Arsenal agree personal terms with Remy

[QPRDave]

Can he play in the playoff final for us?

[DeepcutHoop]

I'm old fashioned. I believe a player who signs a 2/3/4/5 year contract, should see out at least half that contract as player in the hoops of Queen's Park Rangers.
Whether he thinks it's beneath him to play in a league lower than the premiership is neither here nor there, he must have known there was more of an even chance of us going down when he arrived.
I really do hope that we never enter into such a ridiculous contract like Remy's ever again.

I hope we're never in such a weak bargaining position again.

Having said that, I don't see it as such a terrible deal for us, regardless. We got a class striker in, he did as much as he could in fighting relegation (albeit ultimately unsuccessfully), and we are unlikely to be losing any money on the deal.

We've done far worse business than the deal for Loic Remy over the years. Far worse.

[dsqpr]

I hope we're never in such a weak bargaining position again.

Having said that, I don't see it as such a terrible deal for us, regardless. We got a class striker in, he did as much as he could in fighting relegation (albeit ultimately unsuccessfully), and we are unlikely to be losing any money on the deal.

We've done far worse business than the deal for Loic Remy over the years. Far worse.

If by "weak bargaining position" you mean "threatened by relegation", note that about a third of the teams in the Premier League are in that position every single season but the sensible ones do not make ridiculous concessions when signing players in a desperate attempt to stay up.

IF there is indeed a release clause in Remy's contract, that gave everything to him and nothing to us. Was there a money back guarantee for us if he turned out to be useless? Nope - we'd have had to keep paying him for the length of his contract. If he turns out to be great then we just get our money back after one season and virtually no return on our investment and the risk we took in making it. IF that is the case, that would make us fools.

I'm OK with a "relegation" release clause because I think that works as well for us as him - he doesn't want to play in a lower division and we don't want to keep paying him PL wages while we are playing in a lower division.

[DeepcutHoop]

If by "weak bargaining position" you mean "threatened by relegation", note that about a third of the teams in the Premier League are in that position every single season but the sensible ones do not make ridiculous concessions when signing players in a desperate attempt to stay up.

IF there is indeed a release clause in Remy's contract, that gave everything to him and nothing to us. Was there a money back guarantee for us if he turned out to be useless? Nope - we'd have had to keep paying him for the length of his contract. If he turns out to be great then we just get our money back after one season and virtually no return on our investment and the risk we took in making it. IF that is the case, that would make us fools.

I'm OK with a "relegation" release clause because I think that works as well for us as him - he doesn't want to play in a lower division and we don't want to keep paying him PL wages while we are playing in a lower division.

Yes, we were desperate and had the cash to persuade a player of Remy's quality to come and give us a chance.

What the contract gave us was the player. Same as any other contract of any type. Their ability on the pitch is what's in it for the team, and the potential that if it went well he might keep us up, and with that the financial reward of another season in the Prem.

I'm not saying it wasn't risky, but even if he had a bad 6 months, he had enough quality that we could have easily sold him back to a French team with no problems, even if we had to take a small hit on the transfer fee.

I wasn't expecting him to be playing for us after that first season, especially given what was said at the time, and I'm convinced that we would not have got him without being extremely accommodating to whatever his agent asked for.

As I said we've done far worse business than this deal before.

[jmelanie]

If by "weak bargaining position" you mean "threatened by relegation", note that about a third of the teams in the Premier League are in that position every single season but the sensible ones do not make ridiculous concessions when signing players in a desperate attempt to stay up.

IF there is indeed a release clause in Remy's contract, that gave everything to him and nothing to us. Was there a money back guarantee for us if he turned out to be useless? Nope - we'd have had to keep paying him for the length of his contract. If he turns out to be great then we just get our money back after one season and virtually no return on our investment and the risk we took in making it. IF that is the case, that would make us fools.

I'm OK with a "relegation" release clause because I think that works as well for us as him - he doesn't want to play in a lower division and we don't want to keep paying him PL wages while we are playing in a lower division.

As I already said, from everything I read it was a "relegation" release clause. The problem is we are no longer relegated so is the clause still applicable. I think this is the question that nobody is able to answer, because I don't think it has happened before. I personally think that the only club which can sign him for this amount are Newcastle, as they may have made some arrangement with the Club when he went on loan there. However apparently Newcastle are no longer interested (or he indicated he was no longer interested in going to Newcastle).

As for being able to sell him back to France. Have you heard of any French clubs being interested in him?

[dsqpr]

As I already said, from everything I read it was a "relegation" release clause. The problem is we are no longer relegated so is the clause still applicable. I think this is the question that nobody is able to answer, because I don't think it has happened before. I personally think that the only club which can sign him for this amount are Newcastle, as they may have made some arrangement with the Club when he went on loan there. However apparently Newcastle are no longer interested (or he indicated he was no longer interested in going to Newcastle).

As for being able to sell him back to France. Have you heard of any French clubs being interested in him?

We all hope you are right about the release clause JM, but from what I have read I believe otherwise; in which case, any club that is willing to match the release clause can talk to him and negotiate a transfer - French, English, or any other country - presumably on a contract that does NOT have a 10M release clause!!! No, I have not read anything about a French club being interested.

My problem is that his value has increased significantly based on his two seasons playing in the Prem. He is our player, we provided that opportunity and if he wants to move to another club we should reap the reward for that increase in value, not least because we took the risk in bringing him to the PL (he could have turned out to be useless in the PL, as many others have).

[Geng]

If by "weak bargaining position" you mean "threatened by relegation", note that about a third of the teams in the Premier League are in that position every single season but the sensible ones do not make ridiculous concessions when signing players in a desperate attempt to stay up.

IF there is indeed a release clause in Remy's contract, that gave everything to him and nothing to us. Was there a money back guarantee for us if he turned out to be useless? Nope - we'd have had to keep paying him for the length of his contract. If he turns out to be great then we just get our money back after one season and virtually no return on our investment and the risk we took in making it. IF that is the case, that would make us fools.

I'm OK with a "relegation" release clause because I think that works as well for us as him - he doesn't want to play in a lower division and we don't want to keep paying him PL wages while we are playing in a lower division.

We got one of the leagues better strikers to join us when we were in 19th or 20th. He played excellently for half a season and if we had stayed up he would have played a huge part. We can't ignore that. That *is* return on investment.

[Geng]

I'm old fashioned. I believe a player who signs a 2/3/4/5 year contract, should see out at least half that contract as player in the hoops of Queen's Park Rangers.
Whether he thinks it's beneath him to play in a league lower than the premiership is neither here nor there, he must have known there was more of an even chance of us going down when he arrived.
I really do hope that we never enter into such a ridiculous contract like Remy's ever again.

It doesn't work both ways though. Look at Green, bought then dropped five matches later. Why should players show such loyalty?

Plus if we have a player for 4 years we are entitled to keep him for 4 years. If he leaves after 2 that's because we let him.

[hal9thou]

The most frustrating thing about Remy and to some extent AT (although different contract) is that the cost of retaining them is often cited as being a key issue in letting them go.

But what about the cost of relegation back down again? Remember, now we're up we have to factor in the naughty boys sanction, imagine taking that up the Rs and then being relegated. Point being that we wont survive on players past their best and loanees. Sooner or later some talent will have to turn up and it may just be worth paying the extra for the right one.

[zeberdee]

I have been saying the same all year - imo he will leave if a ChampsLeague club buy him, otherwise he will return. I suppose Spurs/Utd could lure him without CL but maybe not. But basically just like every player he will go to a CL club if they try to buy him. Still got a good feeling he will be back myself. Not sure wny people think so much about clauses, and doubt that will be the key thing tbh