Gyokeres (74 Viewers)

[Ccfcisparks]

I read yesterday Vik could go to West Ham for 24m and we would also get Ings for free with West Ham helping to pay Ings wages for a full season? Ings at 32 would tear up the championship imo.

oh dear

 

---

[jay2015]

€21 million works out 18 million pound I take that hands down bye vik offer gus 2 million

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Done some research and I’m now happy to take you up on the bet. Shall we say £250?

- To be clear, I am betting that Viktor Gyokeres is not sold from Coventry City for a fee of £20 million GBP or more before the end of the current transfer window. If this transpires, you will pay £250 GBP to a charity of my choice. If Gyokeres is sold for a fee of £20 million GBP or more before the end of the current transfer window, I will pay £250 GBP to a charity of your choice.

- For the purposes of the bet, the £20m fee can include up-front and future/incentive-based payments, but does not include sell-on clauses

- The transfer fee must either be confirmed by one of the two clubs involved in the deal, or by at least two reputable news outlets. If the fee cannot be confirmed, or if the two clubs and/or multiple news outlets disagree on whether the fee exceeds £20 million, the bet is void. If you and I cannot agree on whether a news outlet can be considered to be “reputable” then the bet is void

- If the transfer fee is announced in a different currency from GBP, the exchange rate will be decided by the exchange rate on the date that the clubs confirm the transfer has been completed. If the two clubs announce the transfer on different dates, then the earlier of the dates will apply

- The beneficiary charities do not need to be confirmed until after the bet is settled. Only one charity can be named as the beneficiary

- Any payments to charities should be verified to the other user by a screenshot of the payment being made on the relevant charity’s website AND a screenshot of the money having left the user’s bank account. Each user reserves the right to omit any sensitive or personal information from these screenshots, but must provide sufficient verification to satisfy the other user that the payment has been made

- Payments can be made in multiple instalments if required, but all payments to charities must be completed by 23:59 GMT on September 30, 2023

- The terms of this bet expire at 23:59 GMT on Friday June 30, 2023

Well, I'll give you one thing. You've certainly put a lot of effort into that. The only issue for me really is that I've come onto SBT today and seen two things: 1) That a bid has been allegedly beem accepted for 21 million euros. 2) You want to now take me up on a bet that means I would therefore lose straightaway should point 1 be correct, as it is slightly under the figure.

Given that the bet was presented to you a week ago, to suddenly accept this now, with some fairly highly suitable terms in your favour, I think that lacks a bit of class and takes some of the fun out of the concept of the charity bet if I'm honest. That being said, it is after all for charity, and therefore I think that's more important than anything else. If you can disclose the charity you would like to put forward, and remove the confidentiality clause, then I will be prepared to (at no earlier point than that) review with a view to accept the rest of the terms, and move forward with the bet.

 

[SBT]

Well, I'll give you one thing. You've certainly put a lot of effort into that. The only issue for me really is that I've come onto SBT today and seen two things: 1) That a bid has been allegedly beem accepted for 21 million euros. 2) You want to now take me up on a bet that means I would therefore lose straightaway should point 1 be correct, as it is slightly under the figure.

Given that the bet was presented to you a week ago, to suddenly accept this now, with some fairly highly suitable terms in your favour, I think that lacks a bit of class and takes some of the fun out of the concept of the charity bet if I'm honest. That being said, it is after all for charity, and therefore I think that's more important than anything else. If you can disclose the charity you would like to put forward, and remove the confidentiality clause, then I will be prepared to (at no earlier point than that) review with a view to accept the rest of the terms, and move forward with the bet.

What confidentiality clause?

I don’t really see how the terms are “in my favour” but happy to amend if you have concerns. I haven’t decided on my charity yet but I can assure you it will be a legitimate cause.

I haven’t seen any concrete news about bids being accepted so if you still have faith in your original bet then you should go for it! But if you don’t want to take me up on it after all then don’t worry about it, I know I kept you waiting a bit.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

£18 and a ‘significant’ sell-on fee is a respectable deal to be honest. It worked out very well with the Maddison and Wilson deals where we got above £5-6m (or thereabouts) for them in the end.

 

[SBT]

OK, would rather have put more research into it in terms of picking charities, but if @Earlsdon_Skyblue1 would like to know now, then he can have his choice of two:

Dutch Refugee Council, who seek to defend and protect the rights of refugees and asylum seekers in the Netherlands

Or alternatively, to mark the end of Pride Month, COC Netherlands, a UN-affiliated group working to advocate for LGBT rights in the Netherlands and abroad

Let me know which one you pick - I won’t insist on you offering me a similar choice, but it’s up to you!

 

[Skybluedownunder]

I read yesterday Vik could go to West Ham for 24m and we would also get Ings for free with West Ham helping to pay Ings wages for a full season? Ings at 32 would tear up the championship imo.

Bollocks! Are you pulling a Greggs on us? Where did you ‘read’ this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Alkhen]

Bollocks! Are you pulling a Greggs on us? Where did you ‘read’ this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is nonsense that originated on some West Ham fan site, it was an opinion piece not a report.

Even if both Cov and West Ham were keen there is zero chance Ings would go for it.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

OK, would rather have put more research into it in terms of picking charities, but if @Earlsdon_Skyblue1 would like to know now, then he can have his choice of two:

Dutch Refugee Council, who seek to defend and protect the rights of refugees and asylum seekers in the Netherlands

Or alternatively, to mark the end of Pride Month, COC Netherlands, a UN-affiliated group working to advocate for LGBT rights in the Netherlands and abroad

Let me know which one you pick - I won’t insist on you offering me a similar choice, but it’s up to you!

Expired?

 

[RegTheDonk]

.

What confidentiality clause?

I don’t really see how the terms are “in my favour” but happy to amend if you have concerns. I haven’t decided on my charity yet but I can assure you it will be a legitimate cause.

I haven’t seen any concrete news about bids being accepted so if you still have faith in your original bet then you should go for it! But if you don’t want to take me up on it after all then don’t worry about it, I know I kept you waiting a bit.

Tell me do one, not my arguement, but I'm with Earsldon on this.

You put in the caveat of not including sell on fees. Take that cherry out of the equation and Sporting would have to bid more.

 

[Sick Boy]

.


Tell me do one, not my arguement, but I'm with Earsldon on this.

You put in the caveat of not including sell on fees. Take that cherry out of the equation and Sporting would have to bid more.

Eh? Money from sell on clauses is never included when talking about transfer fees.

 

[shmmeee]

Eh? Money from sell on clauses is never included when talking about transfer fees.

Yeah but it’s clear that the 35% was added because we wanted £20m and they couldn’t afford it.

 

[Sick Boy]

Yeah but it’s clear that the 35% was added because we wanted £20m and they couldn’t afford it.

Yeah but it's not a transfer fee - it's a sell on clause as part of the deal.

 

[mark82]

.


Tell me do one, not my arguement, but I'm with Earsldon on this.

You put in the caveat of not including sell on fees. Take that cherry out of the equation and Sporting would have to bid more.

You can't quantify a sell on clause. It could be worth nothing, it could be worth £10m. Unless we want to keep the bet running for a number of years.

 

[Speedie's Head]

I must admit I was a bit surprised that this was not finalised yesterday if we accept the report of the increased bid at face value...

 

[Deleted member 5849]

All moot anyway because after a flurry of activity at 10:30-11:00, no agreement forthcoming by the deadline...

 

[SkyblueDad]

Apparently Players in training today too, interesting.

 

[Somerset Sky Blue]

Apparently Players in training today too, interesting.

But vik won't be as he has been on international duty.

 

[Deity]

I think they are in for initial post holiday measurements and tests ….

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Yeah but it's not a transfer fee - it's a sell on clause as part of the deal.

So what would happen if Sporting sold Gyokeres in the next few seasons and we got a £3-6m (or more) windfall for him? That would take us over the £20m in a transfer fee for Gyokeres.

Sell-ons are clearly part of a player’s valuation, albeit it’s a ‘bet’ on a players value increasing. It’s Sporting’s only way to compete with the Prem teams financially and I’ll be surprised if one of the Prem teams in need of a striker pass up on Gyokeres. £20-25m may not look as good value-wise for a player with an expiring contract, but he’s good enough to make the grade in the Prem.

 

[Grendel]

So what would happen if Sporting sold Gyokeres in the next few seasons and we got a £3-6m (or more) windfall for him? That would take us over the £20m in a transfer fee for Gyokeres.

Sell-ons are clearly part of a player’s valuation, albeit it’s a ‘bet’ on a players value increasing. It’s Sporting’s only way to compete with the Prem teams financially and I’ll be surprised if one of the Prem teams in need of a striker pass up on Gyokeres. £20-25m may not look as good value-wise for a player with an expiring contract, but he’s good enough to make the grade in the Prem.

what if they didn’t?

 

[SkyblueDad]

But vik won't be as he has been on international duty.

Who says, he has been away since Sweden went out of that tournament. Been all sorts said on here for weeks but he is still a ccfc player.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

what if they didn’t?

Exactly, the only definitive is the actual fee. I thought SBT was quite generous allowing clauses such as winning goal in intergalactic cup final to be included, tbh

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

what if they didn’t?

Well, if I paid £250 to charity if lost a bet then the terms of my wager were met, I’d be annoyed.

Therefore, if we really want to be finicky, the pay out shouldn’t occur until Lisbon either sold or released Gyokeres.

Either way, it’s unlikely we’ll know the true value we’d have got for him.

 

[Briles]

Any transfer is recorded as the main fee. The clauses aren't included. If you're going to do that then you may as well include tax in your calculations

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Exactly, the only definitive is the actual fee. I thought SBT was quite generous allowing clauses such as winning goal in intergalactic cup final to be included, tbh

Evidently not, we’ve just got some money from Maddison some 7 years. With the add-ons and sell-on fees, it’s likely we’ve doubled the initial fee we got for him in the first place.

It’s also very rare for clubs to deal upfront in cash nowadays. Incentives, sell-on clauses and what not are the norm, not the outlier.

 

[SBT]

So what would happen if Sporting sold Gyokeres in the next few seasons and we got a £3-6m (or more) windfall for him? That would take us over the £20m in a transfer fee for Gyokeres.

In this scenario I have changed my name to Miguel Sanchez and fled the country to avoid paying up.

But in all seriousness - this kind of scenario is why it’s important to set ground rules for the bet, and it’s silly to leave a bet open for “the next few seasons”. I think using the headline fee makes most sense.

Haven’t heard anything from @Earlsdon_Skyblue1 and I know I said the terms of the bet expired last night, but now that I’ve named my charities, I’m happy to leave the bet open until 23:59 UK time today if he still thinks he can win for his chosen charity….

 

[Grendel]

Evidently not, we’ve just got some money from Maddison some 7 years. With the add-ons and sell-on fees, it’s likely we’ve doubled the initial fee we got for him in the first place.

It’s also very rare for clubs to deal upfront in cash nowadays. Incentives, sell-on clauses and what not are the norm, not the outlier.

I think you and a few others are seeing the point and missing it at the same time

 

[Sick Boy]

So what would happen if Sporting sold Gyokeres in the next few seasons and we got a £3-6m (or more) windfall for him? That would take us over the £20m in a transfer fee for Gyokeres.

Sell-ons are clearly part of a player’s valuation, albeit it’s a ‘bet’ on a players value increasing. It’s Sporting’s only way to compete with the Prem teams financially and I’ll be surprised if one of the Prem teams in need of a striker pass up on Gyokeres. £20-25m may not look as good value-wise for a player with an expiring contract, but he’s good enough to make the grade in the Prem.

It’s a sell on clause, not the transfer fee.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Who says, he has been away since Sweden went out of that tournament. Been all sorts said on here for weeks but he is still a ccfc player.

He's not back until 7th - 10th July due to extended leave.

 

[higgs]

Get him to sign a new deal and let's put all this transfer shite to bed

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

 

[Ccfcisparks]

Get him to sign a new deal and let's put all this transfer shite to bed

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Think theres more chance of plaiting piss.

 

[shmmeee]

Yeah but it's not a transfer fee - it's a sell on clause as part of the deal.

“the deal” being “this fee in return for that player” so in effect it is. King clearly values it at a couple of million because he’s willing to take a lower cash fee for it. Without the 35% Sporting wouldn’t have been able to afford him.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

I think you and a few others are seeing the point and missing it at the same time

I weighed in on the point that the transfer package could total more than £20 million down the line.

‘Sold for more than £20m by end of the current transfer window’ - that’s not so unambiguous as to what that actually means. Again, the sell-on clause was negotiated before the end of the window. Therefore, we won’t know what if we get over £20m for Gyokeres until he leaves Sporting, one way or the other.

Then again, I’m not a gambler and silly bets like this show me why.

 

[shmmeee]

If the fee had been from Burnley and was £18m + McNally would that have counted? We’d have had to agree on a value for McNally to decide, sell ons are no different.