Why does every team that does a transfer with us get X% of the TOTAL transfer fee..... and yet we only ever get X% of any profit the team makes when they sell the player on. Especially in the cases of Graham and Young.....this is poor on our end and it's going to cost us millions.
Simply not true, its always a % of the difference and it goes on so that the original club gets a percentage of our sellon percentage as that also counts as profit... in Dannys case although the sellon is 15% we'll only get 12%
MM - which particular transfers are you referring to? I really cant remember one that involved what you are saying - never mind every transfer! Not sure why you mentioned the Graham and Young cases - they are both good examples of normal practice.
I dunno, I never really thought it was common place because it's a pretty bad deal for the team selling. If it's the kind of player that can go for £20m+ later on....then sure it doesn't make much difference. But with Graham...he'll never reach anywhere near that amount...probably not even double what we sold him for so it means that if Graham is sold we'll get almost nothing.....and that's if he's sold for over £3.5m.
aberdeen, I had no idea that's how it works. Seems utterly wrong to me: a club should share in the certain profits from a resale, as clearly that's what the contract stipulates, but I see no reason in principle why Carlisle should benefit from any sell-on fee we might receive should Graham leave Swansea. Are you certain that's the case? (P.S. Not that I'm getting my hopes up! When Swansea go down, I imagine Graham will either stay with them or go for a similar, perhaps slightly lower fee)
I would doubt very much that they would - they'll get the 15% of the profit we make re the sale to Swansea and that will be it. If Swansea sell him at a profit, we'll be the ones to get 15% of that.
Well, BB, that puts you in direct contradiction to aberdeen. I hope you are correct, for the reasons I outlined above, but I honestly don't know. I must admit I'd never thought about a selling club getting a cut of the player's second resale, until aberdeen suggested it earlier.
A don't think a club would ever negotiate a second sell-on. That said, "15% of any future profit" is the sort of language you can see the FA using, and after all it was them that decided it. Given that the tribunal decision was public, I assume that the exact wording is out on the internet somewhere?
Not 100% sure but I read it somewhere and seems to make sense to me. If it were not the case I'd set up shell companies e.g. watford Leisure Ltd as my trading company and Watford FC Ltd as my sell on company... and sell on at no profit and then do the profitable sale from the shell.
Southampton attempted to avoid the administration penalty by saying that the company going into administration had nothing to do with the football side of the club. I can't remember if they were actually penalised more harshly for doing that.
