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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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
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.
Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:31 pm
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 1:00 pm
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.
Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:10 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 1:10 pm
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.
Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:11 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 1:13 pm
castleblue 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 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.
Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:29 pm
castleblue 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 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.
Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:41 pm
Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:53 pm
Forever Blue wrote:castleblue 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 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.
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.
Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:02 pm
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.
Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:04 pm
wez1927 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.
Sounds like roathy is back ?
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.
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.
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.
Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:30 pm
dogfound wrote:wez1927 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.
Sounds like roathy is back ?
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.
Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:36 pm
Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:50 pm
dogfound wrote:according to you,your always PROBABLY right .
at least you havent included a wager. your getting better mate. upped your meds have they ?
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.
Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:00 pm
SnackaJack wrote:dogfound wrote:according to you,your always PROBABLY right .
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.
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.
going now
Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:57 pm
wez1927 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.
Your wrong the sell on fee is percentage of the fee paid buy the buying club not the profit
Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:14 pm
epping blue wrote:wez1927 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.
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.
Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:26 pm
pembroke allan wrote:epping blue wrote:wez1927 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.
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!
Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:34 pm