Bialkowski

[pjace]

Did we have a sell on clause when he left for nothing, newspaper
rumours are saying Palace want him and Ipswich are demanding
a fee of over £4 million.

[kill_the_drum]

It rings a bell with me.
It’s funny, I remember a lot of fans on here didn’t rate him.
Mind you some on here would pick fault if we signed Harry Kane

[HAPPYMAGPIEHAPPY]

I’ve heard unconfirmed reports that Notts traded in the sell on clause when they did the deal to sign banjo man from Ipswich Town, not a great bit of business if true.
Someone seriously needs to get on the case though for an answer as it could be worth a couple of hundred grand to Notts.

[arnapie]

I seem to recall that any clause involved depended on Ipswich reaching the prem, not a sell on clause.

[legs77]

I doubt we will see anything chances are we wanted him off the books to free up his wages which i'd guess were one of the highest at the club.

[LaxtonLad]

I wouldn't be surprised if any sell-on clause had it's own clause where any payment due to Notts went straight to the Trews as owners of the club when Bialkowski was released.

[Steward]

Ray let him go just to get him off wage bill, no clauses involved.

[LaxtonLad]

Ray let him go just to get him off wage bill, no clauses involved.

Well there you go, I am surprised.

[queenslandpie]

I do remember the justification for no fee at the time it was reported we got a sell on clause although given who was running the club that could have been complete rubbish. It certainly would not surprise me if the clause was traded in, it's exactly the kind of short term thinking and stupidity that was prevalent around that time.

[caj85]

News reports at the time reported an undisclosed fee when he joined ipswich.

There were also rumours of sell on clause or bonus payments if they got to the premiership.