Jorge Grant

[eesti_red]

Fair enough - just doesn't sound quite like how its been portrayed by Lincoln. Sounded more like there would be a fee, although a fairly low one. Though if Lincoln did agree to him walking away for free, I can see why they wouldn't want it being public knowledge.

 

[cheapseats]

Fair enough - just doesn't sound quite like how its been portrayed by Lincoln. Sounded more like there would be a fee, although a fairly low one. Though if Lincoln did agree to him walking away for free, I can see why they wouldn't want it being public knowledge.

It raises an interesting wider question about sell ons. We constantly hear that a deal is worth X amount with "add ons"-if you sell a player in a deal where the upfront price clearly reflects the potential for upside including a sell on it hardly seems fair that the buying club can short circuit that by renegotiating. That effectively gives an opt out from the deferred part of the agreed value of the asset.I can't see how that would be allowed to happen in other areas of contract law-like for example when you buy a car at a lower monthly payment deferring the lump sum until a defined point later in the contract.

 

[Master Yates]

It raises an interesting wider question about sell ons. We constantly hear that a deal is worth X amount with "add ons"-if you sell a player in a deal where the upfront price clearly reflects the potential for upside including a sell on it hardly seems fair that the buying club can short circuit that by renegotiating. That effectively gives an opt out from the deferred part of the agreed value of the asset.I can't see how that would be allowed to happen in other areas of contract law-like for example when you buy a car at a lower monthly payment deferring the lump sum until a defined point later in the contract.

They haven’t opted out of it though, they’ve just inserted a separate clause that lets him leave for a small fee. We’ll still get whatever percentage of whatever fee he leaves for.

I think he was due to be out of contract this summer if he hadn’t signed the new deal, so we would’ve got f*** all from the sell-on anyway if he left on a free.

It’s the chance you take with a sell-on. I’m sure Plymouth weren’t happy when Dan Gosling walked out of Everton for free because they forgot to offer him a contract.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cheapseats]

They haven’t opted out of it though, they’ve just inserted a separate clause that lets him leave for a small fee. We’ll still get whatever percentage of whatever fee he leaves for.

I think he was due to be out of contract this summer if he hadn’t signed the new deal, so we would’ve got f*** all from the sell-on anyway if he left on a free.

It’s the chance you take with a sell-on. I’m sure Plymouth weren’t happy when Dan Gosling walked out of Everton for free because they forgot to offer him a contract.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes I understand its the chance you take but when you look at the multiple opportunities to f@@k up the "donor" clubs sell on entitlement, it barely seems a chance and its a wonder any money is passed down the line. I mean what's to stop a conversation between the club, the player and the players agent to maximise cash going to those parties at the expense of the developing club.

 

[It's Baggio]

It raises an interesting wider question about sell ons. We constantly hear that a deal is worth X amount with "add ons"-if you sell a player in a deal where the upfront price clearly reflects the potential for upside including a sell on it hardly seems fair that the buying club can short circuit that by renegotiating. That effectively gives an opt out from the deferred part of the agreed value of the asset.I can't see how that would be allowed to happen in other areas of contract law-like for example when you buy a car at a lower monthly payment deferring the lump sum until a defined point later in the contract.

His original Lincoln contract was due to expire this summer, so we'd have got nowt anyway.

 

[cheapseats]

His original Lincoln contract was due to expire this summer, so we'd have got nowt anyway.

Which in itself makes the sell on strategy pretty meaningless....

 

[Master Yates]

Yes I understand its the chance you take but when you look at the multiple opportunities to f@@k up the "donor" clubs sell on entitlement, it barely seems a chance and its a wonder any money is passed down the line. I mean what's to stop a conversation between the club, the player and the players agent to maximise cash going to those parties at the expense of the developing club.

How have they intentionally f**ked up our entitlement if they lose him for f*** all?

If we don’t get much from the sell-on, it means they’ve missed out on a big sale too.

I’m not sure what point you’re making. Why would they do us out of a sell-on by doing themselves out of a fee too? How are they going to maximise cash to themselves without paying any to us?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BryanRoy]

Looks like it will be Warbs at QPR

 

[cheapseats]

How have they intentionally f**ked up our entitlement if they lose him for f*** all?

If we don’t get much from the sell-on, it means they’ve missed out on a big sale too.

I’m not sure what point you’re making. Why would they do us out of a sell-on by doing themselves out of a fee too? How are they going to maximise cash to themselves without paying any to us?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Guess I’m just waking up to the fact that a sell
On clause is pretty pointless.

Never given it much thought before-it’s only ever going to work when you sell a potential
Superstar and they make rapid progress and attract a big fish…..

 

[It's Baggio]

Guess I’m just waking up to the fact that a sell
On clause is pretty pointless.

Never given it much thought before-it’s only ever going to work when you sell a potential
Superstar and they make rapid progress and attract a big fish…..

In most case like this it's just a bit of an arse covering excercise.

 

[alabamared]

Something doesn't seem right to me .
The original contract was a tri partite agreement so two of the parties cannot just go and make a new agreement without the third party consenting.
I think that makes legal sense.

 

[Master Yates]

Something doesn't seem right to me .
The original contract was a tri partite agreement so two of the parties cannot just go and make a new agreement without the third party consenting.
I think that makes legal sense.

They haven’t. They have just inserted a conditional release clause in his new contract.

We still get whatever percentage we negotiated. They haven’t altered our agreement at all. They’ve just made a new, different agreement (albeit one that will affect our agreement) with Grant, which they are entitled to.

The first contract was not tripartite either. It was a sale contract between NFFC and LCFC. Lincoln then made an employment contract between club and player, which we had no part in. That’s the contract that has been extended/varied.

They’re also not doing this to cut us out of any profit. They did it to try and keep him at the club past this summer (had they been promoted) because he was out of contract and would have left for free (no sell-on for us).

So there’s really not any skullduggery going on here and no reason to punish Lincoln by not sending them loan players etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cheapseats]

They haven’t. They have just inserted a conditional release clause in his new contract.

We still get whatever percentage we negotiated. They haven’t altered our agreement at all. They’ve just made a new, different agreement (albeit one that will affect our agreement) with Grant, which they are entitled to.

The first contract was not tripartite either. It was a sale contract between NFFC and LCFC. Lincoln then made an employment contract between club and player, which we had no part in. That’s the contract that has been extended/varied.

They’re also not doing this to cut us out of any profit. They did it to try and keep him at the club past this summer (had they been promoted) because he was out of contract and would have left for free (no sell-on for us).

So there’s really not any skullduggery going on here and no reason to punish Lincoln by not sending them loan players etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are, of course right Red.
In truth thought there ought to be more reward for clubs (like ours) that consistently produce good players through our academy.
Sure we will hit the jackpot with the odd one like Matty, but for every one of him there are plenty of others for which we will end up as an overall loss on the spreadsheet despite them having a good career as a pro elsewhere and somehow that doesn't seem particularly fair...

 

[Senior Flange Technician]

You are, of course right Red.
In truth thought there ought to be more reward for clubs (like ours) that consistently produce good players through our academy.
Sure we will hit the jackpot with the odd one like Matty, but for every one of him there are plenty of others for which we will end up as an overall loss on the spreadsheet despite them having a good career as a pro elsewhere and somehow that doesn't seem particularly fair...

The thing I'd the sales of Matty, Ben, Oliver et Al bring in so much more than the academy costs to run, even if we let sub-par* players go, rather than keeping them, paying and not playing them in the hope they make it.
*Jorge certainly wasn't Champ standard when he left.

 

[Alf-engelos Mindminackers]

Looks like it will be Warbs at QPR

A not good enough academy player for a not good enough manager who finished in a not good enough 9th last year, whilst we battled with relegation

Thank God we only back winners here eh?

 

[incapable hulk]

For the life of me I still can’t fathom how Grant never got a look in here. It’s not like we’ve had an abundance of quality keeping players like him out.

 

[stockers]

But we've we live in a footballing world where most managers think its more important to spend money on transfers than using their coaching skills to get the bets out of the players they have.

 

[mysteryduck]

For the life of me I still can’t fathom how Grant never got a look in here. It’s not like we’ve had an abundance of quality keeping players like him out.

Because any time he played in the first team, he didn't look very good? At the time I don't think many, if any, Forest fans were saying it was a terrible decision to let him go.

We still don't know now that he is Championship standard. Spinning this as a Forest failure is just looking for things to be cross about, IMO.

 

[Alf-engelos Mindminackers]

Because any time he played in the first team, he didn't look very good? At the time I don't think many, if any, Forest fans were saying it was a terrible decision to let him go.

We still don't know now that he is Championship standard. Spinning this as a Forest failure is just looking for things to be cross about, IMO.

Bizarrely I thought he looked to have an air of confidence about him which is hard to train into players.

Obviously the Spurs goal stands out, but I remember his half-time-ish appearance against Charlton, where he looked lively and stood out as someone hungry for a goal. It's almost as if young players aren't the finished article or something.

If we'd have sold Cash a year earlier folk would be justifying it saying "but he just looked like someone who fell over".

Most outfield players aren't starting to peak until the 26-ish age? And if their on low wages, IMO it's better to persist with them until around that age, than spunk shit loads on random toss.

Being impatient with players like Knockers on a rumoured 38k/wk I get. That cost us nearly 2m for 1 season. But I don't get us not giving a kid like Grant a chance who's rumoured to be on 3k/wk at Linclon, and probably earned around the same wage as most established tradesmen when he was at Forest. :dunno:

What we paid for Knockers for 1 year, would have kept Grant on his current rumoured wage here for 12.6 years.

Oh yeah I do get it. We've been run by fuckwits

 

[incapable hulk]

Because any time he played in the first team, he didn't look very good? At the time I don't think many, if any, Forest fans were saying it was a terrible decision to let him go.

We still don't know now that he is Championship standard. Spinning this as a Forest failure is just looking for things to be cross about, IMO.

Equally, spinning it as if he had tons of opportunities and looked terrible is just looking for an excuse. He barely got a look in here.

Scored a goal against Spurs in his first start for the club and looked pretty good in that game, from memory.

I am certainly not cross about it, but just as I felt at the time I still don't think he was really given a chance.

 

[cheapseats]

Equally, spinning it as if he had tons of opportunities and looked terrible is just looking for an excuse. He barely got a look in here.

Scored a goal against Spurs in his first start for the club and looked pretty good in that game, from memory.

I am certainly not cross about it, but just as I felt at the time I still don't think he was really given a chance.

I thought at times he looked a decent player. Just unbalanced in that he had sone great attributes-particularly shooting but was overly lightweight and it was relatively easy for hardbitten experienced midfielders to knock
Out of the game.

 

[Timothy Pope]

Grant did well for Notts for a season and a half in League 2 scoring goals although was considered to be a passenger at times. He failed to impress at Luton in League 1 and had his loan terminated early. He then impressed at Mansfield for the remainder of the 2018/19 season.

He signed for Lincoln for an undisclosed fee in the summer of 2019. In the 2019 season he scored 2 goals for Lincoln in League 1. It’s only this season just gone that he managed to replicate his League 2 scoring form.

I’m not in the know, but his sale to Lincoln was probably as much a case of Grant wanting to leave Forest for first team football as it was Forest looking to offload as they thought he wouldn’t make the step up .

And so far - he hasn’t made the step up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Alf-engelos Mindminackers]

Grant did well for Notts for a season and a half in League 2 scoring goals although was considered to be a passenger at times. He failed to impress at Luton in League 1 and had his loan terminated early. He then impressed at Mansfield for the remainder of the 2018/19 season.

He signed for Lincoln for an undisclosed fee in the summer of 2019. In the 2019 season he scored 2 goals for Lincoln in League 1. It’s only this season just gone that he managed to replicate his League 2 scoring form.

I’m not in the know, but his sale to Lincoln was probably as much a case of Grant wanting to leave Forest for first team football as it was Forest looking to offload as they thought he wouldn’t make the step up .

And so far - he hasn’t made the step up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We still undervalued him and let him go too easily.

Lincoln's record signing is rumoured to be Akinde at 100k in 2018 (correct me if I'm wrong Matt?)

So even if Grant did want out, we've let a natural goalscorer go for f*** all.

It's clear we did not value the kid, and were blinded by bullshit magic-bean sellers like Mendez instead. There's not much difference between Carvalho & Grant in terms of where they are in their careers. Yet Forest will pay 13m for magic beans, whilst not giving their own lad a chance and selling him for threpance.

That's where the problem has been.

 

[Alf-engelos Mindminackers]

I'd also suggest that a revolving door managerial policy, along with a revolving door player policy which fattened the squad out to a ridiculous size, thus making it harder for academy players to break through, didn't exactly encourage Grant to stay and fight for his place here either.

 

[Haych]

I don’t think Grant was ready for our team at the time he left, part of that may be due to him simply not getting the chance in the championship though, it’s not like we had a star studded team either is it.

Lets be honest, a few of the lads we’ve let go who were earning peanuts would hardly of done worse than the team from last year.