General Hearts Related Pish

[Imaq]

No hate but I believe I am right and you are wrong.

It'd be very unusual if you believed you were wrong.

What this discussion does point to is that some clarity on exactly what happened - if it was a low release clause that kicked in at the end of the season or if it was a one-year deal with a two-year option - would have been nice and is the kind of thing we could reasonably expect to have been clearly communicated. From where I'm sitting, either is plausible. One leaves the club looking tinpot and the other leaves the club looking dishonest.

[Big Physical Acey]

If only there were a way to verify what was announced.

https://www.heartsfc.co.uk/blogs/news/sh...s-new-deal

Heart of Midlothian is thrilled to announce that Lawrence Shankland has agreed a new contract with the club.

The inevitable number no.9 will return to Tynecastle Park having signed a three-year deal with the Jambos, subject to Scottish FA approval.

The inevitable number no.9.

[Groot]

If there was an undisclosed fee I do tend to think there was a release clause rather than it being a 1+2 but then did someone not say that Jones says in the video he doesn’t know why it was reported as a 3 year?

I genuinely couldn’t care either way, hearts were backed into a corner because Shankland is an ambitionless small minded weasel who was desperate for rangers when they didn’t even want him.  Hearts will grow, the fat slugs career is basically over now.

Jones doesn’t say that at all, all he says is that the deal meant we had a risk that we could lose Shankland after the first year he didn’t say anything about the 3 year thing

[Groot]

The way I understood it from how the in the know podcaster types were talking, is there was a small window at the end of the first year where he can leave for free. A week or something. To me I'm not sure how that can be described as a shree year deal but there you go.

It probably wouldn't have hurt Jonesey to say this wasn't communicated well enough but he decided to defend it. Maybe Pieman 2 can explain it better once he is finished defending the SFA against Hearts.

That can happen with clauses, I’ve seen it reported when talking about some relegation clauses etc where it’s only active until a certain date.

I don’t think Shanklands was just a week but the Huns were probably rushing because if he went to the World Cup before it was completed then it would maybe expire before he was due to come back complicating things

[Sarkozabal]

Where are you seeing anything about a 1 year contract with an extension clause Scott?

Everything points to it being a 3-year deal which had a release clause that has been enacted. If Rangers hadn’t come in, we wouldn’t have had to activate any clause to keep him around for the next 2 years.

[Zizou]

‘Undisclosed terms’ sounds to me like the biggest amount of cope/lies by the club TBH. I’ve never believed it for a second.

Edited to change that it was actually ‘undisclosed terms’ rather than ‘undisclosed fee’. Which in itself is suspicious.

All that stuff is very sleekit. Never heard it described as 'terms' either. Weird.

[CritchSmile]

1780403411[/url]']
Where are you seeing anything about a 1 year contract with an extension clause Scott?

Everything points to it being a 3-year deal which had a release clause that has been enacted. If Rangers hadn’t come in, we wouldn’t have had to activate any clause to keep him around for the next 2 years.

He was contracted for one year with an option.

I’m the only one not saying clauses here.

[Sarkozabal]

He was contracted for one year with an option.

I’m the only one not saying clauses here.

Aye so you keep saying but where are you hearing that or are you just making it up?

He was on a 3 year deal with an option or a buy-out fee if you don’t want to say the word clause for whatever reason. We’ve signed dozens of players over the years by meeting releases in their contract, I’m surprised the concept itself is proving controversial.

[King WillDred of Orange]

Something to do with who gets the World Cup payment I’d imagine. Did their backup keeper no sign a one month extension with Motherwell before the last euros to ensure they got the payment?

[Felix]

Definitely a 3 year deal : https://www.heartsfc.co.uk/blogs/news/sh...s-new-deal

I'd be surprised if there was a one year option in that, rather a release trigger if Rangers came in for him at any point in the 3 years.

[2MatoFish]

It's not a wig, it's a hair replacement system.

[Imaq]

I think the claim some people have been making is that the club's initial claim that it was a three-year deal wasn't entirely honest, which is where the 'one year with a two-year option' thing comes from, so directing back to the club's press release doesn't really disprove that. I personally think the release clause is more plausible, and seems to align more with what I've seen in the media, although I don't think any specific outlet has come out and fully explained the terms of the clause (which wouldn't normally be that unusual - we don't normally get the fine print of footballers' contracts - but is leading to speculation in this case because a clause of this nature would be very rare).

[CritchSmile]

It was either a three-year deal with a clause where he can leave after a year or it was a one-year deal with a two-year option.

If it was the first one, then I hold my hands up, called it incorrectly. If it was the second one, know that a one year deal with a two year option is not a three year contract. It's a one year contract.

Groot and Mak may well be right that it is the first scenario. Again, it would be nice if the club could let us know in what manner our best striker since Robbo randomly left for free one night when we were all at home eating our dinner.


Sarkozy revealing that he doesn't understand the difference between clauses and options is pleasing however. That is the main thing.

[Sarkozabal]

I think the claim some people have been making is that the club's initial claim that it was a three-year deal wasn't entirely honest, which is where the 'one year with a two-year option' thing comes from, so directing back to the club's press release doesn't really disprove that. I personally think the release clause is more plausible, and seems to align more with what I've seen in the media, although I don't think any specific outlet has come out and fully explained the terms of the clause (which wouldn't normally be that unusual - we don't normally get the fine print of footballers' contracts - but is leading to speculation in this case because a clause of this nature would be very rare).

The clause itself is fairly normal though, in fact is it not pretty much standard issue in continental Europe for almost all players to have a release clause in their contracts? It’s just the fact it was seemingly a very low fee to enact it that is unusual. Would be very easy for the club to confirm that was the case (‘he signed a 3 year deal which included a release fee that has been met’) without needing to give any specifics on what the fee was or whether it had an expiry date.

[CritchSmile]

Also I haven't watched the Graeme Jones interview so maybe he does tell us?

[Groot]

Also I haven't watched the Graeme Jones interview so maybe he does tell us? 

Narrator - He doesn’t tell us

[Imaq]

The clause itself is fairly normal though, in fact is it not pretty much standard issue in continental Europe for almost all players to have a release clause in their contracts? It’s just the fact it was seemingly a very low fee to enact it that is unusual. Would be very easy for the club to confirm that was the case (‘he signed a 3 year deal which included a release fee that has been met’) without needing to give any specifics on what the fee was or whether it had an expiry date.

Yes, that's what I was saying (maybe not clearly enough) - if true, while a release clause wouldn't in itself be unusual, the low fee in (and some seem to be suggesting time-limited nature of) that clause would be highly unusual for someone we knew at the time the contract was signed was at least one of our star players. That's the part that would be embarrassing to admit to (although not any more embarrassing than 'we lied about it being a three-year contract') and that it would be nice to have clarity on.

I think what the club have already tried to do is more or less what you've suggested here: a vague statement that terms have been agreed with Rangers and some even vaguer allusions about his contract. Again, while we don't normally get access to the fine print, the fact that it seems to have been so strongly suggested by pretty much every media outlet that in this case he's gone for free or very close to it does make the whole thing very strange. In that context, it'd be good to have some kind of clarity on what the terms were.