Greg Tansey

[DonInPeace]

Evening all, hope you're well.

 

Just popped on to see if any of you are in the know as to why Tansey didn't sign?

 

Just watched our manager on RedTV there, spoke openly about of all this, saying he can't understand why Tansey isn't an Aberdeen player, said he spoke to John Hughes this morning, who's in agreement that Aberdeen acted with integrity and never went behind anyone's back etc.... He said we definitely offered 200k up front, which activated Tansey's release clause, the player himself was eager to join, but something prevented the actual deal going through. There isn't an issue with the release clause being triggered or made public, as it was an agent that ICT as a club use in general, that made us aware of it.

 

I'm not here to give abuse or receive it guys, I completely understand your anger at the whole issue, given that we've signed a few players from yourselves in recent times, but surely you agree that this whole saga has been rather bizarre.

 

[+HawkeyeTheGnu]

The deal was apparently going to trigger a little known rule in Scottish football that would have required you to wear red and blue stripes for the rest of the season.

Unfortunately, wider FIFA regulations prevent the change of colours during a season.

So McInnes had to pull out at the last minute. 

[lightlamp2]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35476238 

 

Article here. 

 

So it was Tansey's agent that let slip about the clause. Is that allowed?

[+HawkeyeTheGnu]

3 minutes ago, lightlamp2 said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35476238 

 

Article here. 

 

So it was Tansey's agent that let slip about the clause. Is that allowed?

If there was a contractual obligation not to reveal it, then no. If he has broken confidentiality we should sue him. 

Assuming there is no mendacity on the part of McInnes, obviously. 

Edited February 2, 2016 by HawkeyeTheGnu

[DonInPeace]

2 minutes ago, lightlamp2 said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35476238 

 

Article here. 

 

So it was Tansey's agent that let slip about the clause. Is that allowed?

McInnes has said that neither club are disappointed at the fact the release clause was made aware to us. He said there was no issue with that whatsoever, from both sides, so if that's true, makes it all the more bizarre.

[+HawkeyeTheGnu]

Just now, DonInPeace said:

McInnes has said that neither club are disappointed at the fact the release clause was made aware to us. He said there was no issue with that whatsoever, from both sides, so if that's true, makes it all the more bizarre.

You don't have to be disappointed in order for a breach of confidentiality to occur. 

[DonInPeace]

1 minute ago, HawkeyeTheGnu said:

You don't have to be disappointed in order for a breach of confidentiality to occur. 

I hear what you are saying, but the question was put to McInnes in the interview " Was the issue anything to do with the player's release clause being made aware to you " to which he replied " Absolutely not, it was a representative of ICT that made us aware of the clause " I appreciate the quote's there in the article say he mentioned it was Tansey's agent, but he never, he said it was an agent the club use in general, whether the majority of players use the same agent there, I don't know, maybe that is what was meant.

[closed]

Somtimes when you try and do things on the cheap it doesn't work out. Come back in the summer with the purse strings open. ;-)

[PerfICT]

I'm none the clearer after this article. McInnes seems to be pointing the finger at the ICT board and their interpretation of the clause, but surely they wouldn't risk litigation if there wasn't a case? Also, the intimation is that the "leak" was via the agent, possibly sanctioned by ICT? Again, seems unlikely that we'd be effectively offering one of our better players for sale and I'm sure Yogi wouldn't have sanctioned it. Mysterious.

Edited February 2, 2016 by PerfICT

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

LeaveusinfeckinPeaceDon

[dougal]

The famous Aberdeen are let's just say not that famous anymore, dons fans very much live in the past I'm afraid the days are long gone when top players want to go to ply their trade in Aberdeen

Greg may well have secured a higher weekly wage but he probably knew the standard of football wasn't any  greater and there's no comparison in living standards between Sneck and Aberdeen

Dougal

 

[Alex MacLeod]

1 hour ago, DonInPeace said:

I hear what you are saying, but the question was put to McInnes in the interview " Was the issue anything to do with the player's release clause being made aware to you " to which he replied " Absolutely not, it was a representative of ICT that made us aware of the clause " I appreciate the quote's there in the article say he mentioned it was Tansey's agent, but he never, he said it was an agent the club use in general, whether the majority of players use the same agent there, I don't know, maybe that is what was meant.

What I  see from the various quotes is not that it was a 'representative of ICT' but an 'agent the club have dealt with'. Possibly an agent that represents a number of ICT players. What it all suggests to me is that there is a play on words here and that an agent, and I've no idea who this one is, has seen a few bob in front of his eyes and tipped Aberdeen to the release clause. I further think Aberdeen held of till the last minute and made the £200k offer which all seemed above board and, possibly ICT tried for a bit more whereby someone at Aberdeen reminded us of the release clause so our people pulled the deal. If clause was confidential then it should not have been known. I think now that we should ask SFA to carry out an enquiry into what went on. I further think Aberdeen were at an unfair advantage in any negotiations by knowing the trigger figure.

It is not good for clubs to fall out, no matter who they are, as its important that each will help the other out in times of need. Times like trying to push through some league changes or needing backing for some such or the other so I hope this situation is resolved amicably.

[Yngwie]

1 hour ago, DonInPeace said:

Just popped on to see if any of you are in the know as to why Tansey didn't sign

Apparently it was in the contract small print that the £200,000 release clause could only be validly triggered by an offer from a club that has won the Scottish Cup within the last 25 years.

[ThorburnGolf]

McInnes acting with integrity.... I'll take that with a pinch of salt given the rumours that fly round about him and his players wives! 

Fact of the matter is you can come in banging on about release clause being mentioned by ICT source, Tanseys agent should be ashamed of himself, he is not an ICT source and I would imagine has broken a confidentiality clause! And so should Aberdeen, if you knew weeks ago, come in for him then, don't wait till the last day of the window trying to shaft us out of getting time to get a replacement in! 

Only club to blame here are Aberdeen, conduct your business earlier in the window and don't try to shaft clubs on deadline day. Aberdeen are quick to mouth off about the old firm stealing talent.... Well you've just turned into the third wheel of that, how about getting a better scouting network set up than constantly coming in and taking our best players!

[DonInPeace]

Fair point Alex MacLeod, and I agree with your last sentence entirely.

 

I'll leave you all in peace now, apologies if I've ruffled anyone's feathers, was never my intention. Very best of luck for the rest of the season guys & girls (Except when playing us) and hope you all have a good night.

[rocky1]

If ICT had acted illegally to stop Tansey speaking to them then no personal terms could have been agreed and Aberdeen had no agreement with the player. However if Aberdeen had already agreed terms then that is tapping a player which is illegal. Aberdeen required ICTs agreement to speak to the player yet they appear to agree that they spoke to the player meaning they did so without the proper consent .Maybe they should be careful what they wish for in asking for an inquiry doth they not protest too much!!!

[12th Man]

You do the Greg Tansey and you turn around and that's what it's all about.

Oh Greg, Greg, Tansey.

Welcome back Greg.

[Renegade]

We all know how important Tansey is to Yogi's style.  Jim Spence hinted on Twitter last night about a manager threatening to leave if an unnamed player was sold.  Was it Yogi he was referring to and hence why the board managed to keep Tansey by using semantics?

[RiG]

1 hour ago, Alex MacLeod said:

What I  see from the various quotes is not that it was a 'representative of ICT' but an 'agent the club have dealt with'. Possibly an agent that represents a number of ICT players. What it all suggests to me is that there is a play on words here and that an agent, and I've no idea who this one is, has seen a few bob in front of his eyes and tipped Aberdeen to the release clause. I further think Aberdeen held of till the last minute and made the £200k offer which all seemed above board and, possibly ICT tried for a bit more whereby someone at Aberdeen reminded us of the release clause so our people pulled the deal. If clause was confidential then it should not have been known. I think now that we should ask SFA to carry out an enquiry into what went on. I further think Aberdeen were at an unfair advantage in any negotiations by knowing the trigger figure.

It is not good for clubs to fall out, no matter who they are, as its important that each will help the other out in times of need. Times like trying to push through some league changes or needing backing for some such or the other so I hope this situation is resolved amicably.

Agree with most of that. I'd be interested to know why Aberdeen were meeting with the agent of one of our players and discussing transfer fees and release clauses when they had made no formal approach to us.

EDIT: Don't know why some posters chose to be wankerish to a fan of another team. Seemed a fairly innocent question albeit at a time when peoples backs might be up.

Edited February 2, 2016 by RiG

[Donview]

4 minutes ago, Renegade said:

We all know how important Tansey is to Yogi's style.  Jim Spence hinted on Twitter last night about a manager threatening to leave if an unnamed player was sold.  Was it Yogi he was referring to and hence why the board managed to keep Tansey by using semantics?

You'd think it was 'semtex' with the furore it's caused

[AlexJones]

 

 

[Sir C the 3rd]

I agree that we don't come out of this looking good.  But I believe Aberdeen perhaps should have shown us more respect.  Not content with taking Shinnie, then failed attempts for Watkins and Draper.  They have had the entire month of January to complete a deal for Tansey but waited till 12 hours before the window shut to put in an offer.  In full knowledge we wouldn't have time to adequately replace him.  I think we were more than dignified last summer with our captain/best player leaving to join them, our direct rivals, for free.

Reading between the lines we've thrown our toys from the pram this time.  But I do believe Aberdeen have shown a lack of respect to us with the very poor timing of the offer.

[+DoofersDad]

2 hours ago, Renegade said:

We all know how important Tansey is to Yogi's style.  Jim Spence hinted on Twitter last night about a manager threatening to leave if an unnamed player was sold.  Was it Yogi he was referring to and hence why the board managed to keep Tansey by using semantics?

This doesn't ring true to me.  Yogi has gone on record before saying that if a player wants to go he won't stand in their way.  To then resign because the Board failed to stand in the player's way would be an untenable position.  

The BBC article seems to suggest that McInnes and Yogi were negotiating as though it was as good as a done deal.  I read that as Yogi being accepting of the fact that the player was leaving.  If he expected Tansey to go, might not that be the reason agreement was reached with not one, but two new midfield players?  What seems more likely to me is that our Board felt Aberdeen had obtained information about the contract inappropriately and therefore felt Aberdeen should pay above the release clause amount.  The Board would have been right to insist on a meaningful sum here to give the message that they are not to be seen as a soft touch.  Given the lateness of the approach there was then not time to thrash out an agreement.  

I suspect that Tansey would now be an Aberdeen player if his agent and Aberdeen FC had not tried to shaft us.  I think a general policy of not standing in a player's way provided we aren't shafted in the process, is a sound basis on which to do business.

[cif73]

Why did we sign Ryan Williams (a virtually identical player to Tansey by all accounts and youtube) if we planned to keep Tansey? ... and given midfield is where we are clearly so lacking in options? ;)

Edited February 3, 2016 by cif73

[RiG]

8 hours ago, Sir C the 3rd said:

I agree that we don't come out of this looking good.  But I believe Aberdeen perhaps should have shown us more respect.  Not content with taking Shinnie, then failed attempts for Watkins and Draper.  They have had the entire month of January to complete a deal for Tansey but waited till 12 hours before the window shut to put in an offer.  In full knowledge we wouldn't have time to adequately replace him.  I think we were more than dignified last summer with our captain/best player leaving to join them, our direct rivals, for free.

Reading between the lines we've thrown our toys from the pram this time.  But I do believe Aberdeen have shown a lack of respect to us with the very poor timing of the offer.

Don't agree with this I'm afraid (not the highlighted bit I'll get to that). Whether we would have had time to replace Tansey is of no concern to Aberdeen. I also don't think we've thrown our toys out the pram. To date we have had nothing from the club about their thoughts on the matter (which I find somewhat disappointing) so we don't know if any toy throwing has been done by us! All we have had is rumour and conjecture from journalists about 'bad blood' between the clubs and Twitter gossip. No one knows what happened and the reasons for the deal collapsing apart from the clubs. We've had McInnes say that Hughes felt they acted above board (note that nothing was said about whether the transfer fee / clause was appropraite!) but nothing from ICT.

Regardless, as you say Aberdeen had all of January to put in an offer for Tansey and they even admitted to meeting with his agent 'weeks ago' which is when they found out about the release clause (something that I have said already seems very inappropriate to be doing). With that in mind, why they waited so long to put an offer in knowing about the release clause is puzzling. I can only guess that Tansey was not their preferred target and when other options disappeared they went back to ICT thinking that they could snare Tansey for £200,000. Obviously we've disagreed and because of the time constraints no agreement was able to be reached. Had Aberdeen approached ICT a few days earlier and these issues ironed out we might well be seeing images of Tansey in an Aberdeen shirt. Instead, Aberdeen left it too late to put in a suitable offer and resolve any disagreements with ICT about the fee and missed out on the player.