Connor Ripley

DCI_Gene_Hunt

Well-known member
I wouldn't have him back now but interesting that the club actually insisted in sell on clauses and having first option to take him back if he was to be sold.

 
Last edited:
Just goes to show that sell on clauses aren't always the way to go.

He'll probably leave for nothing, or a small fee and we would have got more if we'd just asked for a bigger fee when he left
 
To be fair it's completely different asking for a decent sell on clause for Fry or Tav. They have been key young players.

Ripley was never even close to being first team. I guess they played a hunch he may have become PNE first choice and worth 3-4 Mil.

The big one was Traore but clearly that was complicated by a release fee in his contact.
 
Sell on clauses are always a gamble for buyer and seller.

They are never just add-ons: they always represent a reduction in the up front fee.

Unsurprisingly, no one ever want one when we're actually selling, but everyone wants one when the player is being sold on for big money. I'd like to be able to place bets at pre-race odds after the horse has won, but the world doesn't work like that.

Even for the likes of Traore, there is a chance he'll suffer a career ending injury before he moves on, or see out his contract and move on a Bosman.
 
They needn't have bothered, we (Pools) didn't have a shot on target. Disappointing for the 1,000 Poolies that made the journey.

The difference between our home form (pretty much straight wins) and away form (straight losses) couldn't be any bigger, it's weird - they are similar sized pieces of grass with a goal at either end, ffs.
 
Shouldn't sell-on clauses, and any other arrangement that introduces 3rd party interest in a player, be banned?
 
Back
Top