You're aware that a sell-on fee could just be due on the transfer fee and not just on any profit right?
Some are on profit but some are on the fee
Match Day Thread Reading v Hull City
- Thread starter Chazz Rheinhold
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
You're aware that a sell-on fee could just be due on the transfer fee and not just on any profit right?
Some are on profit but some are on the fee
tigermaul
Well-Known Member
I’m quite shocked by all the negativity on here, presumably from people who watched on iFollow. At the game, I really enjoyed it and thought at times we played really well. Yes we gifted them a daft goal, but we also scored a sumptuous one. I suspect most of those attending actually enjoyed it, although frustrated about not winning. The mistake for me was taking Oscar off. I thought Ebiowei was out of batteries by then, and suspect if Longman had subbed him, and Doc for Traoré, we might have had a better chance.
The way Acun said it at the time, it came across as the profit. There aren't many at all that are on the full fee.
Why would any club accept that unless they had to? If you sell the player for less, you end up paying more for him
Not having the funds to buy the player for extra money up front, only way they can get an offer accepted, there's lots of reasons. It's more common then people think
Slater pish? Shows how clueless you are. Didn't you see his goal?
That sounded sh!t on the wireless. Like an end of season game of 'Its a Knockout' with Stuart Hall, between two rubbish seaside towns.
If you're bored tonight, have a little Google/read up. You'll be surprised at how common the straight up "sell on clause" is as opposed to the profit version
There's basically 2 types of sell on clause, a straight forward sell on clause ( which is exactly that, a % of any future transfer fee ) and then there a sell on clause that only kicks in after a profit is made.
Any club agreeing to a sell-on based on percentage of the fee, rather than the profit, wants locking up.
If the value of a player drops, you get double shafted. Not only can you not get your money back, but whatever you do manage to recoup, you’d have to pay to the club you already overpaid in the first place.
I agree, it's not a smart choice, but it happens and more often then people think
If it happens commonly, then surely there are precedent's of it working out for all parties in the past? Otherwise it wouldn't be a thing?
Obviously it increases the risk on the signing though. I can see that.
K
Kalman
Guest
I’ll defend Allahyar because he’s only a kid by footballing standards and he’s had two unfortunate hamstring injuries this season. Muscle injuries in particular can affect players’ mentality as well as their physical attributes. He might not sprint for the ball as eagerly as he did before his injuries for fear of tearing his hamstring again. He might play more cautiously. That’s completely natural. I don’t think it helps when balls played to him are two yards behind him with little momentum meaning he has to adjust his run and turn inside to receive the ball.
Oh I dont disagree regarding expectations. I was hoping for a midtable to maybe playoff kind of season so I'm not overly bothered. My main annoyance is that we spent a fair whack on players that aren't consistently producing yet our free players are the ones more being more consistent
It can work very well for all parties, work better for some then others and can be a loser for all involved... It's a ( calculated ) risk
An interesting one was the clause Southampton got in place for a certain Mr bale when he went to spurs... A 25% sell on fee was placed in the deal but then when Southampton fell into financial trouble a couple of years later they re negotiated with spurs and took a £3m figure ( I think ) from spurs to wave the 25% of any future fee. So missed out on £20m when he went to Madrid
tigermaul
Well-Known Member
I think the problem is when played on the left, he can’t beat a player on the outside. But he did a lot of good defensive work today to his credit.
'free' players aren't really 'free', they just command better salaries.
The fact that certain players have had repeated layoffs is surely a factor in terms of judging the success of the recruitment, but I can't see how you can appraise most of the 'big' summer signings (and 2 of the Jan ones also) just yet based purely on ability because injuries have been such a feature of the season.
I'm confident we have some very good technical players but fitness and mentality are ultimately the deciding factors which dictate whether the signing is successful or not.
I'm more basing it on our 3 signings we spent a big initial fee on (and then I suppose plus their respective wages)
Tufan - £3m has 5 goals and took forever to get match fit.
Allayhar - £2.5m has 1 assist
Sinik - £3.5m isn't even at the club and I dont think we see him in a City shirt again
Willing to give the former 2 the benefit because they've shown flashes but for their fees I would have hoped for some initial impact aside from their injuries