In addition, Coventry has the right to receive the amount corresponding to 15% of the surplus valueis this a copy extract straight from the contract? otherwise I’m not sure why you’re posting this thinking it shows anything…?
It's the translation of the statement Sporting had to provide to the Portuguese Securities Market Commission (CMVM).
You're missing a 'to'.guys I honestly don’t care, but attached is the statement - it says 15% which can be reduced up to 10% etc….
the way this translates in Portuguese means it can be reduced from 15 to as low as 5 (so to be fair it could still be 10% if he doesn’t / didn’t hit all the additional bonus targets).
I’m off to bed anyway, sweet dreams
Also, if you reduce 15% by 10% then that's 13.5% - your version makes no sense.guys I honestly don’t care, but attached is the statement - it says 15% which can be reduced up to 10% etc….
the way this translates in Portuguese means it can be reduced from 15 to as low as 5 (so to be fair it could still be 10% if he doesn’t / didn’t hit all the additional bonus targets).
I’m off to bed anyway, sweet dreams
You're missing a 'to'.
Anyway, even if you were right we'd still have made around £6.5m (including addons) on top of the original fee.
That Portuguese you have translated isn't the same wording in the document and Google translate does show the extra 'to' because the word 'para' comes before it which you have missed out.no I’m not, I’m actually missing a ‘by’ - the word ‘até’ means by up to in this case in Portuguese, you can’t just Google translate (which incidentally also suggests the same anyway…) you have to take the words in context - I’m sure if anybody here speaks fluent Portuguese they can attest to the same
anyway I really am going to bed now, some of you would argue black was white and it gets tedious sometimes
View attachment 36098
It was definitely on here, but I think reported somewhere else too. While ago now so I can’t remember specifically where!Where do you get that from? Seems a bit random
I’m not fussed who’s right and who’s wrong on this but surely they don’t mean the 15% is reduced by 10% to make it 13.5%, that’s just too convoluted, surely it’s either “reduced by 10%” or “reduced to 10%”. Writing it as a percentage of a percentage seems a very strange way of doing it, I’m sure it’s just a translation error.Also, if you reduce 15% by 10% then that's 13.5% - your version makes no sense.
Agree. Knowing Portugal well enough it’s unlikely there is a standard interpretation of this if you talk to a lawyer, either. They will all tell you a different thing.I’m not fussed who’s right and who’s wrong on this but surely they don’t mean the 15% is reduced by 10% to make it 13.5%, that’s just too convoluted, surely it’s either “reduced by 10%” or “reduced to 10%”. Writing it as a percentage of a percentage seems a very strange way of doing it, I’m sure it’s just a translation error.
I’m not fussed who’s right and who’s wrong on this but surely they don’t mean the 15% is reduced by 10% to make it 13.5%, that’s just too convoluted, surely it’s either “reduced by 10%” or “reduced to 10%”. Writing it as a percentage of a percentage seems a very strange way of doing it, I’m sure it’s just a translation error.
How is that convoluted? It’s literally what “reduce by 10%” means.
Just doesn't seem likely Sporting insert clauses worth €4m in our favour and the only perk they if they get met is knocking 10% of 15% off the sell on. Also seems a bit of a random figure.
15% of the profit, say £60M = £9M
10% of the profit = £6M
So if you reduce the figure of £9M by £6M (10%) you get…… ???
£6m is 66.66 recurring % of £9m, 10% of £9m is £900k. Hope that helps.
not really
if I said to you of any profit you will receive 15% (of any profit = £9M) which will reduce by 10% (of any profit = £6M) then what do you get?
£3M
I’m with BlueSkies and Alkhen though, it’s convoluted, and I don’t actually really care who is right or wrong, obviously the more money we get the better, I just don’t think these multi millions of pounds people are already spending on their fantasy transfers are actually coming our way..
How is that convoluted? It’s literally what “reduce by 10%” means.
guys I honestly don’t care, but attached is the statement - it says 15% which can be reduced up to 10% etc….
the way this translates in Portuguese means it can be reduced from 15 to as low as 5 (so to be fair it could still be 10% if he doesn’t / didn’t hit all the additional bonus targets).
I’m off to bed anyway, sweet dreams
If you said you’d reduce something (the sell on) by 10% I’d be pretty pissed if you actually reduced it by 67%
Agreed it's probably just a bad translation. The way things rumbled on when the deal was made I'd imagine we pushed pretty hard for add-ons in our favor.I think it’s reduce to 10% not by 10% personally. But if that’s what they’ve written I’d be getting a half competent contract lawyer on the phone and save us 3.5%
Agreed it's probably just a bad translation. The way things rumbled on when the deal was made I'd imagine we pushed pretty hard for add-ons in our favor.
The 10% of 15% thing seems oddly specific.
And also I really don't think Doug would have valued 10% sell on at €4m. I'm sure we would have had an idea of what Viks buy out clause was going to be
I'm pretty confident it reduces from 15% to 10% of profit.
Ooh matron!Anyone done any bush activity recently?
Exactly, I really can’t see it being 10% off 15%, it’s just never written that way, it’ll either be “reduced by” or “reduced to”.
Either way it’s not that interesting and none of us really know so it shouldn’t worry us. I’m hoping for some more leaks this week. Anyone done any bush activity recently?
First payment was due after he scored 25 goalsCan't see it being of or off to be honest.
Both would leave at least one party feeling short changed.
I think it's 15% reduced to 10% if clauses are met (which I would imagine they have been)
Complete speculation of course. I guess the only other factor is what exactly the clauses/add-ons were? And if all needed to be met to trigger the reduction or if it's sort of pro rata?
Any club related ones seem pretty nailed on to have been met but if there was an international cap or goal clause then he may not have triggered those yet
I agree, arguing over percentages is fucking boring. There’s a 0% chance I’m getting involvedI hope this guy signs quick to quell the Vik contract talk....
Could be lost in translation or just poorly worded, unless you were involved in the deal this is just your interpretation as I told you at the beginning. You may be right or you may be wrong but your version is not factno I’m not, I’m actually missing a ‘by’ - the word ‘até’ means by up to in this case in Portuguese, you can’t just Google translate (which incidentally also suggests the same anyway…) you have to take the words in context - I’m sure if anybody here speaks fluent Portuguese they can attest to the same
anyway I really am going to bed now, some of you would argue black was white and it gets tedious sometimes
View attachment 36098
…is that ‘up to’ 0%?I agree, arguing over percentages is fucking boring. There’s a 0% chance I’m getting involved
Could be lost in translation or just poorly worded, unless you were involved in the deal this is just your interpretation as I told you at the beginning. You may be right or you may be wrong but your version is not fact
Can't see it being of or off to be honest.
Both would leave at least one party feeling short changed.
I think it's 15% reduced to 10% if clauses are met (which I would imagine they have been)
This is such a close season argument
This is the problem with being a stable football club. No close season dramaThis is such a close season argument
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?