Yannick Bolasie worth £9m to City (Merged)

[Sleepy1968]

According to Simon Jordan (ex Palace owner/chairman) Yannick Bolasie's £28m was worth £9m to bristol city. Of course he might have plucked a number out of thin air but he was on radio 5 just now (12:55pm ish and quoted that as an example of third party ownership). 

[Bar BS3]

4 minutes ago, Sleepy1968 said:

According to Simon Jordan (ex Palace owner/chairman) Yannick Bolasie's £28m was worth £9m to bristol city. Of course he might have plucked a number out of thin air but he was on radio 5 just now (12:55pm ish and quoted that as an example of third party ownership). 

What has a sell on clause got to do with 3rd party ownership..?!

Did he have any opinions on "tapping up" players who are contracted to other clubs..?! 

[Sleepy1968]

1 minute ago, Bar BS3 said:

What has a sell on clause got to do with 3rd party ownership..?!

Did he have any opinions on "tapping up" players who are contracted to other clubs..?! 

I don't know but he seemed to think a sale on clause constituted 3rd party ownership. In general he was all for third party ownership and didn't see a problem with a player selling off some of his future economic rights.There was also a further guest who agreed with 3rd party ownership. I was more concentrating on reading OTIB so I didn't really catch much else which I'm sure would just have been useless drivel.

[Aipearcey]

Is he saying any club with a sell on clause is third party ownership as you essentially, if you have a sell on clause of say 15% then you still own 15% of a player?

[Port Said Red]

6 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

What has a sell on clause got to do with 3rd party ownership..?!

Did he have any opinions on "tapping up" players who are contracted to other clubs..?! 

Weird. Is he claiming that sell on clauses are tantamount to TPO? Or is he just bitter it was us? 

Sorry just Seen Sleepys reply. That's just plain bullocks.  A sell on clause is  a gamble that club's take instead of cash up front. TPO would mean the club had a say in future transfers not just a financial stake.

[Sleepy1968]

3 minutes ago, Aipearcey said:

Is he saying any club with a sell on clause is third party ownership as you essentially, if you have a sell on clause of say 15% then you still own 15% of a player?

yes. that's exactly it. He was also for it in the more usually accepted sence. I tuned out mentally after that.

[Bar BS3]

3 minutes ago, Aipearcey said:

Is he saying any club with a sell on clause is third party ownership as you essentially, if you have a sell on clause of say 15% then you still own 15% of a player?

What complete bollocks!

You have no say in the players career, you just rightly benefit from any profit the owners of the player make from selling them. 

It's not even remotely the same as still owning 15% of the player. 

Stupid orange ****! 

[Eddie Hitler]

4 minutes ago, Aipearcey said:

Is he saying any club with a sell on clause is third party ownership as you essentially, if you have a sell on clause of say 15% then you still own 15% of a player?

Yes but it's daft of him to say that.

We had no control post selling him. If Palace wanted to keep him there until he retired or let him go as a free agent then that's up to them and we get nothing.

You need control or at least a say for it to count as ownership; a sell-on clause confers neither.

[Swede]

Is he Agent Orange?

[Olé]

28 minutes ago, Aipearcey said:

Is he saying any club with a sell on clause is third party ownership as you essentially, if you have a sell on clause of say 15% then you still own 15% of a player?

This is actually the accepted model in other countries including Portugal. It caught me out because in my head I've always filed "sell-on clause" under one category and "third party ownership" under another, and never heard of them described the same, until I read stories in Europe that quite regularly are interchangeably saying:

• His selling club will retain 25% of his pass (sell-on clause)
• The group [XYZ] hold 50% of his pass (third party ownership)

When you think about it, it is actually the same. Assuming the transfer system is the same throughout FIFA or UEFA, I assume this means a transfer contract does not say "seller X entitled to 25% of the next transfer fee" (the Championship Manager way) but simply says the selling club still owns 25% of the player. Which nets out to the same effect.

[Ian M]

We didn't own Bolasie when Palace sold him to Everton but benefitted from our sell on clause. That is the very definition of a 3rd party benefitting from a sale. It's just in football that kind of 3rd party benefitting is deemed acceptable.

[PHILINFRANCE]

13 minutes ago, Olé said:

This is actually the accepted model in other countries including Portugal. It caught me out because in my head I've always filed "sell-on clause" under one category and "third party ownership" under another, and never heard of them described the same, until I read stories in Europe that quite regularly are interchangeably saying:

• His selling club will retain 25% of his pass (sell-on clause)
• The group [XYZ] hold 50% of his pass (third party ownership)

When you think about it, it is actually the same. Assuming the transfer system is the same throughout FIFA or UEFA, I assume this means a transfer contract does not say "seller X entitled to 25% of the next transfer fee" (the Championship Manager way) but simply says the selling club still owns 25% of the player. Which nets out to the same effect.

It's not, though, is it?

A 'sell-on' clause is precisely that, i.e. should player X be sold, we are entitled to X% of any profit over and above the amount we received as a result of the original transfer: we have no influence as to whether player X might be sold or, should he be sold, for how much.

In contrast, Third Party Ownership would enable the Third Party to influence both the timing and amount of any future sale: it is this aspect that, potentially, might lead to corruption, i.e. a Third Party owner trying to influence a sale with the sole goal of obtaining a percentage of any subsequent transfer fee rather than for pure footballing reasons.  

[Bar BS3]

14 minutes ago, Ian M said:

We didn't own Bolasie when Palace sold him to Everton but benefitted from our sell on clause. That is the very definition of a 3rd party benefitting from a sale. It's just in football that kind of 3rd party benefitting is deemed acceptable.

3rd party benefits are very different to 3rd party ownership. 

[Olé]

1 minute ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

In contrast, Third Party Ownership would enable the Third Party to influence both the timing and amount of any future sale: it is this aspect that, potentially, might lead to corruption, i.e. a Third Party owner trying to influence a sale with the sole goal of obtaining a percentage of any subsequent transfer fee rather than for pure footballing reasons.  

I thought that too at first, but then someone else pointed out to me, you never see 50% sell on clauses. Why? Because 50% is a magic number for influence when you're talking about ownership and equity, because it gives you equal voting rights. I'm not quite sure how the mechanics of this actually work in player ownership, but I assume when you own 25% of a player on paper, your influence is proportional. And since the other 75% will be the club that holds the players registration. They call the shots.

[BCFC Rich]

4 minutes ago, Olé said:

I thought that too at first, but then someone else pointed out to me, you never see 50% sell on clauses. Why? Because 50% is a magic number for influence when you're talking about ownership and equity, because it gives you equal voting rights. I'm not quite sure how the mechanics of this actually work in player ownership, but I assume when you own 25% of a player on paper, your influence is proportional. And since the other 75% will be the club that holds the players registration. They call the shots.

I don't think the 50% is to do with ownership its just that it makes it very unlikely that the club will sell the player. If you sign a player for £10 mil then you would have to sell him for more than £20 mil to even make a profit. I remember Aston Villa having this problem with Ugo Ehiogu back in the day WBA had a 50% sell on and villa couldn't make the money they wanted on him to justify the sale. They had to come to some arrangement eventually with WBA. 

 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

It's not, though, is it?

A 'sell-on' clause is precisely that, i.e. should player X be sold, we are entitled to X% of any profit over and above the amount we received as a result of the original transfer: we have no influence as to whether player X might be sold or, should he be sold, for how much.

In contrast, Third Party Ownership would enable the Third Party to influence both the timing and amount of any future sale: it is this aspect that, potentially, might lead to corruption, i.e. a Third Party owner trying to influence a sale with the sole goal of obtaining a percentage of any subsequent transfer fee rather than for pure footballing reasons.  

I agree with what you are saying but it was the final paragraph that got me thinking.... What about employed managers who get bonuses for transfer profits they make? They can influence the timing, amount of a deal, get in the player's ear. They can convince a board he needs to go, he's becoming a bad egg etc. Perhaps I'm out of date and such bonuses themselves are now unavailable.

I fail to see what's controversial about a sell on clause. Even in the corporate world you often see earn out clauses on management buy outs for instance. Quite often price can be pegged on future performance. If anything football was maybe slightly behind in this.

[PHILINFRANCE]

6 minutes ago, RichardEdd said:

I don't think the 50% is to do with ownership its just that it makes it very unlikely that the club will sell the player. If you sign a player for £10 mil then you would have to sell him for more than £20 mil to even make a profit. I remember Aston Villa having this problem with Ugo Ehiogu back in the day WBA had a 50% sell on and villa couldn't make the money they wanted on him to justify the sale. They had to come to some arrangement eventually with WBA. 

 

I understand the general gist of your post, but I think your maths are slightly wrong.

The sell-on clause relates to the profit, so if your player was sold for £20M there would be £10M profit, 50% of which would be given to the original selling club and 50%, so £5M profit nevertheless to the current selling club.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

I understand the general gist of your post, but I think your maths are slightly wrong.

The sell-on clause relates to the profit, so if your player was sold for £20M there would be £10M profit, 50% of which would be given to the original selling club and 50%, so £5M profit nevertheless to the current selling club.

Depends how it's drafted. No reason - unless FA driven - you couldn't have it as fee rather than profit if those are the terms used. I think he was right in the Ehiogu example, my recollection is that in that instance it was fee not profit. 

[PHILINFRANCE]

5 minutes ago, 29AR said:

Depends how it's drafted. No reason - unless FA driven - you couldn't have it as fee rather than profit if those are the terms used. I think he was right in the Ehiogu example, my recollection is that in that instance it was fee not profit. 

Obviously, I have no knowledge of the Ehiogu contract, but a clause stating 50% of the fee would seem strange to me and, as RE stated in his post, would undoubtedly have caused problems.

Just imagine.

Buy player X for £10M and decide after a few months he is not up to scratch (we have had a few of those in recent years) so decide to sell him. As stated, he is not up to scratch, so we sell him at a loss for, say, £5M. Take off the 50% we owe to his original club, and that few months' transfer would cost us a net £7.5M.

Unless we could come to some deal with the original club, I would envisage this player staying on our books - unless, we wanted to get rid due to wages etc....

 

[Davefevs]

10 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

Obviously, I have no knowledge of the Ehiogu contract, but a clause stating 50% of the fee would seem strange to me and, as RE stated in his post, would undoubtedly have caused problems.

Just imagine.

Buy player X for £10M and decide after a few months he is not up to scratch (we have had a few of those in recent years) so decide to sell him. As stated, he is not up to scratch, so we sell him at a loss for, say, £5M. Take off the 50% we owe to his original club, and that few months' transfer would cost us a net £7.5M.

Unless we could come to some deal with the original club, I would envisage this player staying on our books - unless, we wanted to get rid due to wages etc....

 

But that's the risk on both sides of the fence for any transfer clause of this type.  Some you win, done you lose.

[Robin1988]

50 minutes ago, Olé said:

I thought that too at first, but then someone else pointed out to me, you never see 50% sell on clauses. Why? Because 50% is a magic number for influence when you're talking about ownership and equity, because it gives you equal voting rights. I'm not quite sure how the mechanics of this actually work in player ownership, but I assume when you own 25% of a player on paper, your influence is proportional. And since the other 75% will be the club that holds the players registration. They call the shots.

Look at it like a PLC though, shareholders can influence a company without owning more than 50% of it. Teams with a sell-on clause can't.

[pride of the west]

What's to stop an agent contacting the club due a sell on and asking for a backhander to make sure the transfer creating the sell on cash goes through?

 

[Davefevs]

32 minutes ago, pride of the west said:

What's to stop an agent contacting the club due a sell on and asking for a backhander to make sure the transfer creating the sell on cash goes through?

 

But that's the agent influencing, not the club.  Of course that's not to say the club couldn't influence the agent.

[pride of the west]

17 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

But that's the agent influencing, not the club.  Of course that's not to say the club couldn't influence the agent.

Exactly. And by agreeing to pay a back hander to ensure a couple million comes in off a sell on is influencing the career path of a player

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, pride of the west said:

Exactly. And by agreeing to pay a back hander to ensure a couple million comes in off a sell on is influencing the career path of a player

Perhaps Tommy Wright got a cut of John Stones sell-on  allegedly

[Dave]

If our sell on clause, equates to us still owning 25% of Bolasie, then surely he should have played one in every four games for Bristol City.

Whereas in fact once Bolasie left for Crystal Palace, we had no say in his career at all, let alone 25%. If he had become a free agent and left Palace we would have got nothing.

Perhaps Mr Jordan is still a little bitter about all the money he wasted on football.

[DavidNoble]

He's an idiot.

But £9m! 

 

Kodjia - £15m

Bolasie sell on - £9m

Adomah sell on - £1.5m?

Agard - £1.2m

Ayling - £800K

= approx £28m (+ Derreck Williams, taking El-Abd off the wage bill etc.)

 

We must have a fair bit of money to really go for it in January if we're there or there abouts..... 

[Port Said Red]

6 minutes ago, DavidNoble said:

He's an idiot.

But £9m! 

 

Kodjia - £15m

Bolasie sell on - £9m

Adomah sell on - £1.5m?

Agard - £1.2m

Ayling - £800K

= approx £28m (+ Derreck Williams, taking El-Abd off the wage bill etc.)

 

We must have a fair bit of money to really go for it in January if we're there or there abouts..... 

The trouble is, judging by the accuracy of the rest of the interview, that figure is probably complete bollocks too!

[GrahamC]

1 hour ago, DavidNoble said:

He's an idiot.

But £9m! 

 

Kodjia - £15m

Bolasie sell on - £9m

Adomah sell on - £1.5m?

Agard - £1.2m

Ayling - £800K

= approx £28m (+ Derreck Williams, taking El-Abd off the wage bill etc.)

 

We must have a fair bit of money to really go for it in January if we're there or there abouts..... 

There was a sizeable sell on percentage for Angers over Kodjia, even if the total fee reaches £15m we won't get anywhere near that.

Sure that Steve Lansdown said after the Kodjia and Adomah sales we were about £4m up on transfers over the summer and that the Bolasie clause was pretty near that amount.

[TheBerkeleyBoy]

I know the sell on clause has been done to death but did anyone else hear the interview with Simon Jordan on BBC 5 Live? He was on discussing the "scandal" of 3rd party ownership. He said that the transfer of yannick bolasie to Everton meant that Bristol City had a cut of £9million!

£9 Million!

Surely he has a better insight than most of us - cant find it on BBC Radioplayer