Yes.
You don't give them 50 though and they give you 10 back, you give them 40 instead and everyone lives happily ever after.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Romeo Lavia
- Thread starter FantasyIreland
- Start date
You don't give them 50 though and they give you 10 back, you give them 40 instead and everyone lives happily ever after.
Past deals have been reported as sell on % and then later shown / reported as % above cost think about it no way a club will agree to a sell on where they could pay us for selling at a lossYou assume that why?
It is unlikely to be a % of profit and much more likely to be a % of total sale (as all of our previous deals have been).
Past deals have been reported as sell on % and then later shown / reported as % above cost think about it no way a club will agree to a sell on where they could pay us for selling at a loss
Why? If a club are getting a player for 20, 25% cheaper now, even if paying us after selling at a loss, they are still better off. That's the whole point of it, helping get the deal done now, for less. Particularly with unproven players.
All I've ever seen reported, is % of overall sale.
LongsightM13
Well-Known Member
I strongly suspect our buyback is nearer £30m than £40m, which is a figure and % markup totally out of kilter with all our previous buyback deals
In fact the only source for that figure seems to be a guess on here, that the media then ran with
In fact the only source for that figure seems to be a guess on here, that the media then ran with
Why? If a club are getting a player for 20, 25% cheaper now, even if paying us after selling at a loss, they are still better off. That's the whole point of it, helping get the deal done now, for less. Particularly with unproven players.
All I've ever seen reported, is % of overall sale.
So a player does badly goes down on value wasn’t worth the fee and is sold at a loss and then then you end up paying the club you bought him off more money ?
Centurions
Well-Known Member
That doesn't mean that all deals have to follow the same format, there's probably every version under the sun out there. I have no idea why you guys are arguing over a hypothetical scenario.Past deals have been reported as sell on % and then later shown / reported as % above cost think about it no way a club will agree to a sell on where they could pay us for selling at a loss
So a player does badly goes down on value wasn’t worth the fee and is sold at a loss and then then you end up paying the club you bought him off more money ?
Yes.
Because you still bought him for a lot less in the first place.
The club you bought him off still lose money here. Although they get an extra bit and percentage, they get less than they expected if he were to have been sold for a profit. And less than they would have if they just took the upfront fee for him in the first place.
It is a gamble for both clubs. If it was of profit only, the buying club would have less of a gamble, and the selling club would have no real incentive to agree to it.
That doesn't mean that all deals have to follow the same format, there's probably every version under the sun out there. I have no idea why you guys are arguing over a hypothetical scenario.
What scenario on here that we all argue about are Not hypothetical?
You are right of course. I've not seen any reported that way. But not to say they don't both happen.