Transfer Rumours Winter 2025 Transfer Thread

[Mckechnie Orange]

I imagine it would be off the total fee we received

They matched the Ipswich bid as was their right. It was reduced by their sell on clause but the value of the deal would still be the same as the Ipswich deal, they'd just effectively pay the fee to us, for us to pay them their sell on percentage back.

Surely?

 

[Drew]

I don't understand Giles. This is the 3rd gaffer in a row that has picked Jacob over him for a period. I like Matty, he gives you everything but realistically he's not got a long term future at this level.

Giles is meant to be a top player at this level so to be getting replaced by a kid who's not good enough should boil his blood. He just doesn't look bothered, his body language is ****e and there's a reason he keeps getting hauled off before the hour mark when he does start.

He's been abject yet I still see City fans clamouring for him to play which I can't understand. I do wonder what games people watch sometimes.

Get him gone, the move clearly hasn't worked but he's just not somebody who should be at the club.

People keep saying this about Jacob, but why isn’t he cut out for this level long term?

He’s had good runs of form in the Championship - why can’t that continue?

 

[Mckechnie Orange]

Yeah but we received, say, 20m from Villa, then had to give them their sell-on (which seems to have been about 2-3m) leaving us with 17m. I can't imagine our sell-on is then based off that 17m. Seems like the sort of situation to ask Kieran Maguire about as it's so unusually quirky lol.

Why wouldn't it?

Please explain?

They're 2 separate transactions, surely?

 

[SydneyTiger14]

Because we sold Philogene to villa for 20m. The fact we only pocketed 17m is a secondary factor.

 

[Diego Gomezjurado]

On the Giles subject, he's awful. Hope he leaves this window.

 

[Mckechnie Orange]

Because we sold Philogene to villa for 20m. The fact we only pocketed 17m is a secondary factor.

Right, we're on the same page to this point, so surely we get a percentage of their sell on fee, whatever it is?

 

[SydneyTiger14]

My point is if they're selling him for 21m and we sold him for 20m we're getting a significantly lower sell on despite only actually earning 17m from his sale. What are you confused by?

Sell on % is calculated on profit not total fee.

 

[Mckechnie Orange]

On the Giles subject, he's awful. Hope he leaves this window.

Honestly fella, I'd rather he knuckle down, get the smog out of his head and be the player we invested in.

But he's played under 4 different coaches and had 12 months. It just ain't happening is it?

 

[Mckechnie Orange]

My point is if they're selling him for 21m and we sold him for 20m we're getting a significantly lower sell on despite only actually earning 17m from his sale. What are you confused by?

Sell on % is calculated on profit not total fee.

I'm not as sure as you are that it always is.


Twt.

 

[HCAFCHangout]

They matched the Ipswich bid as was their right. It was reduced by their sell on clause but the value of the deal would still be the same as the Ipswich deal, they'd just effectively pay the fee to us, for us to pay them their sell on percentage back.

Surely?

Yeah I’ve always interpreted that’s how the deal broke down essentially

 

[PLT]

Matt Crooks has one career goal scored against Hull City - for which club?

Looking at his career history, I don't see how it could be anyone other than Rotherham or Middlesbrough. But the fact you pose the question suggests it's someone more interesting than that...

 

[PLT]

People keep saying this about Jacob, but why isn’t he cut out for this level long term?

He’s had good runs of form in the Championship - why can’t that continue?

Seems to be another one of those where he's just pigeon-holed as "not at this level" and what he actually does doesn't matter as much as that status.

If people don't rate his performances, fine, but I really don't think like this black and white "not at this level" stuff. It gets proven wrong over and over.

 

[Mckechnie Orange]

Yeah I’ve always interpreted that’s how the deal broke down essentially

They had 'matching rights'. And a sell on.

But surely the 'matching rights' safeguards us for the same benefit as if he'd gone to Ipswich for 20m?

 

[SydneyTiger14]

I'm not as sure as you are that it always is.


Twt.

If you don't think it's calculated on profit then what are you even arguing as the fee we got for him would be irrelevant.

 

[Mckechnie Orange]

If you don't think it's calculated on profit then what are you even arguing as the fee we got for him would be irrelevant.

Of course it would be relevant.

It's calculated on what they sell him for in any scenario.

 

[HCAFCHangout]

They had 'matching rights'. And a sell on.

But surely the 'matching rights' safeguards us for the same benefit as if he'd gone to Ipswich for 20m?

Yeah no matter where he went from us we would’ve ended up with the same fee. My guess is Ipswich put a sell on clause in and Villa had to match that

 

[HCAFCHangout]

My point is if they're selling him for 21m and we sold him for 20m we're getting a significantly lower sell on despite only actually earning 17m from his sale. What are you confused by?

Sell on % is calculated on profit not total fee.

Did we sell him for closer to £16-17m though. I swear that was the reported fee and transfermarkt has it at that

 

[Mckechnie Orange]

Did we sell him for closer to £16-17m though. I swear that was the reported fee and transfermarkt has it at that

God only knows.

It'll just be interesting to see how it pans out.

But we seem to be finding funds from somewhere if we're genuinely in for Porteus.

 

[SydneyTiger14]

Did we sell him for closer to £16-17m though. I swear that was the reported fee and transfermarkt has it at that

Yep that was what we received after villa's sell on element. It's a very fiddly thing and there's a few unknowns. End of the day if our sell on is based on profit as almost all sell ons are we're talking 200k-500k it's really pretty academic.

 

[Ajbtiger]

I think there's a lot to like about Jacob. He works hard, is aggressive, relatively good in the air, can strike the ball well, and has pretty good awareness when it comes to forward passing, especially when he fizzes a low pass through the lines.

He's had some tough times dealing with tricky wingers and plays a dodgy pass here and there, but I think with experience, he could be pretty solid at this level.