The Official Silly Transfer Thread for January 2017

[westcliff white]

Sky Sports Transfer Centre just now:

MORE ON MARTIN DEAL

After Chris Martin signed a new contract with Derby today, a Fulham spokesperson has told the Press Association tonight:

"The signing of a new contract with Derby County does not impact on the terms of the loan arrangement agreed by both clubs.

"Chris Martin will be at Fulham for the remainder of the season and the club still has an option to purchase."

This is all very weird, if as was rumoured back in August he agreed and signed a deal with us for if we wish to take up the option his new contract would be worth diddly squat.

Personally don't care, I gave him the benefit of the doubt and welcomed him back as I felt that right, but now I don't want him sent back I want him playing for the reserves and if he refuses too then we get the PFA involved. Let him rot and see what condition he will be in.

I personally don't think Slav has lied to the fans, I think Martin has said the right things to play and Slav thought he was coming round, reckon Slav is spitting feathers now tonight.

But options aren't set in stone, the buying club and player can still turn it down

Not when you have the option to buy, they can't. They (Derby) have agreed contractually to sell him to us if we wish to make it permanent, so if we make an offer at the limited stated they have to accept. The only conjecture here is that he as was rumoured to have agreed a contract with us, salary length of deal prior to signing the loan deal, if he has done that and signed it then it will get very messy. I am sure there was a very similar case in the nineties with an Eastern European signing for two clubs, not saying Martin has done this, but Derby for sure can't refuse our bid if it meets there clause in the contract

[Apprentice to the Maestro]

My guess, and this is just a guess based on the sky sports quote, is we do indeed still have the option on terms pre-agreed with both the player and Derby, and therefore as Westcliff says the new contract with Derby means nothing... except what it does do is make clear the player doesn't want to play for us, and Derby and Martin will both know that even a circus like us wouldn't pay £6m to finalise a deal for a player that's made it abundantly clear he doesn't want to be here

options still have to be signed off by the two player and buying club though. The only difference with Martin is that the selling club have changed their mind, but don't have a veto

Another statement made with such confidence.

Wouldn't it seem to be an overstatement to say "the club has an option" if some other party, in this case the player, can opt out. To say 'option' in such circumstances would be just meaningless.

[The Road Less Travelled]

My guess, and this is just a guess based on the sky sports quote, is we do indeed still have the option on terms pre-agreed with both the player and Derby, and therefore as Westcliff says the new contract with Derby means nothing... except what it does do is make clear the player doesn't want to play for us, and Derby and Martin will both know that even a circus like us wouldn't pay £6m to finalise a deal for a player that's made it abundantly clear he doesn't want to be here

options still have to be signed off by the two player and buying club though. The only difference with Martin is that the selling club have changed their mind, but don't have a veto

Another statement made with such confidence.

Wouldn't it seem to be an overstatement to say "the club has an option" if some other party, in this case the player, can opt out. To say 'option' in such circumstances would be just meaningless.

I have an option to sleep with Margot Robbie.  Both her and her husband have to agree to it, but I have that option.

[westcliff white]

My guess, and this is just a guess based on the sky sports quote, is we do indeed still have the option on terms pre-agreed with both the player and Derby, and therefore as Westcliff says the new contract with Derby means nothing... except what it does do is make clear the player doesn't want to play for us, and Derby and Martin will both know that even a circus like us wouldn't pay £6m to finalise a deal for a player that's made it abundantly clear he doesn't want to be here

options still have to be signed off by the two player and buying club though. The only difference with Martin is that the selling club have changed their mind, but don't have a veto

Another statement made with such confidence.

Wouldn't it seem to be an overstatement to say "the club has an option" if some other party, in this case the player, can opt out. To say 'option' in such circumstances would be just meaningless.

I have an option to sleep with Margot Robbie.  Both her and her husband have to agree to it, but I have that option.

However if her and her husband (her being the player and the husband the club) sign a contract giving you that option then they cannot refuse you if all clauses in said contract are met, if they did it would be breach of contract.

[The Road Less Travelled]

My guess, and this is just a guess based on the sky sports quote, is we do indeed still have the option on terms pre-agreed with both the player and Derby, and therefore as Westcliff says the new contract with Derby means nothing... except what it does do is make clear the player doesn't want to play for us, and Derby and Martin will both know that even a circus like us wouldn't pay £6m to finalise a deal for a player that's made it abundantly clear he doesn't want to be here

options still have to be signed off by the two player and buying club though. The only difference with Martin is that the selling club have changed their mind, but don't have a veto

Another statement made with such confidence.

Wouldn't it seem to be an overstatement to say "the club has an option" if some other party, in this case the player, can opt out. To say 'option' in such circumstances would be just meaningless.

I have an option to sleep with Margot Robbie.  Both her and her husband have to agree to it, but I have that option.

However if her and her husband (her being the player and the husband the club) sign a contract giving you that option then they cannot refuse you if all clause are there fore met

I'm down.

[Jem]

My guess, and this is just a guess based on the sky sports quote, is we do indeed still have the option on terms pre-agreed with both the player and Derby, and therefore as Westcliff says the new contract with Derby means nothing... except what it does do is make clear the player doesn't want to play for us, and Derby and Martin will both know that even a circus like us wouldn't pay £6m to finalise a deal for a player that's made it abundantly clear he doesn't want to be here

options still have to be signed off by the two player and buying club though. The only difference with Martin is that the selling club have changed their mind, but don't have a veto

Another statement made with such confidence.

Wouldn't it seem to be an overstatement to say "the club has an option" if some other party, in this case the player, can opt out. To say 'option' in such circumstances would be just meaningless.

I have an option to sleep with Margot Robbie.  Both her and her husband have to agree to it, but I have that option.

However if her and her husband (her being the player and the husband the club) sign a contract giving you that option then they cannot refuse you if all clauses in said contract are met, if they did it would be breach of contract.

History tells us that she can if she has a headache!

[fulhamben]

My guess, and this is just a guess based on the sky sports quote, is we do indeed still have the option on terms pre-agreed with both the player and Derby, and therefore as Westcliff says the new contract with Derby means nothing... except what it does do is make clear the player doesn't want to play for us, and Derby and Martin will both know that even a circus like us wouldn't pay £6m to finalise a deal for a player that's made it abundantly clear he doesn't want to be here

options still have to be signed off by the two player and buying club though. The only difference with Martin is that the selling club have changed their mind, but don't have a veto

Another statement made with such confidence.

Wouldn't it seem to be an overstatement to say "the club has an option" if some other party, in this case the player, can opt out. To say 'option' in such circumstances would be just meaningless.

I'd imagine if more cases like Martins happen then the fa would look into the option. In over 30 odd years of football, I can't recall one other instance of a club who is willing to sell a player, puts them out on loan with an option and then changes their mind half way through and gives him a pay rise and tells him to come home. If as you say the option is legally binding (which it isn't) then why don't the club come out and say, martin has signed a contract and will be a fully fledged Fulham player at the end of the season once the final payment has gone through. They won't because they don't and the player like us have a veto on it

[Texas White]

My guess, and this is just a guess based on the sky sports quote, is we do indeed still have the option on terms pre-agreed with both the player and Derby, and therefore as Westcliff says the new contract with Derby means nothing... except what it does do is make clear the player doesn't want to play for us, and Derby and Martin will both know that even a circus like us wouldn't pay £6m to finalise a deal for a player that's made it abundantly clear he doesn't want to be here

options still have to be signed off by the two player and buying club though. The only difference with Martin is that the selling club have changed their mind, but don't have a veto

Another statement made with such confidence.

Wouldn't it seem to be an overstatement to say "the club has an option" if some other party, in this case the player, can opt out. To say 'option' in such circumstances would be just meaningless.

I have an option to sleep with Margot Robbie.  Both her and her husband have to agree to it, but I have that option.

However if her and her husband (her being the player and the husband the club) sign a contract giving you that option then they cannot refuse you if all clauses in said contract are met, if they did it would be breach of contract.

History tells us that she can if she has a headache!

I would guess that's in our future also.. 

[Barrett487]

My guess, and this is just a guess based on the sky sports quote, is we do indeed still have the option on terms pre-agreed with both the player and Derby, and therefore as Westcliff says the new contract with Derby means nothing... except what it does do is make clear the player doesn't want to play for us, and Derby and Martin will both know that even a circus like us wouldn't pay £6m to finalise a deal for a player that's made it abundantly clear he doesn't want to be here

options still have to be signed off by the two player and buying club though. The only difference with Martin is that the selling club have changed their mind, but don't have a veto

Another statement made with such confidence.

Wouldn't it seem to be an overstatement to say "the club has an option" if some other party, in this case the player, can opt out. To say 'option' in such circumstances would be just meaningless.

I'd imagine if more cases like Martins happen then the fa would look into the option. In over 30 odd years of football, I can't recall one other instance of a club who is willing to sell a player, puts them out on loan with an option and then changes their mind half way through and gives him a pay rise and tells him to come home. If as you say the option is legally binding (which it isn't) then why don't the club come out and say, martin has signed a contract and will be a fully fledged Fulham player at the end of the season once the final payment has gone through. They won't because they don't and the player like us have a veto on it

:plus one:

[Texas White]

My guess, and this is just a guess based on the sky sports quote, is we do indeed still have the option on terms pre-agreed with both the player and Derby, and therefore as Westcliff says the new contract with Derby means nothing... except what it does do is make clear the player doesn't want to play for us, and Derby and Martin will both know that even a circus like us wouldn't pay £6m to finalise a deal for a player that's made it abundantly clear he doesn't want to be here

options still have to be signed off by the two player and buying club though. The only difference with Martin is that the selling club have changed their mind, but don't have a veto

Another statement made with such confidence.

Wouldn't it seem to be an overstatement to say "the club has an option" if some other party, in this case the player, can opt out. To say 'option' in such circumstances would be just meaningless.

I'd imagine if more cases like Martins happen then the fa would look into the option. In over 30 odd years of football, I can't recall one other instance of a club who is willing to sell a player, puts them out on loan with an option and then changes their mind half way through and gives him a pay rise and tells him to come home. If as you say the option is legally binding (which it isn't) then why don't the club come out and say, martin has signed a contract and will be a fully fledged Fulham player at the end of the season once the final payment has gone through. They won't because they don't and the player like us have a veto on it

I think the intent here is clear... A big FU from Martin to Fulham

[westcliff white]

My guess, and this is just a guess based on the sky sports quote, is we do indeed still have the option on terms pre-agreed with both the player and Derby, and therefore as Westcliff says the new contract with Derby means nothing... except what it does do is make clear the player doesn't want to play for us, and Derby and Martin will both know that even a circus like us wouldn't pay £6m to finalise a deal for a player that's made it abundantly clear he doesn't want to be here

options still have to be signed off by the two player and buying club though. The only difference with Martin is that the selling club have changed their mind, but don't have a veto

Another statement made with such confidence.

Wouldn't it seem to be an overstatement to say "the club has an option" if some other party, in this case the player, can opt out. To say 'option' in such circumstances would be just meaningless.

I'd imagine if more cases like Martins happen then the fa would look into the option. In over 30 odd years of football, I can't recall one other instance of a club who is willing to sell a player, puts them out on loan with an option and then changes their mind half way through and gives him a pay rise and tells him to come home. If as you say the option is legally binding (which it isn't) then why don't the club come out and say, martin has signed a contract and will be a fully fledged Fulham player at the end of the season once the final payment has gone through. They won't because they don't and the player like us have a veto on it

Martin could veto if he hasn't signed any type of contract / pre co treat agreeing a deal with us ta for certain. But any options are all on our side as it was stated when we loaned him.

Derby can't refuse the deal, they signed a loan deal with us saying we can buy at then end for a set fee, if we wish to take that option then they cannot refuse.

The player side is more complicated. If he hasn't signed any form of contract then he can fail to agree terms and that's that. If he has then he cannot simply say no, as he is legally bound by the terms he signed.

So all depends what wa wagered with Martin and his agent prior and what was signed, in a lot of cases with late deals the agents sign on behalf of the client, maybe his agent has made a mistake. All will come out and no,point in us poor FFC fans bickering over what's what.

All we want is the team to,play well and win, and hopefully rectify this situation asap

[fulhamben]

My guess, and this is just a guess based on the sky sports quote, is we do indeed still have the option on terms pre-agreed with both the player and Derby, and therefore as Westcliff says the new contract with Derby means nothing... except what it does do is make clear the player doesn't want to play for us, and Derby and Martin will both know that even a circus like us wouldn't pay £6m to finalise a deal for a player that's made it abundantly clear he doesn't want to be here

options still have to be signed off by the two player and buying club though. The only difference with Martin is that the selling club have changed their mind, but don't have a veto

Another statement made with such confidence.

Wouldn't it seem to be an overstatement to say "the club has an option" if some other party, in this case the player, can opt out. To say 'option' in such circumstances would be just meaningless.

I'd imagine if more cases like Martins happen then the fa would look into the option. In over 30 odd years of football, I can't recall one other instance of a club who is willing to sell a player, puts them out on loan with an option and then changes their mind half way through and gives him a pay rise and tells him to come home. If as you say the option is legally binding (which it isn't) then why don't the club come out and say, martin has signed a contract and will be a fully fledged Fulham player at the end of the season once the final payment has gone through. They won't because they don't and the player like us have a veto on it

Martin could veto if he hasn't signed any type of contract / pre co treat agreeing a deal with us ta for certain. But any options are all on our side as it was stated when we loaned him.

Derby can't refuse the deal, they signed a loan deal with us saying we can buy at then end for a set fee, if we wish to take that option then they cannot refuse.

The player side is more complicated. If he hasn't signed any form of contract then he can fail to agree terms and that's that. If he has then he cannot simply say no, as he is legally bound by the terms he signed.

So all depends what wa wagered with Martin and his agent prior and what was signed, in a lot of cases with late deals the agents sign on behalf of the client, maybe his agent has made a mistake. All will come out and no,point in us poor FFC fans bickering over what's what.

All we want is the team to,play well and win, and hopefully rectify this situation asap

If Martin had of signed a pre contract then Derby wouldn't even be trying to get him back as it would be fruitless  and Fulham would have put this all to be weeks ago because we would have legality behind us. We clearly don't,  as we are where we are now. Unless you think for some reason Fulham would hide a binding contract through these turbulent times.but yes legally Derby would have to sell him to us for a pre set fee. But once again there is no legally binding contract signed by martin

[fulhamben]

And don't forget when the initial option was negotiated, martin probably had every intension to sign for us if we took it up as Derby didn't want him.that has of course changed

[westcliff white]

My guess, and this is just a guess based on the sky sports quote, is we do indeed still have the option on terms pre-agreed with both the player and Derby, and therefore as Westcliff says the new contract with Derby means nothing... except what it does do is make clear the player doesn't want to play for us, and Derby and Martin will both know that even a circus like us wouldn't pay £6m to finalise a deal for a player that's made it abundantly clear he doesn't want to be here

options still have to be signed off by the two player and buying club though. The only difference with Martin is that the selling club have changed their mind, but don't have a veto

Another statement made with such confidence.

Wouldn't it seem to be an overstatement to say "the club has an option" if some other party, in this case the player, can opt out. To say 'option' in such circumstances would be just meaningless.

I'd imagine if more cases like Martins happen then the fa would look into the option. In over 30 odd years of football, I can't recall one other instance of a club who is willing to sell a player, puts them out on loan with an option and then changes their mind half way through and gives him a pay rise and tells him to come home. If as you say the option is legally binding (which it isn't) then why don't the club come out and say, martin has signed a contract and will be a fully fledged Fulham player at the end of the season once the final payment has gone through. They won't because they don't and the player like us have a veto on it

Martin could veto if he hasn't signed any type of contract / pre co treat agreeing a deal with us ta for certain. But any options are all on our side as it was stated when we loaned him.

Derby can't refuse the deal, they signed a loan deal with us saying we can buy at then end for a set fee, if we wish to take that option then they cannot refuse.

The player side is more complicated. If he hasn't signed any form of contract then he can fail to agree terms and that's that. If he has then he cannot simply say no, as he is legally bound by the terms he signed.

So all depends what wa wagered with Martin and his agent prior and what was signed, in a lot of cases with late deals the agents sign on behalf of the client, maybe his agent has made a mistake. All will come out and no,point in us poor FFC fans bickering over what's what.

All we want is the team to,play well and win, and hopefully rectify this situation asap

If Martin had of signed a pre contract then Derby wouldn't even be trying to get him back as it would be fruitless  and Fulham would have put this all to be weeks ago because we would have legality behind us. We clearly don't,  as we are where we are now. Unless you think for some reason Fulham would hide a binding contract through these turbulent times.but yes legally Derby would have to sell him to us for a pre set fee. But once again there is no legally binding contract signed by martin

Ben quite clearly I have not said Martin has signed a contract, I said if he has. what I did say was Derby cannot refuse any bid that meets the required set fee.

I was just speculating if he had or if the rumours when he signed were true what the situation would be

[Fulham Tup North]

I cannot wait to see tomorrow's team line-up!!

[Apprentice to the Maestro]

My guess, and this is just a guess based on the sky sports quote, is we do indeed still have the option on terms pre-agreed with both the player and Derby, and therefore as Westcliff says the new contract with Derby means nothing... except what it does do is make clear the player doesn't want to play for us, and Derby and Martin will both know that even a circus like us wouldn't pay £6m to finalise a deal for a player that's made it abundantly clear he doesn't want to be here

options still have to be signed off by the two player and buying club though. The only difference with Martin is that the selling club have changed their mind, but don't have a veto

Another statement made with such confidence.

Wouldn't it seem to be an overstatement to say "the club has an option" if some other party, in this case the player, can opt out. To say 'option' in such circumstances would be just meaningless.

I'd imagine if more cases like Martins happen then the fa would look into the option. In over 30 odd years of football, I can't recall one other instance of a club who is willing to sell a player, puts them out on loan with an option and then changes their mind half way through and gives him a pay rise and tells him to come home. If as you say the option is legally binding (which it isn't) then why don't the club come out and say, martin has signed a contract and will be a fully fledged Fulham player at the end of the season once the final payment has gone through. They won't because they don't and the player like us have a veto on it

How do you know the option isn't legally binding? That word is used for legally binding deals in other fields.

The club won't say that he will be a fully fledged Fulham player at the end of the season exactly because we have an option. That means if the move were not to work out (!) or the player got a career ending injury then we would not have to take up the option.

[fulhamben]

My guess, and this is just a guess based on the sky sports quote, is we do indeed still have the option on terms pre-agreed with both the player and Derby, and therefore as Westcliff says the new contract with Derby means nothing... except what it does do is make clear the player doesn't want to play for us, and Derby and Martin will both know that even a circus like us wouldn't pay £6m to finalise a deal for a player that's made it abundantly clear he doesn't want to be here

options still have to be signed off by the two player and buying club though. The only difference with Martin is that the selling club have changed their mind, but don't have a veto

Another statement made with such confidence.

Wouldn't it seem to be an overstatement to say "the club has an option" if some other party, in this case the player, can opt out. To say 'option' in such circumstances would be just meaningless.

I'd imagine if more cases like Martins happen then the fa would look into the option. In over 30 odd years of football, I can't recall one other instance of a club who is willing to sell a player, puts them out on loan with an option and then changes their mind half way through and gives him a pay rise and tells him to come home. If as you say the option is legally binding (which it isn't) then why don't the club come out and say, martin has signed a contract and will be a fully fledged Fulham player at the end of the season once the final payment has gone through. They won't because they don't and the player like us have a veto on it

Martin could veto if he hasn't signed any type of contract / pre co treat agreeing a deal with us ta for certain. But any options are all on our side as it was stated when we loaned him.

Derby can't refuse the deal, they signed a loan deal with us saying we can buy at then end for a set fee, if we wish to take that option then they cannot refuse.

The player side is more complicated. If he hasn't signed any form of contract then he can fail to agree terms and that's that. If he has then he cannot simply say no, as he is legally bound by the terms he signed.

So all depends what wa wagered with Martin and his agent prior and what was signed, in a lot of cases with late deals the agents sign on behalf of the client, maybe his agent has made a mistake. All will come out and no,point in us poor FFC fans bickering over what's what.

All we want is the team to,play well and win, and hopefully rectify this situation asap

If Martin had of signed a pre contract then Derby wouldn't even be trying to get him back as it would be fruitless  and Fulham would have put this all to be weeks ago because we would have legality behind us. We clearly don't,  as we are where we are now. Unless you think for some reason Fulham would hide a binding contract through these turbulent times.but yes legally Derby would have to sell him to us for a pre set fee. But once again there is no legally binding contract signed by martin

Ben quite clearly I have not said Martin has signed a contract, I said if he has. what I did say was Derby cannot refuse any bid that meets the required set fee.

I was just speculating if he had or if the rumours when he signed were true what the situation would be

Yes fair enough mate. I think the situation being what it is puts end to all speculation though. That and I know that he hasn't signed a pre contract ( because yes it was the first thing I mentioned to said family member when I was informed that Martin was off) I'm done with this situation now. I just hope we have a decent replacement lined up, as I will be extremely disappointed in the club if they allow him to Don our shirt again. It's all about the fa cup for me for the next 14 hours

[fulhamben]

My guess, and this is just a guess based on the sky sports quote, is we do indeed still have the option on terms pre-agreed with both the player and Derby, and therefore as Westcliff says the new contract with Derby means nothing... except what it does do is make clear the player doesn't want to play for us, and Derby and Martin will both know that even a circus like us wouldn't pay £6m to finalise a deal for a player that's made it abundantly clear he doesn't want to be here

options still have to be signed off by the two player and buying club though. The only difference with Martin is that the selling club have changed their mind, but don't have a veto

Another statement made with such confidence.

Wouldn't it seem to be an overstatement to say "the club has an option" if some other party, in this case the player, can opt out. To say 'option' in such circumstances would be just meaningless.

I'd imagine if more cases like Martins happen then the fa would look into the option. In over 30 odd years of football, I can't recall one other instance of a club who is willing to sell a player, puts them out on loan with an option and then changes their mind half way through and gives him a pay rise and tells him to come home. If as you say the option is legally binding (which it isn't) then why don't the club come out and say, martin has signed a contract and will be a fully fledged Fulham player at the end of the season once the final payment has gone through. They won't because they don't and the player like us have a veto on it

How do you know the option isn't legally binding? That word is used for legally binding deals in other fields.

The club won't say that he will be a fully fledged Fulham player at the end of the season exactly because we have an option. That means if the move were not to work out (!) or the player got a career ending injury then we would not have to take up the option.

Ok then they could say the contracts are signed and he would be a fulham player next season should we choose to take up the option. Do you honestly think the club would let Derby and Martin play us like they are if they did?

[bill taylors apprentice]

I think its far to say that we, the fans, the manager and even those running the club know we need to sign more than a couple of players !

We all know we lack quality in various areas of the team and that's without the Martin fiasco!

So WTF is the point in employing talent scouts, analysts and whatever else if we haven't lined up a number of players that are thought to be just what we need ???

Surely they don't sit in a darkened room waiting to be told "OK chaps, wake up you've got 31 days to find someone, find out who his agent is and would he be interested in coming over for a chat" ???

Assuming a lot of good work has been done leading up to the window opening and ready to act upon, why are we in the same position yet again ???

Or maybe I'm assuming wrongly and giving the club too much credit for being ambitious ???

[Apprentice to the Maestro]

Looking back at the news item on the official on his signing and Martin's player profile both only say that he is on a season long loan. There is no mention of an option.

Maybe that is the explanation for the situation.

The moral of the story is don't take a loan from one of your potential rivals?