retired_rose01

Why when a club is forced to accept a bid because of a minimum fee release clause it says the board felt it was too good to refuse..... It should not take long to type a message saying the offer HAD to be accepted

retired_Christia17

There are plenty of options that should have been added long ago to cover some of the reasons for selling or even loaning a player. For exmaple, when sending a player out on loan the option that says 'In order to gain first team experience' is long overdue.

retired_donnie

It's technically correct though. the board couldn't refuse the bid simply because of the clause.

so in reality, the bid WAS too good to refuse.

retired_roshawnda82

I think you'll find that isn't technically correct.

An offer being "too good to refuse" suggests that refusal was at least a remote possibility i.e. AC Milan technically could have refused Chelsea's £30m bid for Shevchenko, but, all things considered (such as his age, him probably wanting to go etc) the offer was simply too good to refuse; it made business sense.

The way a minimum fee release clause works is to remove any and all possibility of refusal.

retired_mssa007

They would have accepted the bid anyway, regardless of the minimum fee clause, because like they say - the offer was too good to refuse.
So in way, you are quite lucky. They could have offered maybe £1million less and still bought him.

circlewalker

The excuse for this is quite simple:

It has virtually zero impact on the game, in any way, shape or form. There's more important things to be spending time on.

rytm2323

Quite right. When I saw the thread title, I thought it would be something major, rather than a simple linguistic bone of contention. :thdn:

retired_sesmith0116

This kind of thing annoys me for all of two seconds, before I realise that what's really at fault is my pedantic nature.

rytm2323