The 25% Mandy sell on clause?..... clauses in general too.....

A couple of reliable mates have said that apparently we have a 25% sell on clause for Carroll.
If it's correct it's another masterstroke for thin Mike and of course another kick in the teeth for Liverpool.
The latest is that Fulham will bid £9m + Dempsey so we would get £2.25m..... priceless......

PS- it would explain why he is being linked with a return to us as it would get around this problem.

It got me thinking.... clauses in general...

It seems that we resist having them imposed on us yet seem to be pushing to impose them on others.. am I reading this right?

 

I'd be very surprised if this was the case. Be funny if it was and maybe Liverpool agreed to it as they thought they'd never sell him but I can't see Liverpool being stupid enough to part with £35m AND agreeing to pay us a further 25% on the future sale.

 

Good shout this alberts chip shop! 25% would seem alot but I couldn't imagine "thin mike" selling a 21/22 year old andy Carroll without a sell on clause... It's pretty inevitable he will move on at some point in his career so would make sense to have at least something in it for nufc in the future.

Dempseys a good player though (not sure how old he is) I'd have him & £9million if that's true

 

I think 25% might be quite high, but it wouldn't surprise me if Ashley operated as you suggest. However, I am also sure he would take hard cash now over some vague chance of a pay off in the future. He wouldn't lower his price in return for a sell on clause.

Sell on clauses are a gamble. A player might never be sold, or they might never be sold for a profit, so it's money you may never have and therefore not strong business sense when compared to getting hard cash now. I am also pretty sure they only apply to profit not for the entire price, they are basically there to smooth deals for young players with massive potential, but who are still completely unproven.

The Milner situation was an interesting one for this, Ashley demanding £12mil up front with no sell on clause as oppose to accepting an offer of £8mil with a sell on clause. Milner did then sell £26mil, but no-one could have predicted that such as over inflated price would be paid by Man City, who at the time were not even owned by oil. The sell on clause would actually have had to be around 20% for him to have made more than he did up front (£4mil extra) and that's taking into account the ridiculous price Milner sold for.

That would actually be like placing a £4mil bet on something with extremely short odds that actually has a less than likely possibility of happening. Really silly.

 

also worth remembering that a sell on clause is a gamble which might never pay off and won't pay off at least a year ! that cash is gone at this point, you can't use it to make more money.

 

I think a bit of logic needs to be applied to that Fulham bid. It sounds ridiculous. Dempsey has more goals in him than Carroll all day long and I highly doubt a) Fulham could afford £80k per week wages and b) Carroll would take a pay cut to go to Fulham. I doubt that one will even get off the ground.

The AC Milan story though...yes, there's substance in that one. Much slower league would bring the best out in Carroll, they'd be prepared to pay £15m, pay £80k per week and above all else, they have funds in abundance as they've just inherited 50mEu from selling Zlatan and Silva.

 

Wouldn't surprise me if there is a sell on clause. I could see him going on loan. Italy would be an excellent move for him. The league would suit him and they like that kind of front man. You'd think he'd be reluctant given the trouble he had settling in Liverpool, but maybe he is over all that now. Whereas I think he is suited to any type of football, he is not a Rodgers type striker. He likes workers and channel runs to create space.

 

If theoretically speaking we signed him for £10m, does that mean we'd get £2.5m back?

 

Great business sense on Mikes part, he knew this day was coming

 

could we not get a quarter of Dempsey?

 

I was originally going to make an amputation joke but you raise a good point.

Would we get a 25% clause of Dempsey's next transfer as he is payment for Carroll?

 

I thought it was 25% of anything over the 35k? Of course we can never be sure, but liverpool were desperate for him.

 

It's as if they knew he was going to have no sell-on value...

 

I'd guess that, given their respective histories, fat mike is a much more hard nosed businessman than Henry. Which is not to say that Henry is stupid or anything, just that as far as I know he made his **** you money as a futures trader, which is a far less personal business than the rag trade in which fat mike made his pile.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not some massive Ashley supporter or anything, and the only reason why I think he's good for the club is because that aligns with his own long term interests for the moment. But with that said, you can't deny he's a very ****ing canny trader, so it's totally possible he slid in a sell on clause without FSG understanding what it really meant.

 

Llambiarse won't spend a penny when a ha' penny will do either.

 

They did buy him in a bit of a transfer deadline day panic, so it's quite possible that such a clause was thrown in without them giving it as much regard as they normally would.

Would be a splendid act of genius if true!

 

Cheers Wizard. Now everyone, The Wizard is a top lad so please drench him in rep.
Wizard... One more big win... Ta

 

It's not the old Wizard Toon from the BBC days is it?

 

if its true weve robbed the scourers again