Chelsea get 40% right? So why is it such a good deal? We get just over £20m. That's kind of w*nk if you ask me.
We only signed him for £5mill remember and he's had a really bad injury. Still make a substantial profit. And TBH I think the £40mill fee is more symbolic than anything else. It should tell other clubs who are interested in other players that we are doing deals on our terms, not theirs.
Great to see the club sticking to their guns. Maybe Liverpool and West Ham will look at this and accept that if they want their men, they'll have to follow Newcastle's lead and pay up.
We paid £5 million for him, and hes coming back from a major injury. We know all too well (Rodriguez) what that type of injury can do to a player. Think it's a win for all parties.
Plus the fee we paid for him would have come off our balance sheet over the past 2 seasons. (I listen to Simon Jordan a lot ). So in balance sheets it will be like a £25 million profit now. Plus if add on’s and sell on’s, Chelsea percentage would drastically drop on that part of the deal.
I think it was 40% of the profit wasn't it? If so, Chelsea get 40% of £35m (£14m) and therefore we recoup £26m which is a profit of £21m on our original outlay of £5m. If the above is correct (happy to be told otherwise) then that is excellent business!
£40m is incredible. When you think the very best full backs in world football tend to go for about £55m-£60m, the fact we got £40m for a 20 year old that had one very good season, and suffered 2 big injuries, is insane.
And this only strengthens our position when it comes to negotiations. This deal will massively help meet Championship FFP regulations so we can simply say to Liverpool and West Ham we are under no financial pressure at all, pay the asking price or go away.
My fear exactly. If Jay doesn't get injured at the Etihad, he gets a big money move to someone like Spurs or Arsenal (either at the end of that season, or after one more season with us). He goes to that 2014 WC (sorry Rickie, at your expense), and maybe has a long England career. But he did get injured. And he was never the same again; nowhere near. He only turned 34 last week, and yet it feels like he's been about that age for about the last 8 years.
And FB is an extremely demanding position. I really hope Tino becomes the RB he was destined to become before his injury, I really do. But that's far from certain. We'd be fools to turn £40mill down for him.
It also helps with our strategy of buying the better young players. Them and their agents will look at the likes of Tino, Lavia etc and see how we do business now. If they show their potential and valuations are met, they can move onto mostly champion league clubs, and saints make very tidy profits.
I feel a bit like that, but £21m profit from someone who had a decent three-quarters of a season and then hasn't really played for a year is still decent business really. And like Tom said, puts a marker down to other clubs that we won't do a deal unless our price is matched. Unlikely Tino would be the difference between getting promotion or not, so lets put the fee towards a decent RB and a goal-scoring striker.
People keep saying this but it’s not the case now. Lavia, Livramento etc came in to play PL football and proved they could. Unless we are in the PL there will be some young player who is and the top teams will go for them. If Charles for example looks good but we don’t go up it won’t be the Champs League teams bidding for him, it will be the mid table teams
It will be more than that. I believe the sell on % will apply to the non-bonus/add-ons related portion - so not the full £40m. Either way, brilliant piece of business.
Maybe I'm a bit different to the rest but as good as Tino was in the first half of his first season, he definitely dropped off/ran out of steam (fair, first pro season) and then we had to go a whole year without him. In that sense, versus last season, to me it almost feels like free money towards our rebuild.
