SecretSam Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 ...or is that me dreaming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 I'd have thought so. I doubt we let any player go without one, following the Andy Cole cock up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bully Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 I'd have thought so. I doubt we let any player go without one, following the Andy Cole c**k up. Dunno about our post Cole efficiency - didn't we balls up on Liam Rosenior a bit? apologies if I got that wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 I'd have thought so. I doubt we let any player go without one, following the Andy Cole c**k up. Preston activated a release clause, so i doubt they would have offered a sell on too ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tin Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 ...or is that me dreaming? Got it in my head it's around 20%... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 Dunno about our post Cole efficiency - didn't we balls up on Liam Rosenior a bit? apologies if I got that wrong. The club failed to offer him a new contract in time, so when his old contract expired he became a free agent and the club had to surrender his registration. Preston activated a release clause, so i doubt they would have offered a sell on too ?? Not sure, but from what I've read about it, Preston satisifed a number of criteria in his contract, so were allowed to speak to him. I'd hope/guess that one was a sell on clause, though I can't find anything about it at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 There was me scouring the archives to find it and it's on the front page of the official site: From the Evening Post Presstalk: Former Bristol City defender Matt Hill completed a move to Wolves from Preston. The 27-year-old underwent a medical at Molineux before completing a swap deal, with Wolves striker Stephen Elliott going in the other direction. Hill made 198 league appearances for hometown club City before heading for Preston in a £100,000 deal in 2005. City included a sell-on clause in that deal, but look unlikely to get a huge windfall from Hill's Wolves move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fRed Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 I can't imagine we'd get much at all, it sounds like a swap deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamC Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 Probably around £50k, Stephen Elliott was valued at £350k when he moved to Preston from Wolves and 20% of the profit over the £100k that they paid for Matt is that sum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bh_red Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 same thing happened last season when Rosenior when he went to reading. even though it's a swap deal, both players will have a value which will be declared in the transfer (even if not in public) which has to be accurate as I believe it is used for Insurance Purposes, we will get something, just no clue how much at this point, doubt it is much though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zookeeper Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 same thing happened last season when Rosenior when he went to reading. even though it's a swap deal, both players will have a value which will be declared in the transfer (even if not in public) which has to be accurate as I believe it is used for Insurance Purposes, we will get something, just no clue how much at this point, doubt it is much though Wouldn't it just make sense for those teams to state a nominal value for these players and then they would avoid paying out much for the sell on fee. Is there anything to stop them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 Matt Hill had a release clause, which was approx 120k - preston met the clause, but I doubt they would have offered a sell on clause as a xmas present! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x3widRacin Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 The club failed to offer him a new contract in time, so when his old contract expired he became a free agent and the club had to surrender his registration. We got money from rosenior surely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slave to the rhythm Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 We got money from rosenior surely £55k sticks in my mind for some reason. But that was a LOT less than we should have got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamC Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 We got £340k as a result of the sell on clause for Liam Rosenior, Steve Lansdown said so at last year's shareholders meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted September 3, 2008 Report Share Posted September 3, 2008 £55k sticks in my mind for some reason. But that was a LOT less than we should have got. we had to offer a contract for at least the same amount he was on, before a certain date, to be entitled to compensation and we missed the date. Fulham took on Liam, but city werent happy and were going to take fulham to court (unfairly) But we settled with fulham on 55k + "add ons" before it got to court. One of the add-ons was a sell on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.