Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:26 pm
Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:19 pm
Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:21 am
Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:27 am
Fri Apr 21, 2017 7:15 am
Double G wrote:this is huge news and amazed so little comments.
maybe cos tan might have done something right for a change. sell cheap to get rid of wahes and huge sell on clause incase he came good. well done to tan/board if truth in it. could have the a huge slice of budget here alone
Fri Apr 21, 2017 7:30 am
Fri Apr 21, 2017 7:33 am
Forever Blue wrote:Under Malky's era Cornelius was signed for £8million was sold back to FC Copenhagen for £3million and it was put in writing by Cardiff City if they ever re-sold Cornelius, Cardiff would receive 60% of the transfer fee.
Fri Apr 21, 2017 7:38 am
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.
Fri Apr 21, 2017 7:51 am
Fri Apr 21, 2017 7:54 am
Forever Blue wrote:Under Malky's era Cornelius was signed for £8million was sold back to FC Copenhagen for £3million and it was put in writing by Cardiff City if they ever re-sold Cornelius, Cardiff would receive 60% of the transfer fee.
Fri Apr 21, 2017 7:58 am
Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:12 am
Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:15 am
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.
Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:17 am
wez1927 wrote:Your wrong the sell on fee is percentage of the fee paid buy the buying club not the profit
Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:18 am
nubbsy wrote:Seems a huge sell on fee I'll wait until it's confirmed first, but if true then has to be good news for our transfer situation. Let's hope it goes through soon.
Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:22 am
cardiffblue74 wrote:Forever Blue wrote:Under Malky's era Cornelius was signed for £8million was sold back to FC Copenhagen for £3million and it was put in writing by Cardiff City if they ever re-sold Cornelius, Cardiff would receive 60% of the transfer fee.
People always judge Makly by the Cornelius deal which is always very unfair, however now the full story is out even the most anti Malky supporter must now think actually this wasn't bad business by him and City?
Can I also add (ranting now) that Malky also gets criticised for the for the number of players he bought however again in his defence when he started at Cardiff we barely had a starting 11, therefore for he had to acquire players to build a squad. Unlike Ole to built the biggest and most expensive squad in the history of Cardiff City.
Rant over, enjoy your Friday fellow City supporters
Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:26 am
Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:33 am
SnackaJack wrote:There was a 20% sell on fee with Jordan Rhodes transfer from Huddersfield to Blackburn. The deal is explained below...
As Huddersfield Town wait for news on any potential transfer for former player Jordan Rhodes from Blackburn Rovers, this is how a sell-on deal works.
Town are due to receive 20% of any profit on Rhodes, who moved to Ewood Park in an £8m deal in August 2012.
So these are the key factors:
Clubs are not allowed to owe money to two clubs in relation to the same player.
While that principle is straightforward it can become complicated in practice because of payment terms and possible extra add-ons which may arise in future, plus sell-on clauses.
If a club still owes part of a transfer fee to the player’s previous club, then this must be paid up first, in full, at the time he moves on to his next club.
So, out of any cash that’s received at the start, the first slug of that must go to pay off any outstanding amount to the previous club.
If an £8m player is paid for at £2m over four years, and he is sold again after the second year, the remaining £4m must be paid up to his to his previous club when the he is sold, before the selling club gets to keep a penny.
Sell-ons are paid to previous clubs pro-rata when cash is received by the selling club.
Were Blackburn, for instance, to agree £9m down and be guaranteed £5m later for Rhodes, then Blackburn would make a £6m profit on the £8m cost.
Town – having been paid any remainder still due out of their initial £8m for the player, which was reported last year to be £2m – would also initially receive 9/15ths of their 20% sell-on of the £6m profit.
The rest of the profit sell-on would then come pro-rata as Blackburn receive the rest of the guaranteed cash.
If other add-ons are earned, such as promotion bonuses or appearance fees, then Town would get a share of those too, but only when Blackburn get the cash from the buying club.
Town, in turn, would have to pay Ipswich pro-rata for their sell-ons from when Rhodes moved to the John Smith’s Stadium in July 2009.
Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:03 am
petesmeat wrote:SnackaJack wrote:There was a 20% sell on fee with Jordan Rhodes transfer from Huddersfield to Blackburn. The deal is explained below...
As Huddersfield Town wait for news on any potential transfer for former player Jordan Rhodes from Blackburn Rovers, this is how a sell-on deal works.
Town are due to receive 20% of any profit on Rhodes, who moved to Ewood Park in an £8m deal in August 2012.
So these are the key factors:
Clubs are not allowed to owe money to two clubs in relation to the same player.
While that principle is straightforward it can become complicated in practice because of payment terms and possible extra add-ons which may arise in future, plus sell-on clauses.
If a club still owes part of a transfer fee to the player’s previous club, then this must be paid up first, in full, at the time he moves on to his next club.
So, out of any cash that’s received at the start, the first slug of that must go to pay off any outstanding amount to the previous club.
If an £8m player is paid for at £2m over four years, and he is sold again after the second year, the remaining £4m must be paid up to his to his previous club when the he is sold, before the selling club gets to keep a penny.
Sell-ons are paid to previous clubs pro-rata when cash is received by the selling club.
Were Blackburn, for instance, to agree £9m down and be guaranteed £5m later for Rhodes, then Blackburn would make a £6m profit on the £8m cost.
Town – having been paid any remainder still due out of their initial £8m for the player, which was reported last year to be £2m – would also initially receive 9/15ths of their 20% sell-on of the £6m profit.
The rest of the profit sell-on would then come pro-rata as Blackburn receive the rest of the guaranteed cash.
If other add-ons are earned, such as promotion bonuses or appearance fees, then Town would get a share of those too, but only when Blackburn get the cash from the buying club.
Town, in turn, would have to pay Ipswich pro-rata for their sell-ons from when Rhodes moved to the John Smith’s Stadium in July 2009.
It could be either, it could be 60% of the next fee or the profit. Depends how the deal was done. Either way, anything is a bonus!
Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:11 am
SnackaJack wrote:petesmeat wrote:SnackaJack wrote:There was a 20% sell on fee with Jordan Rhodes transfer from Huddersfield to Blackburn. The deal is explained below...
As Huddersfield Town wait for news on any potential transfer for former player Jordan Rhodes from Blackburn Rovers, this is how a sell-on deal works.
Town are due to receive 20% of any profit on Rhodes, who moved to Ewood Park in an £8m deal in August 2012.
So these are the key factors:
Clubs are not allowed to owe money to two clubs in relation to the same player.
While that principle is straightforward it can become complicated in practice because of payment terms and possible extra add-ons which may arise in future, plus sell-on clauses.
If a club still owes part of a transfer fee to the player’s previous club, then this must be paid up first, in full, at the time he moves on to his next club.
So, out of any cash that’s received at the start, the first slug of that must go to pay off any outstanding amount to the previous club.
If an £8m player is paid for at £2m over four years, and he is sold again after the second year, the remaining £4m must be paid up to his to his previous club when the he is sold, before the selling club gets to keep a penny.
Sell-ons are paid to previous clubs pro-rata when cash is received by the selling club.
Were Blackburn, for instance, to agree £9m down and be guaranteed £5m later for Rhodes, then Blackburn would make a £6m profit on the £8m cost.
Town – having been paid any remainder still due out of their initial £8m for the player, which was reported last year to be £2m – would also initially receive 9/15ths of their 20% sell-on of the £6m profit.
The rest of the profit sell-on would then come pro-rata as Blackburn receive the rest of the guaranteed cash.
If other add-ons are earned, such as promotion bonuses or appearance fees, then Town would get a share of those too, but only when Blackburn get the cash from the buying club.
Town, in turn, would have to pay Ipswich pro-rata for their sell-ons from when Rhodes moved to the John Smith’s Stadium in July 2009.
It could be either, it could be 60% of the next fee or the profit. Depends how the deal was done. Either way, anything is a bonus!
Never in my life have I heard of such a deal, and never in my life could I fathom why Copenhagen would agree to essentially sell him for£1.9m euros. It just makes no sense. They are not in financial trouble and judging from past deals, clearly not stupid. If they were hanstrung by having to pay 60% os the transfer fee then surely they would just swap a player to the same value and not pay anything to Cardiff while acuiring a 4 million euro asset (this is why deals are not done on a transfer fee basis).
Also important to note that the deal is in euros. So if it is the profit, then it would be 60% of £350,000 (so £210,000).
If it is 60% of the whole transfer fee then £2.1m. But I find that incredibly unlikely.
Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:12 am
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.
Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:24 am
ealing_ayatollah 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.
In fairness Annis - Is there really any need to open old wounds with phrases like Tan's red followers?
Malky did a lot of good things and a fair few bad things.
Making a swedish youngster our record signing and then half a season later claiming he was one for the future falls into the latter category surely?
Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:57 am
Forever Blue wrote:ealing_ayatollah 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.
In fairness Annis - Is there really any need to open old wounds with phrases like Tan's red followers?
Malky did a lot of good things and a fair few bad things.
Making a swedish youngster our record signing and then half a season later claiming he was one for the future falls into the latter category surely?
Funny if I mention Malky like I have in the last few days, others are sarstic to me, yet I can't say anything back
Malky did mostly 95% good for our club in success and money.
£200 mill brought in, yet made a couple of bad transfers, but only that is what is brought up by shall I say certain City fans.
Yet over all Malky achieved great success
Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:59 am
wez1927 wrote:Forever Blue wrote:ealing_ayatollah 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.
In fairness Annis - Is there really any need to open old wounds with phrases like Tan's red followers?
Malky did a lot of good things and a fair few bad things.
Making a swedish youngster our record signing and then half a season later claiming he was one for the future falls into the latter category surely?
Funny if I mention Malky like I have in the last few days, others are sarstic to me, yet I can't say anything back
Malky did mostly 95% good for our club in success and money.
£200 mill brought in, yet made a couple of bad transfers, but only that is what is brought up by shall I say certain City fans.
Yet over all Malky achieved great success
Didn't tan bring that money in too? He was the owner or doesnt the count ?
Fri Apr 21, 2017 10:03 am
SnackaJack wrote:petesmeat wrote:SnackaJack wrote:There was a 20% sell on fee with Jordan Rhodes transfer from Huddersfield to Blackburn. The deal is explained below...
As Huddersfield Town wait for news on any potential transfer for former player Jordan Rhodes from Blackburn Rovers, this is how a sell-on deal works.
Town are due to receive 20% of any profit on Rhodes, who moved to Ewood Park in an £8m deal in August 2012.
So these are the key factors:
Clubs are not allowed to owe money to two clubs in relation to the same player.
While that principle is straightforward it can become complicated in practice because of payment terms and possible extra add-ons which may arise in future, plus sell-on clauses.
If a club still owes part of a transfer fee to the player’s previous club, then this must be paid up first, in full, at the time he moves on to his next club.
So, out of any cash that’s received at the start, the first slug of that must go to pay off any outstanding amount to the previous club.
If an £8m player is paid for at £2m over four years, and he is sold again after the second year, the remaining £4m must be paid up to his to his previous club when the he is sold, before the selling club gets to keep a penny.
Sell-ons are paid to previous clubs pro-rata when cash is received by the selling club.
Were Blackburn, for instance, to agree £9m down and be guaranteed £5m later for Rhodes, then Blackburn would make a £6m profit on the £8m cost.
Town – having been paid any remainder still due out of their initial £8m for the player, which was reported last year to be £2m – would also initially receive 9/15ths of their 20% sell-on of the £6m profit.
The rest of the profit sell-on would then come pro-rata as Blackburn receive the rest of the guaranteed cash.
If other add-ons are earned, such as promotion bonuses or appearance fees, then Town would get a share of those too, but only when Blackburn get the cash from the buying club.
Town, in turn, would have to pay Ipswich pro-rata for their sell-ons from when Rhodes moved to the John Smith’s Stadium in July 2009.
It could be either, it could be 60% of the next fee or the profit. Depends how the deal was done. Either way, anything is a bonus!
Never in my life have I heard of such a deal, and never in my life could I fathom why Copenhagen would agree to essentially sell him for£1.9m euros. It just makes no sense. They are not in financial trouble and judging from past deals, clearly not stupid. If they were hanstrung by having to pay 60% os the transfer fee then surely they would just swap a player to the same value and not pay anything to Cardiff while acuiring a 4 million euro asset (this is why deals are not done on a transfer fee basis).
Also important to note that the deal is in euros. So if it is the profit, then it would be 60% of £350,000 (so £210,000).
If it is 60% of the whole transfer fee then £2.1m. But I find that incredibly unlikely.
Fri Apr 21, 2017 10:06 am
wez1927 wrote:
Dont think you can swap a player either it goes to tribunal then like when it happened to the jacks over a keeper a few years back ?
Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:24 am
SnackaJack wrote:wez1927 wrote:
Dont think you can swap a player either it goes to tribunal then like when it happened to the jacks over a keeper a few years back ?
Of course you can.
You are talking about Michel Vorm and Utrecht of course. Utrecht took Swansea to court and the court (and FIFA) found that Swansea did not owe anything as they swapped a player and no transfer fee was recieved. But that much was obvious anyway, Utrecht were just angry that it had happened.
So I find it very hard to believe that Copenhagen would essentially throw away £2.1m when they dont have to.
Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:31 am
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.
Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:37 am
murphy wrote:
Well it doesn't affect you or your club so just ignore it.
Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:40 am