He's gone

[Phileas Fogg]

8 minutes ago, Just Red said:

Surely it all depends on what was written into the clause? I can vaguely remember some examples of this in the past.

Would make it a very complex deal. Can't think of precedent for this myself, surely too Plymouth representatives would have to have a hand in negotiating the terms. Would get very messy and complicated. Only time I think it's more common is with South American young players where certain agents own stakes or a tiny club has an extended sell on.  

[pride of the west]

I'm almost cetain that sell ons often carry on down the chain. It's quite simple. Plymouth sell him to us and agree x% of ANY profit we make. I seem to vaguely remember us having to give gills about 100k when wolves sold akinbyi to Leicester. 

[Phileas Fogg]

4 minutes ago, pride of the west said:

I'm almost cetain that sell ons often carry on down the chain. It's quite simple. Plymouth sell him to us and agree x% of ANY profit we make. I seem to vaguely remember us having to give gills about 100k when wolves sold akinbyi to Leicester. 

True, you might be right. Didn't think of it as 'any' profit but makes sense.

[pride of the west]

To be honest it's not common in this day with bosman etc, that a player can increase in value on 3 consecutive transfers. Even rarer on ex players of ours

[Lanterne Rouge]

Thing is, Plymouth were in admin when we bought him and needed all the cash they could lay their hands on so it may be we paid a bit more at the time but no sell on clauses.

[cityexile]

1 hour ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Don't think it works like that. It'd be a sell on for the first transfer - us to palace. When he moved to palace his transfer and contract became a new entity entirely.

Would open it up to using friendly 'linked' teams, eg, Team A sells to Team B for well below value, Team B sells for real value to Team C who were the ones that really wanted him, Team B passes back profit to Team A avoiding sell on clause.

You are right, in that a sell on clause, as I understand it, only exists between two clubs, but for all profits made on that player.

Example. Lets assume 10% sell on clauses all round.

Team A sells to Team B for £100,000.

Team B sells to Team C for £1m. Profit, £900k of which £90k goes to Team A

Team C sells to Team D for £10m.

At this stage, Team C have made a profit of £9m. They have to pay £900k to Team B.

However, at this stage, Team B have made another £900k profit on this player. Because of their contract with Team A, they have to pay a further £90k to Team A.

The Chain continues until a team makes no further profit on a sale. For instance, if Team B had not inserted a sell on clause, they would make no additional profit, and hence have no liability to Team A.

I will be testing on this later. I assume the same would apply to add on's triggered by things like appearances, playing internationally etc.

 

 

[gl1]

If it's all small potatoes and won't make a difference, anyone mind if I take it then?

[RedM]

1 hour ago, pride of the west said:

I'm almost cetain that sell ons often carry on down the chain. It's quite simple. Plymouth sell him to us and agree x% of ANY profit we make. I seem to vaguely remember us having to give gills about 100k when wolves sold akinbyi to Leicester. 

That transfer stung to my mind as soon as I read any possibility of a 'chain' too. Shame Ashton wasn't involved back then as I'm sure he would have dotted the I's and crossed the T's.

[Lanterne Rouge]

6 minutes ago, RedM said:

That transfer stung to my mind as soon as I read any possibility of a 'chain' too. Shame Ashton wasn't involved back then as I'm sure he would have dotted the I's and crossed the T's.

As opposed t what the club used to do which was cross the I`s and dot the t`s

[pongo88]

23 minutes ago, cityexile said:

Would open it up to using friendly 'linked' teams, eg, Team A sells to Team B for well below value, Team B sells for real value to Team C who were the ones that really wanted him, Team B passes back profit to Team A avoiding sell on clause.

You are right, in that a sell on clause, as I understand it, only exists between two clubs, but for all profits made on that player.

Example. Lets assume 10% sell on clauses all round.

Team A sells to Team B for £100,000.

Team B sells to Team C for £1m. Profit, £900k of which £90k goes to Team A

Team C sells to Team D for £10m.

At this stage, Team C have made a profit of £9m. They have to pay £900k to Team B.

However, at this stage, Team B have made another £900k profit on this player. Because of their contract with Team A, they have to pay a further £90k to Team A.

The Chain continues until a team makes no further profit on a sale. For instance, if Team B had not inserted a sell on clause, they would make no additional profit, and hence have no liability to Team A.

I will be testing on this later. I assume the same would apply to add on's triggered by things like appearances, playing internationally etc.

 

 

Cripes! This may be true, but it's rather complicated. The government is desperately trying to recruit people to negotiate the Brexit terms with the EU, so you should apply. Those dastardly foreign geezers wouldn't have a chance in negotiations with you. 

[paulcityfan]

13 goals in 143 games.  How much ?!