The Sunderland Echo thinks £6m, potentially rising to £8m.
The London Evening Standard, featuring quotes from pleased third parties about to receive a pile of cash from up north, repeats £6m.
The Hull Daily Mail echoed this, and reported that the “Duffen and manager Phil Brown were unavailable to speak to the Mail direct about Turner’s sale” – though on transfer deadline day, maybe that’s understandable.
But what about what City HAVE said? During the summer, £12m was the figure repeatedly bandied about, with the club adamant that Michael Turner “would not be sold on the cheap”. Every time the issue arose, £12m was always the figure.
Now all that City say is “undisclosed fee”. Given the widespread dismay about this transfer, the club can hardly blame anyone for assuming this is a way of declining to admit that Phil Brown’s star player has been sold on the cheap.
For what it’s worth, Amber Nectar checked with a source in the north-east, who gave a figure higher than quoted in today’s Sunderland Echo…but not by much, suggesting that City have received only just over half of their original asking price: not much over £6m. One can see a pattern forming.
Our north-east chum also suggested that Turner is due 10% of the sale fee as he didn’t request a transfer, but indicated he may waive this as a goodwill gesture to City. If this is indeed the case, it demolishes the argument that Turner moved for purely financial reasons.
So who’s right? So long as the club hide behind their “undisclosed fee” position, the assumption that our best ever player has been sold for a knock-down fee will linger. Genuine unhappiness abounds, and the club would be well advised to offer some explanations about this bewildering decision.