UPDATED DANISH MEDIA: A-CORN WINDFALL FOR CITY?

A forum for all things Cardiff City

Re: DANISH MEDIA: A-CORN WINDFALL FOR CITY?

Postby Forever Blue » Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:40 am

AfricanBluebird wrote:
Forever Blue wrote:
nojac wrote:If thus is true " WELL DONE VINCENT TAN" if its not true, Well you can imagine what will be said on here lol.



So interesting Malky at the time lost £5mill on the buying of Cornelius, but is hammered about it every minute by Tans Red followers, yet Malky brought us in £200mill in revenue, but no praise.
But Tan and his committee have lost us £millions upon £millions on there transfers, even this season we have lost £millions on just Rickie Lambert and Ben Amos, I could bring up at least 20 others Hmmmmmm

6 CEO'S & 8 Managers.


Transfers at our club have been a disaster and Tan is as much to blame as any single manager.

I think though Annis with Cornelius it wasn't only the money issue but the LOSS of opportunity to bring in a striker who would have scored in the Premier league - so it was lost opportunity not just the spunking away of 8 million. And Malky, apparently, was the one who convinced Tan that Cornelius would score goals in the Premier League. Eggs in one expensive basket.... and that was down to MM.



Fair enough but Malky believed Cornelius was the answer and he was becoming an up and coming star, even the ex Major sho I met over here said he was the future Danish International striker.

Yes we lost £5mill at the time, now looking a lot less.

But how much over all did Malky make us?

Plus how much has Tan and his committe not just lost us recently but over the 7 yrs with some pathetic transfers?

Not having ago at you, but the others don't admit the truth.
Annis Jnr Author and Publisher of 7 Books.

My 7th Book is Available Now "MY STORY"

http://www.annisabraham.co.uk/books/buy-books/
http://www.annisabraham.co.uk/news/

My email : annisabraham@aol.com
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/annisabraham
User avatar
Forever Blue
Admin
 
Posts: 88180
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 11:30 am

Re: DANISH MEDIA: A-CORN WINDFALL FOR CITY?

Advertisement

Advertisement
Login or Register to remove this ad.

Re: DANISH MEDIA: A-CORN WINDFALL FOR CITY?

Postby Tony Blue Williams » Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:11 pm

wez1927 wrote:Didn't tan bring that money in too? He was the owner or doesnt the count ?


Of course MM couldn't have got promotion without VT's financial backing and anyone who states differently is deluded. That said it is also true VT couldn't have got us promoted without MM as manager.

So it is not an either/or answer as our promotion was achieved because of both Tan and Malky and the £200m paid to this club since via TV revenue is also down to both their efforts and not just one of them.
User avatar
Tony Blue Williams
 
Posts: 10978
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 8:25 am

Re: DANISH MEDIA: A-CORN WINDFALL FOR CITY?

Postby Tony Blue Williams » Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:14 pm

Forever Blue wrote:
AfricanBluebird wrote:
Forever Blue wrote:
nojac wrote:If thus is true " WELL DONE VINCENT TAN" if its not true, Well you can imagine what will be said on here lol.



So interesting Malky at the time lost £5mill on the buying of Cornelius, but is hammered about it every minute by Tans Red followers, yet Malky brought us in £200mill in revenue, but no praise.
But Tan and his committee have lost us £millions upon £millions on there transfers, even this season we have lost £millions on just Rickie Lambert and Ben Amos, I could bring up at least 20 others Hmmmmmm

6 CEO'S & 8 Managers.


Transfers at our club have been a disaster and Tan is as much to blame as any single manager.

I think though Annis with Cornelius it wasn't only the money issue but the LOSS of opportunity to bring in a striker who would have scored in the Premier league - so it was lost opportunity not just the spunking away of 8 million. And Malky, apparently, was the one who convinced Tan that Cornelius would score goals in the Premier League. Eggs in one expensive basket.... and that was down to MM.



Fair enough but Malky believed Cornelius was the answer and he was becoming an up and coming star, even the ex Major sho I met over here said he was the future Danish International striker.

Yes we lost £5mill at the time, now looking a lot less.

But how much over all did Malky make us?

Plus how much has Tan and his committe not just lost us recently but over the 7 yrs with some pathetic transfers?

Not having ago at you, but the others don't admit the truth.


The 'us' bit is open to debate as the buck (literally) stops at Vincent Tan's bank account. So even if we accept your interpretation of events Tan picks up the tab.
User avatar
Tony Blue Williams
 
Posts: 10978
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 8:25 am

Re: DANISH MEDIA: A-CORN WINDFALL FOR CITY?

Postby 2blue2handle » Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:16 pm

Forever Blue wrote:
nojac wrote:If thus is true " WELL DONE VINCENT TAN" if its not true, Well you can imagine what will be said on here lol.



So interesting Malky at the time lost £5mill on the buying of Cornelius, but is hammered about it every minute by Tans Red followers, yet Malky brought us in £200mill in revenue, but no praise.
But Tan and his committee have lost us £millions upon £millions on there transfers, even this season we have lost £millions on just Rickie Lambert and Ben Amos, I could bring up at least 20 others Hmmmmmm

6 CEO'S & 8 Managers.


Annis that's a very strange comment in my opinion, I think most people can see Cornelius was a disaster of a signing I don't think you need to be a "Tan Red Follower" to see that.

You say people use it to hammer Malky at every opportunity but then you use anything you can to hammer Tan, has a day gone past where you haven't mentioned Lambert and Amos this season :lol:

You can have it both ways, if your going to bring up the mistake of Tan or others constantly because you dislike them other people will bring up mistake of the people you constantly praise.

Unfortunately some people are blind to their hatred and can only see one way.
My thoughts on the re-branding??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOjxLDcRniE

Learn the words to Men of Harlech -
Join Facebook group http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/gro ... 6965194125
User avatar
2blue2handle
 
Posts: 24907
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 6:31 pm
Location: Cardiff

Re: DANISH MEDIA: A-CORN WINDFALL FOR CITY?

Postby wez1927 » Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:19 pm

2blue2handle wrote:
Forever Blue wrote:
nojac wrote:If thus is true " WELL DONE VINCENT TAN" if its not true, Well you can imagine what will be said on here lol.



So interesting Malky at the time lost £5mill on the buying of Cornelius, but is hammered about it every minute by Tans Red followers, yet Malky brought us in £200mill in revenue, but no praise.
But Tan and his committee have lost us £millions upon £millions on there transfers, even this season we have lost £millions on just Rickie Lambert and Ben Amos, I could bring up at least 20 others Hmmmmmm

6 CEO'S & 8 Managers.


Annis that's a very strange comment in my opinion, I think most people can see Cornelius was a disaster of a signing I don't think you need to be a "Tan Red Follower" to see that.

You say people use it to hammer Malky at every opportunity but then you use anything you can to hammer Tan, has a day gone past where you haven't mentioned Lambert and Amos this season :lol:

You can have it both ways, if your going to bring up the mistake of Tan or others constantly because you dislike them other people will bring up mistake of the people you constantly praise.

Unfortunately some people are blind to their hatred and can only see one way.

Annis and has band of merry tan haters still try to divide the fan base
CARDIFF CITY TILL I DIE !
wez1927
 
Posts: 10786
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 8:00 pm

Re: UPDATED DANISH MEDIA: A-CORN WINDFALL FOR CITY?

Postby Tony Blue Williams » Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:31 pm

SnackaJack wrote:Lads, think about it ffs :D

There is no way this is true, I assume something has been lost in translation. Sell on fees are a % of any potential profit. So if he was sold for £3m and then sold on again for £4m the sell on fee would apply to the extra £1m. Even then, 60% is ridiculously high but we will roll with it. So if Cornelius was sold for £3m but was bought for £3m - Cardiff are not entitled to a penny. No profit has been made.

Sell on fees are not put on the actual transfer as clubs just would keep the players instead of selling them - instead of facing losing millions by selling, especially at the price they paid. It just wouldnt happen.


Anything can form the terms and conditions of a contract. You are wrong to state that ALL sell on fees are structured on profit alone. There is nothing stopping Cardiff City from insisting that if AC was sold then they would receive 60% of the transfer fee, sell on fees are NOT set in stone as you seem to be suggesting. :roll:

As FC Copenhagen had already made money on the player (around £5m) AFTER they resigned him it would-not be unreasonable for CCFC to include a 60% of any future fee clause as FCC would only be ADDING to profit ALREADY made from the original deal with CCFC.
User avatar
Tony Blue Williams
 
Posts: 10978
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 8:25 am

Re: UPDATED DANISH MEDIA: A-CORN WINDFALL FOR CITY?

Postby SnackaJack » Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:00 pm

Tony Blue Williams wrote:
SnackaJack wrote:Lads, think about it ffs :D

There is no way this is true, I assume something has been lost in translation. Sell on fees are a % of any potential profit. So if he was sold for £3m and then sold on again for £4m the sell on fee would apply to the extra £1m. Even then, 60% is ridiculously high but we will roll with it. So if Cornelius was sold for £3m but was bought for £3m - Cardiff are not entitled to a penny. No profit has been made.

Sell on fees are not put on the actual transfer as clubs just would keep the players instead of selling them - instead of facing losing millions by selling, especially at the price they paid. It just wouldnt happen.


Anything can form the terms and conditions of a contract. You are wrong to state that ALL sell on fees are structured on profit alone. There is nothing stopping Cardiff City from insisting that if AC was sold then they would receive 60% of the transfer fee, sell on fees are NOT set in stone as you seem to be suggesting. :roll:

As FC Copenhagen had already made money on the player (around £5m) AFTER they resigned him it would-not be unreasonable for CCFC to include a 60% of any future fee clause as FCC would only be ADDING to profit ALREADY made from the original deal with CCFC.


I didn't say ALL, you added that with your creative licence ;)

I said that is what a sell on clause is. I went on to say I find it highly unlikely a deal has ever been structured in this way and certainly find it highly unlikely this was. It is more likely to be lost in translation or indeed someone not understanding what a sell on clause is. It would be totally unreasonable to for CCFC to include a 60% future fee add on and I can see no way on earth it would have been accepted. It makes no difference how much Cardiff lost in the initial deal, they overpaid - it isnt up to Copenhagen to reimburse them for their stupidity.

If this clause was in the contract then there is no way they would be selling him, not a single resson to. Why sell a 4 million euro asset for 1.8m euros when you can repeatedly loan him for a loan fee not payable to the former club or indeed swap him for someone of equal or greater value and then move them on if you so wish.
SnackaJack
 
Posts: 279
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:57 am

Re: UPDATED DANISH MEDIA: A-CORN WINDFALL FOR CITY?

Postby wez1927 » Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:10 pm

SnackaJack wrote:
Tony Blue Williams wrote:
SnackaJack wrote:Lads, think about it ffs :D

There is no way this is true, I assume something has been lost in translation. Sell on fees are a % of any potential profit. So if he was sold for £3m and then sold on again for £4m the sell on fee would apply to the extra £1m. Even then, 60% is ridiculously high but we will roll with it. So if Cornelius was sold for £3m but was bought for £3m - Cardiff are not entitled to a penny. No profit has been made.

Sell on fees are not put on the actual transfer as clubs just would keep the players instead of selling them - instead of facing losing millions by selling, especially at the price they paid. It just wouldnt happen.


Anything can form the terms and conditions of a contract. You are wrong to state that ALL sell on fees are structured on profit alone. There is nothing stopping Cardiff City from insisting that if AC was sold then they would receive 60% of the transfer fee, sell on fees are NOT set in stone as you seem to be suggesting. :roll:

As FC Copenhagen had already made money on the player (around £5m) AFTER they resigned him it would-not be unreasonable for CCFC to include a 60% of any future fee clause as FCC would only be ADDING to profit ALREADY made from the original deal with CCFC.


I didn't say ALL, you added that with your creative licence ;)

I said that is what a sell on clause is. I went on to say I find it highly unlikely a deal has ever been structured in this way and certainly find it highly unlikely this was. It is more likely to be lost in translation or indeed someone not understanding what a sell on clause is. It would be totally unreasonable to for CCFC to include a 60% future fee add on and I can see no way on earth it would have been accepted. It makes no difference how much Cardiff lost in the initial deal, they overpaid - it isnt up to Copenhagen to reimburse them for their stupidity.

If this clause was in the contract then there is no way they would be selling him, not a single resson to. Why sell a 4 million euro asset for 1.8m euros when you can repeatedly loan him for a loan fee not payable to the former club or indeed swap him for someone of equal or greater value and then move them on if you so wish.

Sounds like roathy is back ? :lol:
CARDIFF CITY TILL I DIE !
wez1927
 
Posts: 10786
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 8:00 pm

Re: UPDATED DANISH MEDIA: A-CORN WINDFALL FOR CITY?

Postby castleblue » Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:10 pm

Tony Blue Williams wrote:
SnackaJack wrote:Lads, think about it ffs :D

There is no way this is true, I assume something has been lost in translation. Sell on fees are a % of any potential profit. So if he was sold for £3m and then sold on again for £4m the sell on fee would apply to the extra £1m. Even then, 60% is ridiculously high but we will roll with it. So if Cornelius was sold for £3m but was bought for £3m - Cardiff are not entitled to a penny. No profit has been made.

Sell on fees are not put on the actual transfer as clubs just would keep the players instead of selling them - instead of facing losing millions by selling, especially at the price they paid. It just wouldnt happen.


Anything can form the terms and conditions of a contract. You are wrong to state that ALL sell on fees are structured on profit alone. There is nothing stopping Cardiff City from insisting that if AC was sold then they would receive 60% of the transfer fee, sell on fees are NOT set in stone as you seem to be suggesting. :roll:

As FC Copenhagen had already made money on the player (around £5m) AFTER they resigned him it would-not be unreasonable for CCFC to include a 60% of any future fee clause as FCC would only be ADDING to profit ALREADY made from the original deal with CCFC.


I would'nt be in the least bit surprised if this 60% sell on clause is true because in the case of this transfer Cardiff City took a huge hit on selling this player back to FCC. To suggest that a sell on clause only applies to the profit portion of any future transfer is nonsense, although that is the norm, it is not always the case.

In lots of cases a sell on clause could be added to a players contract in return for the selling club accepting a "Lower" transfer fee than the market value of the player being sold. In cases like that 50%-60% sell on clause is not unusual and as you point out Cardiff City took a £5m hit on this transfer so including this was savvy business by our club. OK we will not recover what we lost but getting over £2m will I'm sure be very welcome news for Cardiff City FC.

We should remember with this player it was not just what we paid FCC for him but the £45k a week we were paying him. We had to get rid so accepting a "Low" fee in exchange for a 60% sell on clause, plus saving £45k a week, was a brilliant piece of business.

:bluescarf: :bluescarf: :bluescarf:
User avatar
castleblue
 
Posts: 5049
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 1:21 pm
Location: Caerphilly

Re: UPDATED DANISH MEDIA: A-CORN WINDFALL FOR CITY?

Postby Steve Zodiak » Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:11 pm

SnackaJack wrote:
Tony Blue Williams wrote:
SnackaJack wrote:Lads, think about it ffs :D

There is no way this is true, I assume something has been lost in translation. Sell on fees are a % of any potential profit. So if he was sold for £3m and then sold on again for £4m the sell on fee would apply to the extra £1m. Even then, 60% is ridiculously high but we will roll with it. So if Cornelius was sold for £3m but was bought for £3m - Cardiff are not entitled to a penny. No profit has been made.

Sell on fees are not put on the actual transfer as clubs just would keep the players instead of selling them - instead of facing losing millions by selling, especially at the price they paid. It just wouldnt happen.


Anything can form the terms and conditions of a contract. You are wrong to state that ALL sell on fees are structured on profit alone. There is nothing stopping Cardiff City from insisting that if AC was sold then they would receive 60% of the transfer fee, sell on fees are NOT set in stone as you seem to be suggesting. :roll:

As FC Copenhagen had already made money on the player (around £5m) AFTER they resigned him it would-not be unreasonable for CCFC to include a 60% of any future fee clause as FCC would only be ADDING to profit ALREADY made from the original deal with CCFC.


I didn't say ALL, you added that with your creative licence ;)

I said that is what a sell on clause is. I went on to say I find it highly unlikely a deal has ever been structured in this way and certainly find it highly unlikely this was. It is more likely to be lost in translation or indeed someone not understanding what a sell on clause is. It would be totally unreasonable to for CCFC to include a 60% future fee add on and I can see no way on earth it would have been accepted. It makes no difference how much Cardiff lost in the initial deal, they overpaid - it isnt up to Copenhagen to reimburse them for their stupidity.

If this clause was in the contract then there is no way they would be selling him, not a single resson to. Why sell a 4 million euro asset for 1.8m euros when you can repeatedly loan him for a loan fee not payable to the former club or indeed swap him for someone of equal or greater value and then move them on if you so wish.

Have to say I agree with Snackajack on this. All sounds very far fetched to me, and strange no mention of this was made when he was sold by Cardiff, particularly considering the barrage of criticism the club knew they would get after this complete shambles of a signing. No way any club are going to accept this sort of a deal when signing a player.
Steve Zodiak
 
Posts: 2496
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2014 7:42 pm

Re: UPDATED DANISH MEDIA: A-CORN WINDFALL FOR CITY?

Postby Sven » Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:13 pm

castleblue wrote:
Tony Blue Williams wrote:
SnackaJack wrote:Lads, think about it ffs :D

There is no way this is true, I assume something has been lost in translation. Sell on fees are a % of any potential profit. So if he was sold for £3m and then sold on again for £4m the sell on fee would apply to the extra £1m. Even then, 60% is ridiculously high but we will roll with it. So if Cornelius was sold for £3m but was bought for £3m - Cardiff are not entitled to a penny. No profit has been made.

Sell on fees are not put on the actual transfer as clubs just would keep the players instead of selling them - instead of facing losing millions by selling, especially at the price they paid. It just wouldnt happen.


Anything can form the terms and conditions of a contract. You are wrong to state that ALL sell on fees are structured on profit alone. There is nothing stopping Cardiff City from insisting that if AC was sold then they would receive 60% of the transfer fee, sell on fees are NOT set in stone as you seem to be suggesting. :roll:

As FC Copenhagen had already made money on the player (around £5m) AFTER they resigned him it would-not be unreasonable for CCFC to include a 60% of any future fee clause as FCC would only be ADDING to profit ALREADY made from the original deal with CCFC.


I would'nt be in the least bit surprised if this 60% sell on clause is true because in the case of this transfer Cardiff City took a huge hit on selling this player back to FCC. To suggest that a sell on clause only applies to the profit portion of any future transfer is nonsense, although that is the norm, it is not always the case.

In lots of cases a sell on clause could be added to a players contract in return for the selling club accepting a "Lower" transfer fee than the market value of the player being sold. In cases like that 50%-60% sell on clause is not unusual and as you point out Cardiff City took a £5m hit on this transfer so including this was savvy business by our club. OK we will not recover what we lost but getting over £2m will I'm sure be very welcome news for Cardiff City FC.

We should remember with this player it was not just what we paid FCC for him but the £45k a week we were paying him. We had to get rid so accepting a "Low" fee in exchange for a 60% sell on clause, plus saving £45k a week, was a brilliant piece of business.

:bluescarf: :bluescarf: :bluescarf:




Quote (castleblue): "...getting over £2m will I'm sure be very welcome news for Cardiff City FC."

Absolutely spot on, Gary and (we hope) welcome news for a certain Mr Warnock! :thumbup: :ayatollah:
"Keep smiling....it confuses the bastards!!"
User avatar
Sven
Moderator
 
Posts: 10378
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 6:14 pm

Re: UPDATED DANISH MEDIA: A-CORN WINDFALL FOR CITY?

Postby Forever Blue » Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:29 pm

castleblue wrote:
Tony Blue Williams wrote:
SnackaJack wrote:Lads, think about it ffs :D

There is no way this is true, I assume something has been lost in translation. Sell on fees are a % of any potential profit. So if he was sold for £3m and then sold on again for £4m the sell on fee would apply to the extra £1m. Even then, 60% is ridiculously high but we will roll with it. So if Cornelius was sold for £3m but was bought for £3m - Cardiff are not entitled to a penny. No profit has been made.

Sell on fees are not put on the actual transfer as clubs just would keep the players instead of selling them - instead of facing losing millions by selling, especially at the price they paid. It just wouldnt happen.


Anything can form the terms and conditions of a contract. You are wrong to state that ALL sell on fees are structured on profit alone. There is nothing stopping Cardiff City from insisting that if AC was sold then they would receive 60% of the transfer fee, sell on fees are NOT set in stone as you seem to be suggesting. :roll:

As FC Copenhagen had already made money on the player (around £5m) AFTER they resigned him it would-not be unreasonable for CCFC to include a 60% of any future fee clause as FCC would only be ADDING to profit ALREADY made from the original deal with CCFC.


I would'nt be in the least bit surprised if this 60% sell on clause is true because in the case of this transfer Cardiff City took a huge hit on selling this player back to FCC. To suggest that a sell on clause only applies to the profit portion of any future transfer is nonsense, although that is the norm, it is not always the case.

In lots of cases a sell on clause could be added to a players contract in return for the selling club accepting a "Lower" transfer fee than the market value of the player being sold. In cases like that 50%-60% sell on clause is not unusual and as you point out Cardiff City took a £5m hit on this transfer so including this was savvy business by our club. OK we will not recover what we lost but getting over £2m will I'm sure be very welcome news for Cardiff City FC.

We should remember with this player it was not just what we paid FCC for him but the £45k a week we were paying him. We had to get rid so accepting a "Low" fee in exchange for a 60% sell on clause, plus saving £45k a week, was a brilliant piece of business.

:bluescarf: :bluescarf: :bluescarf:




:thumbright: :thumbright: :bluebird: :bluebird:
Annis Jnr Author and Publisher of 7 Books.

My 7th Book is Available Now "MY STORY"

http://www.annisabraham.co.uk/books/buy-books/
http://www.annisabraham.co.uk/news/

My email : annisabraham@aol.com
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/annisabraham
User avatar
Forever Blue
Admin
 
Posts: 88180
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 11:30 am

Re: UPDATED DANISH MEDIA: A-CORN WINDFALL FOR CITY?

Postby Forever Blue » Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:41 pm

Reports from Italy claim the Serie A side will pay €3.5m to sign Cardiff's former club record signing

21/04/17


Atalanta are close to signing Cardiff City flop Andreas Cornelius from FC Copenhagen, according to reports.

The Danish striker joined the Bluebirds for a then club record fee of £7.5m from Copenhagen in the 2013 summer transfer window.

But he endured a miserable time in the Welsh capital, failing to score a single goal in his 11 appearances for the Bluebirds before returning to his home club after just six months with Cardiff.



To rub salt into the wounds, Cornelius went on to score on his first competitive game back with Copenhagen where he has gone on to net 27 times in 100 appearances.

And Football Italia are reporting that the former Cardiff forward is close to joining Serie A outfit Atalanta for a fee of €3.5m after an impressive campaign in which he has scored 11 goals for Copenhagen.

The Italian side are currently fifth in Serie A, just one point behind fourth-placed Lazio with six games left of the domestic season.
Annis Jnr Author and Publisher of 7 Books.

My 7th Book is Available Now "MY STORY"

http://www.annisabraham.co.uk/books/buy-books/
http://www.annisabraham.co.uk/news/

My email : annisabraham@aol.com
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/annisabraham
User avatar
Forever Blue
Admin
 
Posts: 88180
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 11:30 am

Re: UPDATED DANISH MEDIA: A-CORN WINDFALL FOR CITY?

Postby Steve Zodiak » Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:53 pm

Forever Blue wrote:
castleblue wrote:
Tony Blue Williams wrote:
SnackaJack wrote:Lads, think about it ffs :D

There is no way this is true, I assume something has been lost in translation. Sell on fees are a % of any potential profit. So if he was sold for £3m and then sold on again for £4m the sell on fee would apply to the extra £1m. Even then, 60% is ridiculously high but we will roll with it. So if Cornelius was sold for £3m but was bought for £3m - Cardiff are not entitled to a penny. No profit has been made.

Sell on fees are not put on the actual transfer as clubs just would keep the players instead of selling them - instead of facing losing millions by selling, especially at the price they paid. It just wouldnt happen.


Anything can form the terms and conditions of a contract. You are wrong to state that ALL sell on fees are structured on profit alone. There is nothing stopping Cardiff City from insisting that if AC was sold then they would receive 60% of the transfer fee, sell on fees are NOT set in stone as you seem to be suggesting. :roll:

As FC Copenhagen had already made money on the player (around £5m) AFTER they resigned him it would-not be unreasonable for CCFC to include a 60% of any future fee clause as FCC would only be ADDING to profit ALREADY made from the original deal with CCFC.


I would'nt be in the least bit surprised if this 60% sell on clause is true because in the case of this transfer Cardiff City took a huge hit on selling this player back to FCC. To suggest that a sell on clause only applies to the profit portion of any future transfer is nonsense, although that is the norm, it is not always the case.

In lots of cases a sell on clause could be added to a players contract in return for the selling club accepting a "Lower" transfer fee than the market value of the player being sold. In cases like that 50%-60% sell on clause is not unusual and as you point out Cardiff City took a £5m hit on this transfer so including this was savvy business by our club. OK we will not recover what we lost but getting over £2m will I'm sure be very welcome news for Cardiff City FC.

We should remember with this player it was not just what we paid FCC for him but the £45k a week we were paying him. We had to get rid so accepting a "Low" fee in exchange for a 60% sell on clause, plus saving £45k a week, was a brilliant piece of business.

:bluescarf: :bluescarf: :bluescarf:




:thumbright: :thumbright: :bluebird: :bluebird:

If this were true, and I would be surprised if it is, I think it amounts to around two and three quarter million pounds. I would assume that amount will reduce the debt owed to Tan, even if it is only loose change when taking into account the total debts. I doubt if the club will see any of it as far as spending is concerned.
Steve Zodiak
 
Posts: 2496
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2014 7:42 pm

Re: UPDATED DANISH MEDIA: A-CORN WINDFALL FOR CITY?

Postby SnackaJack » Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:01 pm

castleblue wrote:
I would'nt be in the least bit surprised if this 60% sell on clause is true because in the case of this transfer Cardiff City took a huge hit on selling this player back to FCC. To suggest that a sell on clause only applies to the profit portion of any future transfer is nonsense, although that is the norm, it is not always the case.

In lots of cases a sell on clause could be added to a players contract in return for the selling club accepting a "Lower" transfer fee than the market value of the player being sold. In cases like that 50%-60% sell on clause is not unusual and as you point out Cardiff City took a £5m hit on this transfer so including this was savvy business by our club. OK we will not recover what we lost but getting over £2m will I'm sure be very welcome news for Cardiff City FC.

We should remember with this player it was not just what we paid FCC for him but the £45k a week we were paying him. We had to get rid so accepting a "Low" fee in exchange for a 60% sell on clause, plus saving £45k a week, was a brilliant piece of business.

:bluescarf: :bluescarf: :bluescarf:


Put it this way. I have a house worth 200k. You are wrongly informed it is actually worth 500k, so you offer me that. I bite your hand off for it and count my 300k profit. Its a shame as I liked that house.

After you move in you realise that the house is falling apart and worth no more than 200k and want rid of it. I come along and say, I will take it back for what we both agree it is worth 200k. I will still keep 100k profit and have my house back and we take it as a failed gamble on your part.

Although you only accept on the proviso that if I sell it on I have to give you 60% of the value of any future sale ON TOP, essentially keeping 60% ownership of the house. I have already offered you what it is worth so why should or would I allow you to keep 60% of the deed? The obvious answer is that I wouldn't.

So lets move that back to Cornelius, they didnt give you a "low" fee in exchange for this deal. They paid you what he was worth, hence why they are selling him for similar. The fact you paid to much doesnt mean what they offered was too low. There is no way on this earth they would do this deal. To my mind at least and other sensible people, this is clearly not the case.

If I were you I would just be hoping they sell for a profit so you get something in return because the likelihood of this report being accurate is extremely low and I will look forward to seeing the accounts in relation to the transaction. But if course at the end of the day all it does is dictate how much Tan has to make up of the £6m transfer kitty:-

the whole lot, £5.8m or £3.9m.
Last edited by SnackaJack on Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SnackaJack
 
Posts: 279
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:57 am

Re: UPDATED DANISH MEDIA: A-CORN WINDFALL FOR CITY?

Postby dogfound » Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:02 pm

Tony Blue Williams wrote:
SnackaJack wrote:Lads, think about it ffs :D

There is no way this is true, I assume something has been lost in translation. Sell on fees are a % of any potential profit. So if he was sold for £3m and then sold on again for £4m the sell on fee would apply to the extra £1m. Even then, 60% is ridiculously high but we will roll with it. So if Cornelius was sold for £3m but was bought for £3m - Cardiff are not entitled to a penny. No profit has been made.

Sell on fees are not put on the actual transfer as clubs just would keep the players instead of selling them - instead of facing losing millions by selling, especially at the price they paid. It just wouldnt happen.


Anything can form the terms and conditions of a contract. You are wrong to state that ALL sell on fees are structured on profit alone. There is nothing stopping Cardiff City from insisting that if AC was sold then they would receive 60% of the transfer fee, sell on fees are NOT set in stone as you seem to be suggesting. :roll:

As FC Copenhagen had already made money on the player (around £5m) AFTER they resigned him it would-not be unreasonable for CCFC to include a 60% of any future fee clause as FCC would only be ADDING to profit ALREADY made from the original deal with CCFC.



correct . all contracts between players/agents/clubs are unique. people keep going on about set percentages etc which is a load of codswallop.
dogfound
 
Posts: 1488
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 6:52 pm

Re: UPDATED DANISH MEDIA: A-CORN WINDFALL FOR CITY?

Postby dogfound » Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:04 pm

wez1927 wrote:
SnackaJack wrote:
Tony Blue Williams wrote:
SnackaJack wrote:Lads, think about it ffs :D

There is no way this is true, I assume something has been lost in translation. Sell on fees are a % of any potential profit. So if he was sold for £3m and then sold on again for £4m the sell on fee would apply to the extra £1m. Even then, 60% is ridiculously high but we will roll with it. So if Cornelius was sold for £3m but was bought for £3m - Cardiff are not entitled to a penny. No profit has been made.

Sell on fees are not put on the actual transfer as clubs just would keep the players instead of selling them - instead of facing losing millions by selling, especially at the price they paid. It just wouldnt happen.


Anything can form the terms and conditions of a contract. You are wrong to state that ALL sell on fees are structured on profit alone. There is nothing stopping Cardiff City from insisting that if AC was sold then they would receive 60% of the transfer fee, sell on fees are NOT set in stone as you seem to be suggesting. :roll:

As FC Copenhagen had already made money on the player (around £5m) AFTER they resigned him it would-not be unreasonable for CCFC to include a 60% of any future fee clause as FCC would only be ADDING to profit ALREADY made from the original deal with CCFC.


I didn't say ALL, you added that with your creative licence ;)

I said that is what a sell on clause is. I went on to say I find it highly unlikely a deal has ever been structured in this way and certainly find it highly unlikely this was. It is more likely to be lost in translation or indeed someone not understanding what a sell on clause is. It would be totally unreasonable to for CCFC to include a 60% future fee add on and I can see no way on earth it would have been accepted. It makes no difference how much Cardiff lost in the initial deal, they overpaid - it isnt up to Copenhagen to reimburse them for their stupidity.

If this clause was in the contract then there is no way they would be selling him, not a single resson to. Why sell a 4 million euro asset for 1.8m euros when you can repeatedly loan him for a loan fee not payable to the former club or indeed swap him for someone of equal or greater value and then move them on if you so wish.

Sounds like roathy is back ? :lol:



snacka if you dont mind.
he keeps rebranding himself. think its only fair we all go along with this new name. pity
no doubt someone will be about shortly insisting it isnt him, only for he himsel;f to then prove that it is.
Last edited by dogfound on Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
dogfound
 
Posts: 1488
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 6:52 pm

Re: UPDATED DANISH MEDIA: A-CORN WINDFALL FOR CITY?

Postby SnackaJack » Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:05 pm

dogfound wrote:correct . all contracts between players/agents/clubs are unique. people keep going on about set percentages etc which is a load of codswallop.


Of course anything can be included. But if someone told me Cornelius was paid in pedigree chum I would similarly be sceptical going by the fact that there is no reason for that to be the case and the fact that if true it would be the first case like it in history. I would asssume it was a mistranslation or someone has their wires crossed - and I would probably be right.
SnackaJack
 
Posts: 279
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:57 am

Re: UPDATED DANISH MEDIA: A-CORN WINDFALL FOR CITY?

Postby SnackaJack » Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:07 pm

dogfound wrote:
no doubt someone will be about shortly insisting it isnt him, only for he himsel;f to then prove that it is.


Well its only polite, I now have to call you doggy afterall :D
SnackaJack
 
Posts: 279
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:57 am

Re: UPDATED DANISH MEDIA: A-CORN WINDFALL FOR CITY?

Postby dogfound » Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:27 pm

SnackaJack wrote:
dogfound wrote:correct . all contracts between players/agents/clubs are unique. people keep going on about set percentages etc which is a load of codswallop.


Of course anything can be included. But if someone told me Cornelius was paid in pedigree chum I would similarly be sceptical going by the fact that there is no reason for that to be the case and the fact that if true it would be the first case like it in history. I would asssume it was a mistranslation or someone has their wires crossed - and I would probably be right.



according to you,your always PROBABLY right . :lol: :lol: :lol:
at least you havent included a wager. your getting better mate. upped your meds have they ?
dogfound
 
Posts: 1488
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 6:52 pm

Re: UPDATED DANISH MEDIA: A-CORN WINDFALL FOR CITY?

Postby Sven » Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:30 pm

dogfound wrote:
wez1927 wrote:
SnackaJack wrote:
Tony Blue Williams wrote:
SnackaJack wrote:Lads, think about it ffs :D

There is no way this is true, I assume something has been lost in translation. Sell on fees are a % of any potential profit. So if he was sold for £3m and then sold on again for £4m the sell on fee would apply to the extra £1m. Even then, 60% is ridiculously high but we will roll with it. So if Cornelius was sold for £3m but was bought for £3m - Cardiff are not entitled to a penny. No profit has been made.

Sell on fees are not put on the actual transfer as clubs just would keep the players instead of selling them - instead of facing losing millions by selling, especially at the price they paid. It just wouldnt happen.


Anything can form the terms and conditions of a contract. You are wrong to state that ALL sell on fees are structured on profit alone. There is nothing stopping Cardiff City from insisting that if AC was sold then they would receive 60% of the transfer fee, sell on fees are NOT set in stone as you seem to be suggesting. :roll:

As FC Copenhagen had already made money on the player (around £5m) AFTER they resigned him it would-not be unreasonable for CCFC to include a 60% of any future fee clause as FCC would only be ADDING to profit ALREADY made from the original deal with CCFC.


I didn't say ALL, you added that with your creative licence ;)

I said that is what a sell on clause is. I went on to say I find it highly unlikely a deal has ever been structured in this way and certainly find it highly unlikely this was. It is more likely to be lost in translation or indeed someone not understanding what a sell on clause is. It would be totally unreasonable to for CCFC to include a 60% future fee add on and I can see no way on earth it would have been accepted. It makes no difference how much Cardiff lost in the initial deal, they overpaid - it isnt up to Copenhagen to reimburse them for their stupidity.

If this clause was in the contract then there is no way they would be selling him, not a single resson to. Why sell a 4 million euro asset for 1.8m euros when you can repeatedly loan him for a loan fee not payable to the former club or indeed swap him for someone of equal or greater value and then move them on if you so wish.

Sounds like roathy is back ? :lol:



snacka if you dont mind.
he keeps rebranding himself. think its only fair we all go along with this new name. pity
no doubt someone will be about shortly insisting it isnt him, only for he himsel;f to then prove that it is.




The other day you stated 'SnackaJack' was an alias of '64Jack' and doubted my assertion that it wasn't. I clearly recall your response (quote) "Hmmmmm" (unquote) but now you don't seem to be able to make your mind up, as now you're saying it's someone else :?

You have a free and simple choice of who you do or do not want to engage with. It's your prerogative ;)

To respond or not to respond; that is the question! :thumbright: :ayatollah:
"Keep smiling....it confuses the bastards!!"
User avatar
Sven
Moderator
 
Posts: 10378
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 6:14 pm

Re: UPDATED DANISH MEDIA: A-CORN WINDFALL FOR CITY?

Postby Steve Zodiak » Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:36 pm

I find myself agreeing with Snackajack on this one. I hope it's not Roathie as I don't ever recall agreeing with anything he has ever said. Suppose there is a first time for everything. I could be completely wrong, but at the moment this does'nt sound quite like Roathie.
Steve Zodiak
 
Posts: 2496
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2014 7:42 pm

Re: UPDATED DANISH MEDIA: A-CORN WINDFALL FOR CITY?

Postby SnackaJack » Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:50 pm

dogfound wrote:according to you,your always PROBABLY right . :lol: :lol: :lol:
at least you havent included a wager. your getting better mate. upped your meds have they ?


And you are always the first to stop any sensible debate and resort to snide remarks. At least spell them properly if you are to give up on sensible debate and go down the derailing route. :occasion5:
SnackaJack
 
Posts: 279
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:57 am

Re: UPDATED DANISH MEDIA: A-CORN WINDFALL FOR CITY?

Postby SnackaJack » Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:53 pm

Steve Zodiak wrote:I find myself agreeing with Snackajack on this one. I hope it's not Roathie as I don't ever recall agreeing with anything he has ever said. Suppose there is a first time for everything. I could be completely wrong, but at the moment this does'nt sound quite like Roathie.


Makes no odds to me who anyone is or used to post under. If that were the case I probably wouldn't be conversing with doggy who is obviously a reincarnation of some old poster.

My thoughts have always been the same with regards to forums, you either agree or you don't. The second you base your opinion on who says them is the second you have lost. If doggy decides to speak sense you will see me agreeing with him in a heartbeat regardless of his insistence to abuse and derail.
SnackaJack
 
Posts: 279
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:57 am

Re: UPDATED DANISH MEDIA: A-CORN WINDFALL FOR CITY?

Postby dogfound » Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:00 pm

SnackaJack wrote:
dogfound wrote:according to you,your always PROBABLY right . :lol: :lol: :lol:
at least you havent included a wager. your getting better mate. upped your meds have they ?


And you are always the first to stop any sensible debate and resort to snide remarks. At least spell them properly if you are to give up on sensible debate and go down the derailing route. :occasion5:



ask mummy for a 60 watt light bulb , and then try checking your own posts.
i had put it down to it just being internet chatter. but hey ho you cant spell either and it seems being the boards best speller means everything to you. :lol:
going now :wave:
dogfound
 
Posts: 1488
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 6:52 pm

Re: UPDATED DANISH MEDIA: A-CORN WINDFALL FOR CITY?

Postby SnackaJack » Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:03 pm

dogfound wrote:ask mummy for a 60 watt light bulb , and then try checking your own posts.
i had put it down to it just being internet chatter. but hey ho you cant spell either and it seems being the boards best speller means everything to you. :lol:
going now :wave:


I don't resort to derailing or abuse, so I am allowed some typing error leeway. If I were to desperately go down that route as I could not debate sensibly any more however - then I would make sure my spelling is perfect. :thumbup:

When you calm down, I am happy to return this to the semi sensible debate it was before you came along with your misplaced and meaningless jibes. Feel free to join in with us when you feel ready. :occasion5:
SnackaJack
 
Posts: 279
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:57 am

Re: UPDATED DANISH MEDIA: A-CORN WINDFALL FOR CITY?

Postby epping blue » Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:57 pm

wez1927 wrote:
SnackaJack wrote:Lads, think about it ffs :D

There is no way this is true, I assume something has been lost in translation. Sell on fees are a % of any potential profit. So if he was sold for £3m and then sold on again for £4m the sell on fee would apply to the extra £1m. Even then, 60% is ridiculously high but we will roll with it. So if Cornelius was sold for £3m but was bought for £3m - Cardiff are not entitled to a penny. No profit has been made.

Sell on fees are not put on the actual transfer as clubs just would keep the players instead of selling them - instead of facing losing millions by selling, especially at the price they paid. It just wouldnt happen.

Your wrong the sell on fee is percentage of the fee paid buy the buying club not the profit



It can be what ever terms were negotiated and agreed and I don't think we have a very good track record on that. I'd love to be proved wrong though. Generally the Jack is right though. Nearly all sell on fees are based on the increase in player value or profit if that's what you want to call it.

The whole Cornelius return transfer was a bit bizarre though so nothing would surprise me.
epping blue
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:09 pm

Re: UPDATED DANISH MEDIA: A-CORN WINDFALL FOR CITY?

Postby pembroke allan » Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:14 pm

epping blue wrote:
wez1927 wrote:
SnackaJack wrote:Lads, think about it ffs :D

There is no way this is true, I assume something has been lost in translation. Sell on fees are a % of any potential profit. So if he was sold for £3m and then sold on again for £4m the sell on fee would apply to the extra £1m. Even then, 60% is ridiculously high but we will roll with it. So if Cornelius was sold for £3m but was bought for £3m - Cardiff are not entitled to a penny. No profit has been made.

Sell on fees are not put on the actual transfer as clubs just would keep the players instead of selling them - instead of facing losing millions by selling, especially at the price they paid. It just wouldnt happen.

Your wrong the sell on fee is percentage of the fee paid buy the buying club not the profit



It can be what ever terms were negotiated and agreed and I don't think we have a very good track record on that. I'd love to be proved wrong though. Generally the Jack is right though. Nearly all sell on fees are based on the increase in player value or profit if that's what you want to call it.

The whole Cornelius return transfer was a bit bizarre though so nothing would surprise me.



Usually set percentage of any fee! as player could go for 1m or any figure u care to mention? Best sell on clause is a multiple one in case player is sold several Times! I know Crewe did it as that's their policy since they made boob boob on a sell on clause years ago! :old:
User avatar
pembroke allan
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:00 pm
Location: Cardiff

Re: UPDATED DANISH MEDIA: A-CORN WINDFALL FOR CITY?

Postby SnackaJack » Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:26 pm

pembroke allan wrote:
epping blue wrote:
wez1927 wrote:
SnackaJack wrote:Lads, think about it ffs :D

There is no way this is true, I assume something has been lost in translation. Sell on fees are a % of any potential profit. So if he was sold for £3m and then sold on again for £4m the sell on fee would apply to the extra £1m. Even then, 60% is ridiculously high but we will roll with it. So if Cornelius was sold for £3m but was bought for £3m - Cardiff are not entitled to a penny. No profit has been made.

Sell on fees are not put on the actual transfer as clubs just would keep the players instead of selling them - instead of facing losing millions by selling, especially at the price they paid. It just wouldnt happen.

Your wrong the sell on fee is percentage of the fee paid buy the buying club not the profit



It can be what ever terms were negotiated and agreed and I don't think we have a very good track record on that. I'd love to be proved wrong though. Generally the Jack is right though. Nearly all sell on fees are based on the increase in player value or profit if that's what you want to call it.

The whole Cornelius return transfer was a bit bizarre though so nothing would surprise me.



Usually set percentage of any fee! as player could go for 1m or any figure u care to mention? Best sell on clause is a multiple one in case player is sold several Times! I know Crewe did it as that's their policy since they made boob boob on a sell on clause years ago! :old:


Oh my word :D

So just to break that down. You are saying that firstly most sell on fees are for a % of the whole transfer?

And secondly, (my favourite) you are saying that there are clubs that sell a player and have a clause that they get a % of the fee for multiple sales in his career between many different clubs?

Can someone else step in here? As a Swans fan I am sure he wont accept ridicule from me :D

And i thought id read it all, wow :lol:
SnackaJack
 
Posts: 279
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:57 am

Re: UPDATED DANISH MEDIA: A-CORN WINDFALL FOR CITY?

Postby Charlie Harper » Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:34 pm

Why dont City just buy him back at that price as he would rip the championship apart as he is now a different player as proved in the champions league.

Buy him back Vinny :ayatollah:
Mad bad and dangerous to know
User avatar
Charlie Harper
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 10:43 am
Location: Malibu beach

PreviousNext


Return to General Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bakedalasker, Bing [Bot], Blues1471, breconbluebird, caerblue, Clusterman, darran1927, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Jimmy Floyd, KWest, nubbsy, steve1958, Sven, Yahoo [Bot] and 176 guests

Disclaimer :
The views and comments entered in these forums are personal and are not necessarily those of the management of this board.
The management of this board is not responsible for the content of any external internet sites.