Diame's done one...

Im pretty sure they did say all the clauses were relegation related. Why would we sign a player who literally the day later would be allowed to leave for less than we paid?

 

When we got relegated some players had a pay cut and a release clause was inserted to compensate.
In some cases that release clause was set too low.In this case it was triggered and knowing that the capital outlay was too low the player was then able to negotiate a higher salary with his new club.

 

Once you negotiate a reduction in wages should a relegation occur, then the player (player's agent) negotiates a price which the club have to let him speak to other clubs

Whether you call it a relegation clause I'm not
Sure but it is relegation related - and it's usually our most sought after players that have them

 

That makes sense.

The explanation i mean not setting the release clause too low.

 

Diame didn't leave until Bruce had already ****ed off.

We sold Diame for more than we bought him for. Both sums were way below his potential value, so it's fair enough really.

And it wasn't a relegation clause, it was just a release clause. We weren't relegated when he left.

 

He probably insisted. We bought him for peanuts, he saw us as an opportunity to play centrally (it wasn't even to get game time as he was playing for West Ham, just shoe horned out wide and he wanted to play centrally) so why would he take the risk of coming to a relegation threatened club without a low get out of jail free card.

Some of you think the owners can just snap their fingers and do what they want, and thank **** they can't.

Edit: I misread your post and have just noticed you weren't whining about the figure in the release clause.

 

We should never have let Diame go

 

I agree. And if he did indeed insist on having a low release clause we should never have signed him in the first place.

 

it wasn't a "relegation clause" it was a "release clause"
we could have won the european champions cup and if newcastle were willing to pay the release amount he could go if he wanted to

 

why was it low? it was more than we signed him for.

 

That second sentence was sarcasm. As I said in my post above, we signed him cheap, sold him cheap at a profit. It's fair enough IMO. Everyone's a winner.

 

sorry: low and less low

 

we made profit , same as most of our sales over the last 7 years ... money in the bank and ill be honest I am happier with the players we have now then I have seen in the last 10 years ...

 

He also departed after Steve Bruce too .