[JonB]

Trigger (not the freak), on 03 January 2016 - 08:45 PM, said:

Saw this last week (Xmas day I think).

What we got, 30%?

£6.35 million over the initial outlay = £1.9 million to us? Can't see Burnley wanting to lose him for £4.5 million.

Pure speculation though and any monies goes to the running of the club.

Is the clause on profit or fee overall? No hard and fast rule for it and not seen that part mentioned anywhere. Remember we got something from Villa selling Bowery to Rotherham for less than they paid us for him so its not always profit related.

[dim view]

JonB, on 04 January 2016 - 09:01 AM, said:

Is the clause on profit or fee overall? No hard and fast rule for it and not seen that part mentioned anywhere. Remember we got something from Villa selling Bowery to Rotherham for less than they paid us for him so its not always profit related.

No we didn't.
Never in the history of the universe has there been a not for profit sell on.

[JonB]

dim view, on 04 January 2016 - 09:11 AM, said:

No we didn't.
Never in the history of the universe has there been a not for profit sell on.

Anything to back this rather big claim up? Im 99% certain thats it not a hard and fast rule that its only profit and Rotherham did pay less than the £500k Villa paid us for Bowery.

This post has been edited by JonB: 04 January 2016 - 09:56 AM

[dim view]

JonB, on 04 January 2016 - 09:54 AM, said:

Im 99% certain thats it not a hard and fast rule that its only profit and Rotherham did pay less than the £500k Villa paid us for Bowery.

Wow, that's also a big claim. Mine might be bigger than yours.

After the Rotherham deal I asked the guy who sanctioned the original deal to comment on this silly rumour. He said we would not get a penny unless Rotherham paid more than £500k. He also said that he had never heard of any transaction of the type you describe ever having taken place anywhere in football.

[JonB]

dim view, on 04 January 2016 - 10:09 AM, said:

Wow, that's also a big claim. Mine might be bigger than yours.

After the Rotherham deal I asked the guy who sanctioned the original deal to comment on this silly rumour. He said we would not get a penny unless Rotherham paid more than £500k. He also said that he had never heard of any transaction of the type you describe ever having taken place anywhere in football.

Quick search around makes it hard with the Bowery deal as it was undisclosed but some figures are under £500k so that would back up my suggestion its not always profit only. I still think that its down to the deal negotiated and its not always profit only as i'm sure i've seen it happening before. I could be wrong but will wait for something definite before saying so!

[Andy Spireite]

dim view, on 04 January 2016 - 10:09 AM, said:

Wow, that's also a big claim. Mine might be bigger than yours.

After the Rotherham deal I asked the guy who sanctioned the original deal to comment on this silly rumour. He said we would not get a penny unless Rotherham paid more than £500k. He also said that he had never heard of any transaction of the type you describe ever having taken place anywhere in football.

Has it really come down to that?

[Search & Destroy]

JonB, on 04 January 2016 - 09:54 AM, said:

Anything to back this rather big claim up? Im 99% certain thats it not a hard and fast rule that its only profit and Rotherham did pay less than the £500k Villa paid us for Bowery.

No mate, it's preposterous to suggest there is a sell on when the original purchaser (Villa) make a loss.

Never happened, never will.

[lindo-spireite]

I remember it being reported we got a little bit of money from the deal, to be fair to JonB

[Search & Destroy]

Then villa sold for a profit

[Mr.Spireite]

If he does go expect it to go in Dave Allens pocket.

[lindo-spireite]

Search and Destroy, on 04 January 2016 - 12:38 PM, said:

Then villa sold for a profit

I don't think they did, probably just lazy reporting

[Trigger]

lindo-spireite, on 04 January 2016 - 12:28 PM, said:

I remember it being reported we got a little bit of money from the deal, to be fair to JonB

25K was the figure banded about iirc.

[Comeonyouirons]

calvin plummers socks, on 03 January 2016 - 11:19 PM, said:

West Ham certainly interested (well were a few weeks ago)

I heard this too but now apparently we are signing Sam Byram from Leeds ????

Cant imagine both will rock up in time for The Olympic Stadium Team build

[JonB]

lindo-spireite, on 04 January 2016 - 12:28 PM, said:

I remember it being reported we got a little bit of money from the deal, to be fair to JonB

One of the Radio Sheff lot tweeted at the time we had made a small amount from the sell on deal and i've seen reports on there as well that the fee was around £200k which would make it about £20k from the sell on which sounds. To make 25k from a profit only sell on would mean the Millers paid £750k for him!!

[moondog]

I also think it's a % of any subsequent fee, profit being irrelevant, the article below suggests this too


http://www.sportskee...ansferred-clubs

[JonB]

moondog, on 04 January 2016 - 04:12 PM, said:

I also think it's a % of any subsequent fee, profit being irrelevant, the article below suggests this too


http://www.sportskee...ansferred-clubs

Again i think its down to how the two clubs negotiate the deal as to how the sell on works. There will be some that is based on profit but as this example in the list shows how its not just profit related.....Madrid got 15% of the £44m PSG paid Man U for Di Maria despite United paying £57m for him!

Angel Di Maria
Angel di Maria’s sale to Paris Saint Germain for a fee of £44 million was completely unexpected after he moved to the Old Trafford in the previous season for a fee that was £13 million more. His former club Real Madrid were not his youth club, but the La Liga giants still took home a little more than £5 million.
A sell-on clause was added to the Argentine winger’s contract during his move to Manchester United, which entitled Real Madrid to receive close to 15% of his subsequent transfer fee.

This post has been edited by JonB: 04 January 2016 - 04:19 PM

[moondog]

JonB, on 04 January 2016 - 04:18 PM, said:

Again i think its down to how the two clubs negotiate the deal as to how the sell on works. There will be some that is based on profit but as this example in the list shows how its not just profit related.....Madrid got 15% of the £44m PSG paid Man U for Di Maria despite United paying £57m for him!

Angel Di Maria
Angel di Maria’s sale to Paris Saint Germain for a fee of £44 million was completely unexpected after he moved to the Old Trafford in the previous season for a fee that was £13 million more. His former club Real Madrid were not his youth club, but the La Liga giants still took home a little more than £5 million.
A sell-on clause was added to the Argentine winger’s contract during his move to Manchester United, which entitled Real Madrid to receive close to 15% of his subsequent transfer fee.

Indeed, case rested

[dim view]

moondog, on 04 January 2016 - 04:29 PM, said:

Indeed, case rested

and further, I need to apologise to Jonb. Sorry. All I can say is that the above paragraph would have flabbergasted our ex Chairman and certainly, as far as he was concerned, did not apply to Bowery (unless we received far less than reported, and Rotherham beat it). I'm interested to know which club paid the 15%, PSG or Utd?.

[Johnnyspireite7]

dim view, on 04 January 2016 - 04:36 PM, said:

and further, I need to apologise to Jonb. Sorry. All I can say is that the above paragraph would have flabbergasted our ex Chairman and certainly, as far as he was concerned, did not apply to Bowery (unless we received far less than reported, and Rotherham beat it). I'm interested to know which club paid the 15%, PSG or Utd?.

It would have to be Man Utd as they are the selling club, it would just pass through their account to Real Madrid.

[JonB]

dim view, on 04 January 2016 - 04:36 PM, said:

and further, I need to apologise to Jonb. Sorry. All I can say is that the above paragraph would have flabbergasted our ex Chairman and certainly, as far as he was concerned, did not apply to Bowery (unless we received far less than reported, and Rotherham beat it). I'm interested to know which club paid the 15%, PSG or Utd?.

No probs..the world of football transfers is a minefield especially with more and more undisclosed fees. Maybe I was wrong about Bowery as an example but correct about it happening so we'd be 1-1 on things!

I presume it's 15% of 44m so either United get the full fee then pass on 15% or psg paid 44m less 15% to United and the 15% to Madrid. Either way it's the same pot I'd have thought.