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
Fri Apr 21, 2017 7:16 pm
SnackaJack wrote:Tony Blue Williams wrote:SnackaJack wrote:Lads, think about it ffs
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.
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.
Fri Apr 21, 2017 7:48 pm
Tony Blue Williams wrote:SnackaJack wrote:Tony Blue Williams wrote:SnackaJack wrote:Lads, think about it ffs
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.
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?
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. So I await your waffling reply
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
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.
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?
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. So I await your waffling reply
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
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
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.
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?
Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:01 pm
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
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
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!
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.
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
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.
No mate.
The moral of the story is why the f**k do people still want to try to talk with roathy!?
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
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.
Sat Apr 22, 2017 9:35 am
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
This charlie harper must be a Jack if he's trolling this forum with total boll..... like this
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
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?
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
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
Sat Apr 22, 2017 10:10 am
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
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?
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
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
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.
Sun Apr 23, 2017 9:47 am
Sun Apr 23, 2017 11:41 am
SnackaJack wrote:Wow Wesley understands, that's a first
Sun Apr 23, 2017 2:16 pm
wez1927 wrote:SnackaJack wrote:Wow Wesley understands, that's a first
Wierdo
Sun Apr 23, 2017 4:48 pm
wez1927 wrote:SnackaJack wrote:Wow Wesley understands, that's a first
Wierdo
Sun Apr 23, 2017 4:51 pm
pembroke allan wrote:wez1927 wrote:SnackaJack wrote:Wow Wesley understands, that's a first
Wierdo
Wez he's Not a weirdo just being his normal self! stopped replying to him couple days ago when realised who he was!
Sun Apr 23, 2017 4:55 pm
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.
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 ) so the fact it is on page 6 and growing comes as no suprise, I suppose I should be flattered.
Sun Apr 23, 2017 5:48 pm
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.
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?