Transfer Rumour Marko Stamenic (14 Viewers)

[skybluecam]

is this a copy extract straight from the contract? otherwise I’m not sure why you’re posting this thinking it shows anything…?

In addition, Coventry has the right to receive the amount corresponding to 15% of the surplus value

Of future transfer, a percentage that may be reduced to up to 10% by choice of Sporting SAD or

Depending on the partial realisation of the individual and collective objectives mentioned above.

This is google translated direct from the document.

 

---

[2024/25 League 1 Champs?]

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

It's the translation of the statement Sporting had to provide to the Portuguese Securities Market Commission (CMVM).

 

[skyblueelephant76]

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.

 

[skyblueelephant76]

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.

 

[2024/25 League 1 Champs?]

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.

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

 

[skyblueelephant76]

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

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.

It appears you also don't understand percentages.

 

[kg82]

Where do you get that from? Seems a bit random

It was definitely on here, but I think reported somewhere else too. While ago now so I can’t remember specifically where!

 

[BlueSkiesForever]

Also, if you reduce 15% by 10% then that's 13.5% - your version makes no sense.

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.

 

[biggymania]

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.

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.

Almost certainly the 5% has all already been triggered (at Sporting’s discretion) so probably received the full 4M EUR.

 

[shmmeee]

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.

 

[Alkhen]

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 get when met is knocking 10% of 15% off the sell on. Also seems a bit of a random figure.

 

[shmmeee]

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.

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%

 

[2024/25 League 1 Champs?]

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…… ???

 

[shmmeee]

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.

 

[2024/25 League 1 Champs?]

£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..

 

[shmmeee]

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..

If you said you’d reduce something (the sell on) by 10% I’d be pretty pissed if you actually reduced it by 67%

 

[BlueSkiesForever]

How is that convoluted? It’s literally what “reduce by 10%” means.

It’s not convoluted as in it’s difficult to do, everyone gets what 10% of 15 is, but it’s a strange way of writing it. When you’re dealing with percentages or whenever I’ve seen a contract it never usually states “10% off 15%” it’s just odd. At Tesco for instance they never state “10% extra off the 15% discount”, they’d just state “it was 10% off, it’s now 13.5% off”.
It’s nothing to do with the calculation, it’s obviously piss easy, it’s just how it’s never used like that that makes me think it’s either 5% or 10%, not 13.5%, they either mean “reduced to” or “reduced by”.

 

[Skybluemichael]

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

 

[2024/25 League 1 Champs?]

If you said you’d reduce something (the sell on) by 10% I’d be pretty pissed if you actually reduced it by 67%

I agree, although I would also be asking by 10% of what before I signed the contract

 

[Skyblueweeman]

I hope this guy signs quick to quell the Vik contract talk....

 

[Alkhen]

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.

 

[BlueSkiesForever]

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.

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?

 

[Samo]

Anyone done any bush activity recently?

Ooh matron!

 

[Alkhen]

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?

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)

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

 

[shmmeee]

This is such a close season argument

 

[skyblueelephant76]

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)

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

First payment was due after he scored 25 goals

"Gyokeres €1m more expensive? I'm not the one who's going to pay for it..."

Ruben Amorim joked last week about the performance of Sporting Portugal's Swedish signing Viktor Gyokeres this season. By reaching 25 goals, his team will have to increase the transfer fee. 'That will mean he's been cheap,' laughed the coach after the centre-forward's brace and assist in his...

www.besoccer.com

 

[procdoc]

I hope this guy signs quick to quell the Vik contract talk....

I agree, arguing over percentages is fucking boring. There’s a 0% chance I’m getting involved

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

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

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

 

[2024/25 League 1 Champs?]

I agree, arguing over percentages is fucking boring. There’s a 0% chance I’m getting involved

…is that ‘up to’ 0%?

 

[2024/25 League 1 Champs?]

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

ok, not a problem - I think this has been done to death now

 

[BlueSkiesForever]

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)

Yeah exactly, that’s what I’m saying, it’ll either be reduced by 10% or reduced to 10%, not 13.5% like others are saying. Either way it’s not that interesting so hopefully we’ll leave it there

 

[Saddlebrains]

Joy s

Now now Pete.......

 

[Hobo]

This is such a close season argument

Yes, especially when he hasn't even been transferred yet? Let's argue about what the weather will like in three weeks time?

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

This is such a close season argument

This is the problem with being a stable football club. No close season drama

bring back transfer embargo’s, and stadium drama

 

[eyesee]

Ooh matron!

thought this thread needed lightening up a bit.
by about 10%, rising to 15%.....