers in Ireland? It's weird, means the club that initially sold the player always stands to make more from the sale than the current club.

Might be a standard deal, but how many players actually transfer? Usually signed when out of contract...
20/12/2005, 8:10 AM
Roo69

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slash/ED

Well that is a fair point, the best one raised on this so far, but how likely is it that this amount of money will ever be talked about in this regards in the future for Bray in a situation like this? In this case I'd still say they'd be better off taking the money. But it's all hypotetical, but if roles were reversed and it was Shels in the position of earning more money on the deal then they're ever likely to on another deal like it and far more than budgeted for I'd be looking for them to try and negociate.

Sentiments don't pay wages, or roofs for stadiums for that matter.

If you consider earing more money than nothing selling yourself short you've an odd view of the business world. and what I said was essentially that.

But as has been said, there is no evidence at all to suggest Shels approached Bray, it's all hypotetical on here. In fact you even said "I know for a fact that we were never consulted once about the deal" so what in the name of christ are you whinging about? And us give you Tyrrell, Doherty and Gary O'Neill? :D :D Sure we'll throw in Ronaldinho too.

I raised the same point earlier on in the post, why should smaller clubs have to settle for 2nd best, If a contract is agreed then bloody well stick to it, if you can't then think of other ways of making up the short fall instead of trying to pass the blame on.......

A lot of people are using the word "hypotetical" a lot, there's nothing hypotetical about the suitation. Shels were offered quite a lot of Money for Jason Byrne, which 50% would have went to Bray, Shels were'nt happy so ended the deal. Thats it, no discusions, no comprimise. Shels did not contact Bray once with regards to it, so how can people say that Bray would have been better taking a reduction in the fee ?

The reason why Shels pulled the plug is because they were not happy what so ever and even if they could have managed to reduce the sell on clause they still would not have been happy with what they were getting..... Nothing wrong with that what so ever IMO

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page