Bale Sell on...?

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
We're entitled to a 5% cut in line with our development of the player. Part of a FIFA directive.

Any club who develops a player between ages of 12-23 is entitled to this sum. Ergo, as Saints developed him between 12-17 and Spurs between 17-23, we are both entitled to a cut of the 5% on a pro-rata basis.

So basically, if the fees quoted in press are correct (£86m) etc, the result of this would probably see us pick up £2m.
 
When they sold Bale to Tottenham, they inserted a sell-on clause believed to be 25 percent. But when they found themselves in financial difficulty, Southampton settled that clause and agreed to receive around £3m plus Tottenham youth goalkeeper Tommy Forecast. Forecast never made an appearance for Southampton and is currently without a club. Southampton can still expect a small percentage of a Bale sale to cover training costs. And that figure is thought to be less than 5%. So, the potential sale could have netted Southampton over £25m. Instead, they are likely to receive less than £5m.

Is the story coming out today.

A little gutted for you guys (although happy as a spur's fan that £25m wont be going to you) - Who made the decision to cut Bale's clause??
 
In fairness, if we hadn't sold the clause, we probably wouldn't be in the position we are today. We needed that money to pay wages. (Forecast not so much)
 
The way this is being reported is pretty unfair. We didn't give up £20m (or whatever figure they pull out of the air at any given time) out of some crass stupidity, we traded that sell-on clause (which I bet is worth much less than the reported figures) for survival. Without that money there would now not be a Southampton FC to benefit from the sell-on fee.
 
Sky said we had a 15% sell on fee so missing out on £13m. They said we took. £1.8m plus Tommy as we were in bad times. So Forecast is worth 11m........... :p
 
In retrospect it was a shrewd piece of business but at the time it made sense for both parties. Bale was struggling at Spurs, its well documented that they were looking to send him out on loan and there were rumours of bids from Championship clubs for permanent deals. I wouldn’t say Rupert Lowe was outdone by Daniel Levy’s shrewd business acumen, it’s just that Spurs held all the cards in the negotiation.
 
We were desperate, just as we were when we settled over Theo. No point fretting about what we've lost...without the money at the time we may have folded or at least been in serious financial trouble. Kept us limping on...until we were able to fall whimpering at Markus and Nicola's feet. The rest is history.
 
fran-MLs little camera said:
We were desperate, just as we were when we settled over Theo. No point fretting about what we've lost...without the money at the time we may have folded or at least been in serious financial trouble. Kept us limping on...until we were able to fall whimpering at Markus and Nicola's feet. The rest is history.
Click to expand...

And to think they held back while Pinnacle kicked the tyres and mock-sagely inhaled a few times. It doesn't bare thinking about for more than a few micro-seconds. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back