Gyokeres (43 Viewers)

Forums New posts
Mucca Mad Boys

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
“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.
Click to expand...
shmmeee said:
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.
Click to expand...

Imagine a scenario Sporting sell up for £30-40m and we got an extra £10-14 million… does it not count? Of course it does.

35% sell-on fee would be a seriously good deal given the circumstances.

It’s a manipulation of terms that I don’t like. Suppose Sporting packaged the £18m over 2 years, does that mean we class it as £9m for this window.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Mucca Mad Boys said:
Imagine a scenario Sporting sell up for £30-40m and we got an extra £10-14 million… does it not count? Of course it does.

35% sell-on fee would be a seriously good deal given the circumstances.
Click to expand...

It’s got a value in and of itself. You could imagine a scenario where Sporting buy it out or drop it as part of a future deal between the clubs. Yes it’s a gamble, like buying stock in a player and the value isn’t realised until it’s sold. That doesn’t mean stocks don’t have value.
 
AFCCOVENTRY

AFCCOVENTRY

Well-Known Member
Mucca Mad Boys said:
Imagine a scenario Sporting sell up for £30-40m and we got an extra £10-14 million… does it not count? Of course it does.

35% sell-on fee would be a seriously good deal given the circumstances.
Click to expand...

Sporting also won’t let him go on a free at the end of his contract. He’s got 18-24 months tops. They’re a bit like us but obviously higher up in terms of bringing on talent and selling on for a profit to Euro club big boys.
 
D

Deity

Well-Known Member
I don’t much care who wins the charity bet but you can’t exclude a sell on clause from the calculation. That’s obvious.
 
Mucca Mad Boys

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
It’s got a value in and of itself. You could imagine a scenario where Sporting buy it out or drop it as part of a future deal between the clubs. Yes it’s a gamble, like buying stock in a player and the value isn’t realised until it’s sold. That doesn’t mean stocks don’t have value.
Click to expand...
AFCCOVENTRY said:
Sporting also won’t let him go on a free at the end of his contract. He’s got 18-24 months tops. They’re a bit like us but obviously higher up in terms of bringing on talent and selling on for a profit to Euro club big boys.
Click to expand...


Agreed. At 24, you’d think Gyokeres has still got development to do and in the Portuguese league, a good opportunity to use it as a stepping stone. Going to the Prem is the ceiling for him in a sense because the next step is either a top-end Prem/European team. As much as I like Gyokeres, I doubt his ceiling is that high.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Deity said:
I don’t much care who wins the charity bet but you can’t exclude a sell on clause from the calculation. That’s obvious.
Click to expand...

So if the bet was when we sold Maddison it wouldn’t pay out for 7 years?
 
Marty

Marty

Well-Known Member
I think you need to include the sell on fee as it's part of the deal between the 2 clubs. If he goes and flops over there, you'd expect a newly relegated championship side would try and pick him up for 10mill or so. From what I've read the few covers the whole future fee and not just the profit side of things, so think it's fair to value the sell on clause at 3.5mill in addition to the original 18m.
 
S

SBT

Well-Known Member
Mucca Mad Boys said:
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.
Click to expand...
The “end of the transfer window” wording is indeed important. If he is “sold for more than £20m by end of the transfer window” then I’m happy to pay up. I’m even willing to take into account the value of future fees that have been agreed at the time of the player’s sale, before the end of the transfer window. But I somehow doubt that the value of any sell-on clauses will have been agreed on and collected by the end of the transfer window, so they shouldn’t count imo.

Again, if @Earlsdon_Skyblue1 and I cannot agree on the value of the fee, I have said I am happy to void the bet. It’s up to him whether he wants to go ahead with the bet he suggested.
 
S

SBT

Well-Known Member
Marty said:
I think you need to include the sell on fee as it's part of the deal between the 2 clubs. If he goes and flops over there, you'd expect a newly relegated championship side would try and pick him up for 10mill or so. From what I've read the few covers the whole future fee and not just the profit side of things, so think it's fair to value the sell on clause at 3.5mill in addition to the original 18m.
Click to expand...
You think it’s fair to just make up a £3.5m value for a sell-on fee which you’ve said in the previous sentence could well be worth zero?
 
CDK

CDK

Well-Known Member
Surprised he's not gone yet ,cause he will can't see him playing for us again get rid city
 
Mucca Mad Boys

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
SBT said:
The “end of the transfer window” wording is indeed important. If he is “sold for more than £20m by end of the transfer window” then I’m happy to pay up. I’m even willing to take into account the value of future fees that have been agreed at the time of the player’s sale, before the end of the transfer window. But I somehow doubt that the value of any sell-on clauses will have been agreed on and collected by the end of the transfer window, so they shouldn’t count imo.

Again, if @Earlsdon_Skyblue1 and I cannot agree on the value of the fee, I have said I am happy to void the bet. It’s up to him whether he wants to go ahead with the bet he suggested.
Click to expand...

Your wording isn’t as unambiguous as you think.

Simply put, you’re wagering in the ‘up front’ amount being below £20m. If reports of a deal with Sporting being ‘close’ you aren’t making a big bold claim. From @Earlsdon_Skyblue1’s POV, it’s a stupid bet to take on for a £5a let alone £250.

From a CCFC POV, I’d rather accept less money upfront for a sell-on % given that Gyokeres can leave next year for free. At 24, he is yet to peak.

If Gyokeres performs well in the Portuguese league and in Europe - which I back him to do - he could easily command a £30-40m fee in a year or two.
 
Briles

Briles

Well-Known Member
This thread it making my eyes go deaf. You cannot include a "what if" into a transfer fee total. If its 18 million "rising to xyz based on xyz" its 18 million. If its 18 million with a 35% sell on clause, its 18 million. A fee is an amount paid, not an amount that could be
 
D

Deity

Well-Known Member
Briles said:
This thread it making my eyes go deaf. You cannot include a "what if" into a transfer fee total. If its 18 million "rising to xyz based on xyz" its 18 million. If its 18 million with a 35% sell on clause, its 18 million.
Click to expand...
No it isn’t. Simply factually and legally not true.
 
Briles

Briles

Well-Known Member
Deity said:
£18m is the minimum liability but not the maximum liability, therefore the transfer value is not simply £18m.
Click to expand...

So what was neymars transfer fee?
 
Briles

Briles

Well-Known Member
Deity said:
£18m is the minimum liability but not the maximum liability, therefore the transfer value is not simply £18m.
Click to expand...

My point is when a player goes for 60 million, that's the agreed amount. What ifs are irrelevant. Otherwise transfer fees would be published as with or without VAT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 43 (members: 0, guests: 43)
Top