Sign in to follow this  
DEANO96

Ryan Christie

Recommended Posts

Well all the best Ryan. 

Hope all goes well with the negotiations, you never know you may be with an entirely different club come 6pm tomorrow who may have put in a far higher offer.

Trouble is he may not want to join that entirely different club.....

My " may" carries just as much weight as your "may not"

There's an awful lot of speculation on this thread at the minute. 

No one really knows if a better offer is on the cards for ICT and Ryan tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are we now exactly going to do with the £600,000 ? 

Considering the money made from our success last seasonI JH should get at least 50% to strengthen our squad. If not, our custodians should be absolutely ashamed of themselves

Edited by caleyboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are we now exactly going to do with the £600,000 ? 

Considering the money made from our success last seasonI JH should get at least 50% to strengthen our squad. If not, our custodians should be absolutely ashamed of themselves

OMG. Another one!

  • Agree 3
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With a couple of guys saying that Stokes on loan is unlikely then who else is likely, Henderson gone to Hibs, Fisher to St J?

Plus, if what Jaggy666 is true then that gives us less than a day to find a replacement (I am sure window closes at 1800), I still reckon signing Murray for £25k is worth, as I said earlier in this post or the replacement striker thread, I don't think he has been snapped up yet and John did seem to suggest that his trial period was succesful. He did also say that if a fee was involved then deal is off but with 600k supposedly earned from RC deal then surely that is not case any more.

Edited by Shaun
Added more to the post
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the deal is £600k and 6 months loan back (and no Stokes on loan for the season), as has been reported, this is an absolutely horrendous deal for us: best player gone in 4 months and still no decent striker. I really hate the transfer windows, but the last two have been an absolute disaster for ICT.

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard £600k is agreed, if true that's a ******* joke 

I think that is fair. They are not going to pay a million when they can sign him on a pre-contract in 4 months.

If we couldn't agree a new deal for Christie, I would fancy our chances leaving it to a court to decide what is a fair settlement for training compensation. 

  • Ryan Gauld - sold for £3 mil
  • James McCarthy - sold for £1.2 mil
  • Stuart Armstrong - sold for £2 mil

Both McCarthy and Armstrong have been awarded PFA and SFWA young player of the year awards, respectively. 

With Christie being SFWA young player of the year 2014/15, I think a good lawyer could easily make a very fair argument that > £1 mil is fair compensation. 

 

Training compensation and market value are completely different things. I'm not even sure we'd get into 6 figures for the former.

I seem to remember a figure of £5000 a year for every year the player was signed by the club as being the level of compensation. Dont remember where I got that from but think it came out in some tribunal. The better outcome in any deal, and bear in mind that none of us actually know what Celtic have offered, is that a decent level of sell on fee is agreed.

I 'disregard' the 'one-year-option' when updating the 'Contract Situation' thread. 
Utterly ridiculous clause in a contract. If say, Dani Lopez had a 'one-year-option' on his contract, but we decided to release him at the end of the season, I don't think he could stay here and claim a wage for another season. We can't just use it when it suits us.
As much as I agree with virtually everything OCG posts, in this case, I beg to differ - Ryan is out of contract in the summer!

 

If he goes and we get him and Stokes on loan, then 20% of our outfield team will be ineligible to play agains Celtic. 

I assume sponge bob square head John Collins will be in the media how this helps create the strong opposition they need to avoid getting regularly pumped out of the Champions League  


That is entirely dependant on lending club. There are many examples where players are permitted to play against their employers. Indeed we ourselves brought on Fetai at Ibrox. It was also reported in local press that Celtic gave permission for the lad Fisher to play against them but Tommy Wright felt it was too soon after him coming to St J.

 

No. SPFL rules (specifically Regulation 67) forbid this. The rules were changed a few years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hawkeye is quite correct, loan players can no longer play against their 'parent' club in any competition.
While looking at the rules there, I see that clubs in the same division can only have a maximum of one loan player from an individual club. Therefore, the idea that we could get Ryan back on loan plus another Celtic player (Stokes or whoever) was probably a non-starter. If I've interpreted it correctly!

http://spfl.co.uk/news/article/spfl-adjust-loan-rules/

Relevant bit:

It will now be permitted for an SPFL club to lend a maximum of two players to another SPFL club, so long as the receiving club plays in a different division (higher or lower division).

Loans between SPFL clubs in the same division continue to be restricted to one player from any one club.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hawkeye is quite correct, loan players can no longer play against their 'parent' club in any competition.
While looking at the rules there, I see that clubs in the same division can only have a maximum of one loan player from an individual club. Therefore, the idea that we could get Ryan back on loan plus another Celtic player (Stokes or whoever) was probably a non-starter. If I've interpreted it correctly!

http://spfl.co.uk/news/article/spfl-adjust-loan-rules/

Relevant bit:

It will now be permitted for an SPFL club to lend a maximum of two players to another SPFL club, so long as the receiving club plays in a different division (higher or lower division).

Loans between SPFL clubs in the same division continue to be restricted to one player from any one club.

Hmm.  That would explain continuing frantic activity to get a striker on board.  If it is £600k with Ryan back on loan for some or all of the rest of the season then it is not a great deal unless there are clauses for significant future payments for Ryan's future appearances or subsequent transfer.  I suppose an option could be that Ryan leaves straight away and we get Stokes on loan but I agree that it looks unlikely that he will come here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hawkeye is quite correct, loan players can no longer play against their 'parent' club in any competition.
While looking at the rules there, I see that clubs in the same division can only have a maximum of one loan player from an individual club. Therefore, the idea that we could get Ryan back on loan plus another Celtic player (Stokes or whoever) was probably a non-starter. If I've interpreted it correctly!

http://spfl.co.uk/news/article/spfl-adjust-loan-rules/

Relevant bit:

It will now be permitted for an SPFL club to lend a maximum of two players to another SPFL club, so long as the receiving club plays in a different division (higher or lower division).

Loans between SPFL clubs in the same division continue to be restricted to one player from any one club.

One way of getting round that would be to enter into a deferred purchase agreement with Celtic with Celtic contracting to buy Ryan in January but with the bulk of the purchase price paid now by way of deposit. That way he would, until he moves be our player albeit with Celtic having the right to him later but he would not technically be on loan so Celtic could then lend us another player as part of the arrangement.

Edited by Kingsmills

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christie, 20, will be loaned back to Inverness until the end of the season though Celtic have the option to recall him in January.

Four year deal for him as well. Fair play to the lad.

Edited by RiG
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christie, 20, will be loaned back to Inverness until the end of the season though Celtic have the option to recall him in January.

Four year deal for him as well. Fair play to the lad.

£7K P/W. No wonder all the young Scottish talent want to move to one of the ugly sisters. Nobody else can compete with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Celtic have the option to "recall" him in January? How can we plan for the second half of the season if one of our best players could be whisked away at a moment's notice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent deal for Ryan. Congratulations to him - very well-deserved.

Poor deal for us IMO. Too late in the window to help us out of our predicament, no loan striker and the option for Celtic to recall in January makes planning impossible for JH. I doubt Celtic would take up this option unless (a) they were ravaged by injuries or (b) Ryan was tearing up trees for us. Ironically, the better he plays, the worse it might turn out for us. Disappointing.

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh well at least we got £600 K for him. I'm sure we can put that to good use. What's that you say? Transfer window closes today?.....oh

Edited by lightlamp2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Celtic have the option to "recall" him in January? How can we plan for the second half of the season if one of our best players could be whisked away at a moment's notice?

Although the Scottish 'correspondant' on SKY Sports News was just saying that he understands that Celtic have a clause whereby they can recall Ryan 'at any time'!
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Celtic have the option to "recall" him in January? How can we plan for the second half of the season if one of our best players could be whisked away at a moment's notice?

Easy, we assume he'll be away in January and anything else is a bonus.

Edited by Yngwie
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the final fee £600k?  Has this been confirmed anywhere?

Just over 5% of what Celtic have reportedly sold big Virgil for...

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Harry Chibber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Celtic have the option to "recall" him in January? How can we plan for the second half of the season if one of our best players could be whisked away at a moment's notice?

Although the Scottish 'correspondant' on SKY Sports News was just saying that he understands that Celtic have a clause whereby they can recall Ryan 'at any time'!
 

....that's just pants!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Celtic have the option to "recall" him in January? How can we plan for the second half of the season if one of our best players could be whisked away at a moment's notice?

Although the Scottish 'correspondant' on SKY Sports News was just saying that he understands that Celtic have a clause whereby they can recall Ryan 'at any time'!
 

....that's just pants!

Of course this would be pointless as they wouldn't be able to register him until January anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • FB_caley_thisle_online_970x90.jpg

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.