Ferthepoet

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

gavnoble

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.

Jimmyt

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.

Law_Man

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.

SWaRFeGa

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.

Ackter

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.

GillsMan

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

Mike7077

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

GillsMan