nmc
Well-Known Member
Sell on clause will apply - we’d just pay less for him than anyone else.
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
Sell on clause will apply - we’d just pay less for him than anyone else.
Probably because his buyback is 40m and doesn't come into place until next year.
If we were to try buy him now we'd have to at least match Liverpool bid.
Not sure if you can have a sell on clause to to yourself.
But us bidding £40m is the same as Liverpool bidding £50m.
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 70,433
I assume that our 20% sell on fee will be from the profit that Southampton make on the transfer. They paid £12m up front, so a £50m sale would make us £7.6m extra.But us bidding £40m is the same as Liverpool bidding £50m.
We’d have to offer about £43m to get him back at the same rate this summer.
kun
Well-Known Member
You assume that why?I assume that our 20% sell on fee will be from the profit that Southampton make on the transfer. They paid £12m up front, so a £50m sale would make us £7.6m extra.
We’d have to offer about £43m to get him back at the same rate this summer.
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).
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 70,433
Assumed it would be. I’ve never seen it one way or the other. Obviously I could be wrong.You 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).
Assumed it would be. I’ve never seen it one way or the other. Obviously I could be wrong.
I've seen it reported as % of sale, not profit, if that helps. Most recently with Gvardiol's signing just last week.
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 70,433
Seems mad that if they sold him for less than they got for him that we’d still get £2m if he went for £10m.I've seen it reported as % of sale, not profit, if that helps. Most recently with Gvardiol's signing just last week.
Seems mad that if they sold him for less than they got for him that we’d still get £2m if he went for £10m.
Life's full of little gambles. The other way is clubs pay a higher fee up front and not worry about a sell on. It is effectively a future bonus to reduce the fee, although an unknown one.
That's what I was wondering.But if they are after £50 mill and we have 20% of the sell on fee??
Can you have a sell on clause to yourself?
Yes.That's what I was wondering.
Can you have a sell on clause to yourself?
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.