UPDATED DANISH MEDIA: A-CORN WINDFALL FOR CITY?

A forum for all things Cardiff City

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

Postby SnackaJack » Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:37 pm

Charlie Harper wrote: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:


Exactly... Or buy him back for 1.8m euros (60% off the 4m euro price) and then sell him to Atalanta for 4m euros the next day?

(Now maybe people will click on to why deals are not done in this way).

And why hasn't anyone picked up on what Pembroke Allen just said, surely you all arent going to let him get away with that? Dont make me be the one to do it ffs :lol:
SnackaJack
 
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:57 am

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

Advertisement

Advertisement
Login or Register to remove this ad.

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

Postby Tony Blue Williams » Fri Apr 21, 2017 7:16 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.


You certainly inferred that ALL sell on contracts were structured that way, if you didn't mean that why not simply say? :roll:

You simply don't understand the history of this transfer and that is why you fail to understand why a 60% clause would be included. We signed the player and then sold him back to the same club a few months later with that club making £5m plus they got the player back. They had already done very well out of the deal so any further sale would mean a further 40% profit or a win win situation for them. Frankly they would be nuts to turn it down.

But of course as we have seen before your view overrides all common sense. :banghead: So I await your waffling reply :roll:
User avatar
Tony Blue Williams
 
Posts: 14424
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 8:25 am

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

Postby SnackaJack » Fri Apr 21, 2017 7:48 pm

Tony Blue Williams 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.


You certainly inferred that ALL sell on contracts were structured that way, if you didn't mean that why not simply say? :roll:

You simply don't understand the history of this transfer and that is why you fail to understand why a 60% clause would be included. We signed the player and then sold him back to the same club a few months later with that club making £5m plus they got the player back. They had already done very well out of the deal so any further sale would mean a further 40% profit or a win win situation for them. Frankly they would be nuts to turn it down.

But of course as we have seen before your view overrides all common sense. :banghead: So I await your waffling reply :roll:


No I didn't. There are many variations, none of which are the ones that you and Pembroke Allen seem to be claiming are common place however.

I know full well the history of the transfer and explained it. You overpaid, they snatched your hands off and then bought him back at the correct price. However you somehow think they forgot their brains and allowed you to essentially keep 60% of the players registration thus paying £3m for 40% of the player :lol:

You just are not thinking it through. You are thinking of a absolutely crazy situation and convincing yourself simply because it is favourable even in the fact of reasoning why it simply is not the case. If this was the case Tan would be buying him back for 60% discount and selling him on to the current interested parties.

It will be a % of the profit. Simple as that. Probably 200k ish.
SnackaJack
 
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:57 am

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

Postby pembroke allan » Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:04 pm

SnackaJack wrote:
Tony Blue Williams 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.


You certainly inferred that ALL sell on contracts were structured that way, if you didn't mean that why not simply say? :roll:

You simply don't understand the history of this transfer and that is why you fail to understand why a 60% clause would be included. We signed the player and then sold him back to the same club a few months later with that club making £5m plus they got the player back. They had already done very well out of the deal so any further sale would mean a further 40% profit or a win win situation for them. Frankly they would be nuts to turn it down.

But of course as we have seen before your view overrides all common sense. :banghead: So I await your waffling reply :roll:


No I didn't. There are many variations, none of which are the ones that you and Pembroke Allen seem to be claiming are common place however.

I know full well the history of the transfer and explained it. You overpaid, they snatched your hands off and then bought him back at the correct price. However you somehow think they forgot their brains and allowed you to essentially keep 60% of the players registration thus paying £3m for 40% of the player :lol:

You just are not thinking it through. You are thinking of a absolutely crazy situation and convincing yourself simply because it is favourable even in the fact of reasoning why it simply is not the case. If this was the case Tan would be buying him back for 60% discount and selling him on to the current interested parties.

It will be a % of the profit. Simple as that. Probably 200k ish.[/quote


People have doubts about your validity and seeing as you use a familiar way of misspelling my name like a previous person used to makes you wonder? :thumbup: :wave:
User avatar
pembroke allan
 
Posts: 29544
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:00 pm
Location: Cardiff

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

Postby BrightBlueFuture » Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:18 pm

SnackaJack wrote:
Charlie Harper wrote: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:


Exactly... Or buy him back for 1.8m euros (60% off the 4m euro price) and then sell him to Atalanta for 4m euros the next day?

(Now maybe people will click on to why deals are not done in this way).

And why hasn't anyone picked up on what Pembroke Allen just said, surely you all arent going to let him get away with that? Dont make me be the one to do it ffs :lol:


Right think about it for a moment. Slow down, take a deep breath and calm your ego down.

The clause would include a caveat excluding Cardiff City from being able to buy back and receive the 60%.

When you think about it, it really is that simple. End of discussion.
BrightBlueFuture
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 7:04 pm

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

Postby SnackaJack » Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:49 pm

BrightBlueFuture wrote:


Right think about it for a moment. Slow down, take a deep breath and calm your ego down.

The clause would include a caveat excluding Cardiff City from being able to buy back and receive the 60%.

When you think about it, it really is that simple. End of discussion.


Now you have a go at thinking about what you said... Why would it make a difference to Copenhagen if Cardiff buy him back?

Either way they get 1.9m in your version correct?

Jesus this is like a chat with the people on the happy bus :lol:
SnackaJack
 
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:57 am

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

Postby SnackaJack » Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:53 pm

pembroke allan wrote:
People have doubts about your validity and seeing as you use a familiar way of misspelling my name like a previous person used to makes you wonder? :thumbup: :wave:


Thats ok. As long as I am speaking sense people can doubt all they like. :D

Id like to hear more about your sell on fee story regarding Crewe though. You know the one where they have multiple sell on clauses that cover the length of a players career no matter how many times hes sold taking a % of future transfer fees between clubs that have never had any contact with Crewe :lol:

You said they were the "best types of sell in clauses". You aren't wrong there, why don't we add an extra gold bar for every goal he scores in his career regardless of club, thats a good clause too. Seriously, you have made the funniest post ive ever seen on the internet on this thread and for that I thank you Pembs :notworthy: :laughing6:
SnackaJack
 
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:57 am

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

Postby DandoCCFC » Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:01 pm

Moral of the story is the board and managers will get the blame for all finances and the one manager who gets away with murder is Malky. Great logic really. :oops: :oops: :oops:
I will.
And before anyone els gets in there no im not an ideot abroad

SL69.
User avatar
DandoCCFC
 
Posts: 13386
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:14 am
Location: Tredegar <O>

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

Postby BrightBlueFuture » Sat Apr 22, 2017 1:21 am

SnackaJack wrote:
BrightBlueFuture wrote:


Right think about it for a moment. Slow down, take a deep breath and calm your ego down.

The clause would include a caveat excluding Cardiff City from being able to buy back and receive the 60%.

When you think about it, it really is that simple. End of discussion.


Now you have a go at thinking about what you said... Why would it make a difference to Copenhagen if Cardiff buy him back?

Either way they get 1.9m in your version correct?

Jesus this is like a chat with the people on the happy bus :lol:


Answer this then. Why would Cardiff want to buy him (get charged tax) and then sell him again (getting taxed again)?

You do realise the tax involved on both ends would cause significant impact to the transfer fees right? Oh wait no. Swansea aren't used to paying their taxes now are they!
BrightBlueFuture
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 7:04 pm

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

Postby SnackaJack » Sat Apr 22, 2017 6:13 am

BrightBlueFuture wrote:
SnackaJack wrote:
BrightBlueFuture wrote:


Right think about it for a moment. Slow down, take a deep breath and calm your ego down.

The clause would include a caveat excluding Cardiff City from being able to buy back and receive the 60%.

When you think about it, it really is that simple. End of discussion.


Now you have a go at thinking about what you said... Why would it make a difference to Copenhagen if Cardiff buy him back?

Either way they get 1.9m in your version correct?

Jesus this is like a chat with the people on the happy bus :lol:


Answer this then. Why would Cardiff want to buy him (get charged tax) and then sell him again (getting taxed again)?

You do realise the tax involved on both ends would cause significant impact to the transfer fees right? Oh wait no. Swansea aren't used to paying their taxes now are they!


Player purchases from outside the UK (but inside the EU) are not subject to VAT. (And even if they were it wouldn't be 60%).

Next.
SnackaJack
 
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:57 am

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

Postby OriginalGrangeEndBlue » Sat Apr 22, 2017 7:23 am

DandoCCFC wrote:Moral of the story is the board and managers will get the blame for all finances and the one manager who gets away with murder is Malky. Great logic really. :oops: :oops: :oops:


No mate.
The moral of the story is why the f**k do people still want to try to talk with roathy!?
OriginalGrangeEndBlue
 
Posts: 8328
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:05 am
Location: Cardiff

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

Postby blue lagoon » Sat Apr 22, 2017 8:06 am

Charlie Harper wrote: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:


This charlie harper must be a Jack if he's trolling this forum with total boll..... like this
WE'LL ALWAYS BE BLUE!
User avatar
blue lagoon
 
Posts: 2898
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 4:56 pm

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

Postby SnackaJack » Sat Apr 22, 2017 9:09 am

OriginalGrangeEndBlue wrote:
DandoCCFC wrote:Moral of the story is the board and managers will get the blame for all finances and the one manager who gets away with murder is Malky. Great logic really. :oops: :oops: :oops:


No mate.
The moral of the story is why the f**k do people still want to try to talk with roathy!?


I would say the moral of the story is to thoroughly research the subject before jumping in. Half the time it isn't even tricky to bar this nonsense away people just type what comes into their mind. The more sense I make the more outlandish the posts get to try and counter. Some research would go a long way in shortening some of these debates. The answers are at your fingertips. People just get too giddy when they think a Jack is telling them they are incorrect. :D
SnackaJack
 
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:57 am

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

Postby Tony Blue Williams » Sat Apr 22, 2017 9:31 am

SnackaJack wrote:
No I didn't. There are many variations, none of which are the ones that you and Pembroke Allen seem to be claiming are common place however.

I know full well the history of the transfer and explained it. You overpaid, they snatched your hands off and then bought him back at the correct price. However you somehow think they forgot their brains and allowed you to essentially keep 60% of the players registration thus paying £3m for 40% of the player :lol:

You just are not thinking it through. You are thinking of a absolutely crazy situation and convincing yourself simply because it is favourable even in the fact of reasoning why it simply is not the case. If this was the case Tan would be buying him back for 60% discount and selling him on to the current interested parties.

It will be a % of the profit. Simple as that. Probably 200k ish.


I'm not thinking it through hmmmm what's to say there isn't a clause in the transfer deal stopping Tan from buying the player back? :lol:

We didn't buy a percentage of the registration you fool that is completely something different, we negotiated a 60% sell on clause of the transfer fee :lol:

With every reply you show yourself up as someone who is completely clueless and mistakes being intelligent with shit stirring and waffle. You have to wonder why any true Jack would register an email in his name to access a Cardiff City message board. Just on that you have no credibility at all :roll:
User avatar
Tony Blue Williams
 
Posts: 14424
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 8:25 am

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

Postby Steve Zodiak » Sat Apr 22, 2017 9:35 am

I was wrong yesterday. Thought it may have been someone else but I can see now it is Roathy without a doubt.
Steve Zodiak
 
Posts: 5814
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2014 7:42 pm

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

Postby Charlie Harper » Sat Apr 22, 2017 10:00 am

blue lagoon wrote:
Charlie Harper wrote: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:


This charlie harper must be a Jack if he's trolling this forum with total boll..... like this



Get back to work BL :happy1: :happy1:
Mad bad and dangerous to know
User avatar
Charlie Harper
 
Posts: 1623
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 10:43 am
Location: Malibu beach

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

Postby SnackaJack » Sat Apr 22, 2017 10:04 am

Tony Blue Williams wrote:
SnackaJack wrote:
No I didn't. There are many variations, none of which are the ones that you and Pembroke Allen seem to be claiming are common place however.

I know full well the history of the transfer and explained it. You overpaid, they snatched your hands off and then bought him back at the correct price. However you somehow think they forgot their brains and allowed you to essentially keep 60% of the players registration thus paying £3m for 40% of the player :lol:

You just are not thinking it through. You are thinking of a absolutely crazy situation and convincing yourself simply because it is favourable even in the fact of reasoning why it simply is not the case. If this was the case Tan would be buying him back for 60% discount and selling him on to the current interested parties.

It will be a % of the profit. Simple as that. Probably 200k ish.


I'm not thinking it through hmmmm what's to say there isn't a clause in the transfer deal stopping Tan from buying the player back? :lol:

We didn't buy a percentage of the registration you fool that is completely something different, we negotiated a 60% sell on clause of the transfer fee :lol:

With every reply you show yourself up as someone who is completely clueless and mistakes being intelligent with shit stirring and waffle. You have to wonder why any true Jack would register an email in his name to access a Cardiff City message board. Just on that you have no credibility at all :roll:


My word. Of course you didn't technically buy 60% of the registration. This really is like talking to the happy bus. Owning the right to 60% of any future fee is essentially Copenhagen only buying 40% of the players registration, notice the word essentially. If I buy a house for 200k (what it is worth) and the owners said "by the way, when you sell it, we want 60% of it". Unless I live in into forever, I essentially only own 40% of the deed. It isn't really a technical concept you really shouldn't be having issues with it.

Oh munch X2... no you are not thinking it through. Why would there be a clause for Tan not buying him back?

1) there doesn't need to be a clause. They can accept and refuse offers from whomever they like.
2) what difference does it make? They don't get any less of Cardiff buy or if Atalanta do. In fact Tan could say "I'll give you 100k more than Atalanta and say to Atalanta then he will sell to them for 100k less. All parties happy.

And to your last point. With every post I show myself to be incredibly patient and it is amazing I am still teaching you while remaining so calm and haven't pulled my hair out. Teachers certainly get all the respect they deserve. It is a thankless task to try and teach people who don't have a cat in hells chance of remotely grasping the subject at hand. :D
SnackaJack
 
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:57 am

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

Postby SnackaJack » Sat Apr 22, 2017 10:10 am

Typing on my phone unfortunately. For reference "oh munch X2" is "oh my word X2".

And "unless I live into forever" should be "unless I live in it forever"

Continue... ;)
SnackaJack
 
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:57 am

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

Postby wez1927 » Sun Apr 23, 2017 8:44 am

SnackaJack wrote:
Tony Blue Williams wrote:
SnackaJack wrote:
No I didn't. There are many variations, none of which are the ones that you and Pembroke Allen seem to be claiming are common place however.

I know full well the history of the transfer and explained it. You overpaid, they snatched your hands off and then bought him back at the correct price. However you somehow think they forgot their brains and allowed you to essentially keep 60% of the players registration thus paying £3m for 40% of the player :lol:

You just are not thinking it through. You are thinking of a absolutely crazy situation and convincing yourself simply because it is favourable even in the fact of reasoning why it simply is not the case. If this was the case Tan would be buying him back for 60% discount and selling him on to the current interested parties.

It will be a % of the profit. Simple as that. Probably 200k ish.


I'm not thinking it through hmmmm what's to say there isn't a clause in the transfer deal stopping Tan from buying the player back? :lol:

We didn't buy a percentage of the registration you fool that is completely something different, we negotiated a 60% sell on clause of the transfer fee :lol:

With every reply you show yourself up as someone who is completely clueless and mistakes being intelligent with shit stirring and waffle. You have to wonder why any true Jack would register an email in his name to access a Cardiff City message board. Just on that you have no credibility at all :roll:


My word. Of course you didn't technically buy 60% of the registration. This really is like talking to the happy bus. Owning the right to 60% of any future fee is essentially Copenhagen only buying 40% of the players registration, notice the word essentially. If I buy a house for 200k (what it is worth) and the owners said "by the way, when you sell it, we want 60% of it". Unless I live in into forever, I essentially only own 40% of the deed. It isn't really a technical concept you really shouldn't be having issues with it.

Oh munch X2... no you are not thinking it through. Why would there be a clause for Tan not buying him back?

1) there doesn't need to be a clause. They can accept and refuse offers from whomever they like.
2) what difference does it make? They don't get any less of Cardiff buy or if Atalanta do. In fact Tan could say "I'll give you 100k more than Atalanta and say to Atalanta then he will sell to them for 100k less. All parties happy.

And to your last point. With every post I show myself to be incredibly patient and it is amazing I am still teaching you while remaining so calm and haven't pulled my hair out. Teachers certainly get all the respect they deserve. It is a thankless task to try and teach people who don't have a cat in hells chance of remotely grasping the subject at hand. :D

Ok roathy :lol:
CARDIFF CITY TILL I DIE !
wez1927
 
Posts: 18680
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 8:00 pm

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

Postby SnackaJack » Sun Apr 23, 2017 9:47 am

Wow Wesley understands, that's a first :clap: :D
SnackaJack
 
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:57 am

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

Postby wez1927 » Sun Apr 23, 2017 11:41 am

SnackaJack wrote:Wow Wesley understands, that's a first :clap: :D

Wierdo :lol:
CARDIFF CITY TILL I DIE !
wez1927
 
Posts: 18680
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 8:00 pm

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

Postby pembroke allan » Sun Apr 23, 2017 2:16 pm

wez1927 wrote:
SnackaJack wrote:Wow Wesley understands, that's a first :clap: :D

Wierdo :lol:




Wez he's Not a weirdo just being his normal self! :laughing6: stopped replying to him couple days ago when realised who he was! :munky2:
User avatar
pembroke allan
 
Posts: 29544
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:00 pm
Location: Cardiff

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

Postby SnackaJack » Sun Apr 23, 2017 4:48 pm

wez1927 wrote:
SnackaJack wrote:Wow Wesley understands, that's a first :clap: :D

Wierdo :lol:


Agreed, you are an odd chap but each to their own. :occasion5:
SnackaJack
 
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:57 am

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

Postby SnackaJack » Sun Apr 23, 2017 4:51 pm

pembroke allan wrote:
wez1927 wrote:
SnackaJack wrote:Wow Wesley understands, that's a first :clap: :D

Wierdo :lol:




Wez he's Not a weirdo just being his normal self! :laughing6: stopped replying to him couple days ago when realised who he was! :munky2:


Translated: ''In an attempt to avoid admitting I was mistaken, I made up that not only were there incidents of clubs being able to get a % of the transfer fee from player sales multiple times through the course of their career (even though its impossible), I went on to claim it was Crewe's Policy. Due to being picked up on that I have decided not to get involved any further.'' :D
SnackaJack
 
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:57 am

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

Postby WelshPatriot » Sun Apr 23, 2017 4:55 pm

The simple fact of the matter is sell on clauses come in many guises. Its a fact that the majority of details surrounding agreed sell on clauses never become public so none of us know the Cornelius deal.

Yet we have roathy arguing without a shred of proof that this suggested deal could never have taken place.

When reasons for the possible deal are put forward unlike a normal human who may go "yes actually I can see your point" he instead still argues that this clause could not have been agreed even though he has not seen even the date on said deal never mind details.

In his best effort he trys to compare the complicated world of football transfers to buying a house, with his example being you've bought a house worth 200k for500k which is without a shadow of a doubt some of his funniest work to date.
WelshPatriot
 
Posts: 1732
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2016 11:40 am

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

Postby SnackaJack » Sun Apr 23, 2017 5:04 pm

WelshPatriot wrote:The simple fact of the matter is sell on clauses come in many guises. Its a fact that the majority of details surrounding agreed sell on clauses never become public so none of us know the Cornelius deal.

Yet we have roathy arguing without a shred of proof that this suggested deal could never have taken place.

When reasons for the possible deal are put forward unlike a normal human who may go "yes actually I can see your point" he instead still argues that this clause could not have been agreed even though he has not seen even the date on said deal never mind details.

In his best effort he trys to compare the complicated world of football transfers to buying a house, with his example being you've bought a house worth 200k for500k which is without a shadow of a doubt some of his funniest work to date.


I said it his very unlikely that it took place. Please read before jumping in and being wrong like usual. In my opinion there is not a cat in hells chance it did though.

Football deals really aren't that complicated but I do forgive you for thinking they are. They are usually mutually beneficial deals based on common sense. The proposed deal here makes little sense and as a result I m happy to rebuff it without seeing it, just like my perfect house example wouldn't happen.

This thread could and should have ended on page one, yet it has been amusing the lengths people have gone to and witnessing them getting more and more outlandish to argue against the common sense of the matter. I am most certainly the forum celebrity with a band of loyal fans (you may in fact be chief fan :king: ) so the fact it is on page 6 and growing comes as no suprise, I suppose I should be flattered.
SnackaJack
 
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:57 am

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

Postby WelshPatriot » Sun Apr 23, 2017 5:45 pm

SnackaJack wrote:
WelshPatriot wrote:The simple fact of the matter is sell on clauses come in many guises. Its a fact that the majority of details surrounding agreed sell on clauses never become public so none of us know the Cornelius deal.

Yet we have roathy arguing without a shred of proof that this suggested deal could never have taken place.

When reasons for the possible deal are put forward unlike a normal human who may go "yes actually I can see your point" he instead still argues that this clause could not have been agreed even though he has not seen even the date on said deal never mind details.

In his best effort he trys to compare the complicated world of football transfers to buying a house, with his example being you've bought a house worth 200k for500k which is without a shadow of a doubt some of his funniest work to date.


I said it his very unlikely that it took place. Please read before jumping in and being wrong like usual. In my opinion there is not a cat in hells chance it did though.

Football deals really aren't that complicated but I do forgive you for thinking they are. They are usually mutually beneficial deals based on common sense. The proposed deal here makes little sense and as a result I m happy to rebuff it without seeing it, just like my perfect house example wouldn't happen.

This thread could and should have ended on page one, yet it has been amusing the lengths people have gone to and witnessing them getting more and more outlandish to argue against the common sense of the matter. I am most certainly the forum celebrity with a band of loyal fans (you may in fact be chief fan :king: ) so the fact it is on page 6 and growing comes as no suprise, I suppose I should be flattered.


See what your problem is, you just cannot see any other view point.

Now to the matter in hand as I stated none of us are party to the large majority of clauses inserted yet you purport to be an expert on all things related.

Just accept that you could possibly be wrong and Cardiff city may have In fact inserted the clause in the contract that you yourself have never seen.
WelshPatriot
 
Posts: 1732
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2016 11:40 am

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

Postby WelshPatriot » Sun Apr 23, 2017 5:48 pm

Above you say you only said "it is very unlikely' yet to quote you word for word you said "There is no way this is true"

Now what's it to be roathie? Unlikely or no way it's true?
WelshPatriot
 
Posts: 1732
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2016 11:40 am

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

Postby SnackaJack » Sun Apr 23, 2017 6:34 pm

WelshPatriot wrote:
See what your problem is, you just cannot see any other view point.

Now to the matter in hand as I stated none of us are party to the large majority of clauses inserted yet you purport to be an expert on all things related.

Just accept that you could possibly be wrong and Cardiff city may have In fact inserted the clause in the contract that you yourself have never seen.


Why would I accept that Cardiff have inserted the clause? BEcause the media probably made a mistake by not understanding these things? Nah you are ok, I will stick with the overwhelming probability that this is nonsense :D
SnackaJack
 
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:57 am

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

Postby SnackaJack » Sun Apr 23, 2017 6:35 pm

WelshPatriot wrote:Above you say you only said "it is very unlikely' yet to quote you word for word you said "There is no way this is true"

Now what's it to be roathie? Unlikely or no way it's true?


There is no way Santa Claus is real, but if you are aksing me to provide facts - I can't really. But on the balance of probability - there is no way he exists. Same with this phantom clause (see what I did there?). :laughing6:
SnackaJack
 
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:57 am

PreviousNext


Return to General Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bambasbestbuddy22, Blakey59, Bluebird-in-Jackland, bluebirdoct1962, Cardiff_CPT, Clickagy [Bot], DotBot [Bot], FOOTSOLDIER, Google [Bot], Grapeshot [Bot], ias [Bot], montyblue, pembroke allan, Proximic [Bot] and 189 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.