“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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.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.
Thanks for posting that again.West Ham must urgently offer recent signing in exchange for Gyokeres to save deal
Deal makes complete sense for all parties but Hammers must act fast...www.hammers.news
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?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.
This is going to end with me trying to throw a kettle over a pub isn’t it
Just went you thought there was nothing left to argue about...Arguing over the value of a sell on % for an internet bet, this is peak skybluestalk
Fuck BlockbustersThe real quiz
Half Vulcan, half Human.Fuck Blockbusters
Surprised he's not gone yet ,cause he will can't see him playing for us again get rid city
Rekon you could?This is going to end with me trying to throw a kettle over a pub isn’t it
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.
I think we should settle all SBT arguments gladiator style at half time.
Yeah but it’s clear that the 35% was added because we wanted £20m and they couldn’t afford it.
No it isn’t. Simply factually and legally not true.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.
£18m is the minimum liability but not the maximum liability, therefore the transfer value is not simply £18m.
£18m is the minimum liability but not the maximum liability, therefore the transfer value is not simply £18m.
Surprised he's not gone yet ,cause he will can't see him playing for us again get rid city
QPR in AprilWhen was the last Victor goal in open play ?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?