Tony Barrett web chat

[Chris]

L'equipe said in about february time that we had a deal but we'd dithered and it pissed off Chamakh.

[Shaggy]

which was what?

He'd apparently agreed to sign for us in the November, but in January, when Chamakh's people pushed to finalise the deal, Purslow insisted on a clause in the contract along the lines of "if the player should get injured in the final months of the season while playing for Bordeaux, he will agree to receiving reduced wages for the duration of his rehabilitation". They said no ****ing way and that was that.

[Dirk07]

it seems a fair enough clause however given the position of liverpool at the time it was all the excuse that he needed to go elsewhere

and to be fair he made the right choice

[CJ]

that chamakh clause sounds fair enough in isolation. however looking back it wouldnt get you the player. the question is do you want the player and how much do you think he is worth or are willing to pay and are there any risks fitness wise.

so whilst i can see why such a clause seems fair, if you are in competition for his signature then you are not likely to get the player.

now the clauses in Torres and Reina's contracts i can understand. remember the state we were in. they may have both been wanting out and quick so it may have been the best of a bad case.

Joe cole. well i dont agree that he should get players because he wants them. its the manager or DoF to do that. It also supposedly shows the influence of SG and JC. So a strong manager is needed plus a much better CEO is needed.