Alex Scott - £25m to Bournemouth- Confirmed

[Major Isewater]

6 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Could but Kelly and Brownhill are entering the final year of their contract. Percentage of profit is the benchmark for us benefiting from a sell-on clause.

Webster, Brighton again I don't see selling unless they really want to, or maybe he'll leave on a free in 2026 who knows. The football Gods don't seem to throw many lucky breaks our way.

Mr P. Do sell ons only apply to the original contract signed with the selling club? 
For example, Kelly out of contract next year , signs a new contract with Bournemouth, does that mean we are no longer beneficiaries? 
 

[Monkeh]

1 minute ago, Major Isewater said:

Mr P. Do sell ons only apply to the original contract signed with the selling club? 
For example, Kelly out of contract next year , signs a new contract with Bournemouth, does that mean we are no longer beneficiaries? 
 

Sell on stays,

And if say Bournemouth sold him to united and they themselves put a 10% clause in, and united then sold him for 100m, Bournemouth get 10m and then we would get a cut of that 10mil,

The sell on clause on goes if said player is released by the club

[Major Isewater]

2 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

Sell on stays,

And if say Bournemouth sold him to united and they themselves put a 10% clause in, and united then sold him for 100m, Bournemouth get 10m and then we would get a cut of that 10mil,

The sell on clause on goes if said player is released by the club

That makes sense on reflection because buying clubs could agree a deal and then two minutes later offer the player a new contract which excludes the original selling club’s add ons. 
 

[Fordy62]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

You must be new…we haven’t even got to fish puns yet!

For god’s hake Dave. Don’t go there. 

[cheese]

Anyone fancy a pint while we're waiting?  All this talk has made me thirsty.

[RedEyez]

 

[petehinton]

People are dismissing Bournemouth, which I can understand given their last few seasons in the Prem, but I think they’re a different beast under Iraola. 
 

I won’t pretend to know too much about him or his teams, but people far more clever and more informed on football than I (Tifo, Alex Stewart, Spanish journalists) have the overarching view tbat they can’t believe Bournemouth have manage to get him, and that they’ll probably have a Brighton-esq season incoming. 

[Major Isewater]

18 minutes ago, RedEyez said:

 

If Ekrem Konur says it then it must be true. 

[Rocky]

232k followers, never heard of him 

[Kirsikka]

9 hours ago, BS3City said:

Receiving an acceptable bid from anyone makes no difference to me, if he's going then money is money - thank you very much.

I agree with the food chain view, however my dislike for Bournemouth is nothing to do with snobbery. It's the perception of "plucky little fighters having done soooo well against all the odds with such minimal resources, now dining at the captain's table". Bullshit! It was built with money from dubious sources.

Would I take the same? Of course! So maybe it's jealousy.

But it's certainly not snobbery...

 

Interesting information, please share more. As far as I know he was working as a consultant for Arther Anderson and, in his mid 20s in 1997, moved to a state oil company where his knowledge of foreign business and languages enabled him to help them get foreign financing (at a time when foreign financing companies were desperate to get into Russia). He rose up the ranks of Tatneft but was never a so-called oligarch. In 2005 he moved to London with his family and set up an oil trading company, making a lot of money on the markets traded there. He also invested in some companies back in Russia but, it appears, most of his fortune was generated during this period in London. For example, it once paid him a huge dividend (£100m off the top of my head, but that could be wrong). So, if we're classifying the London markets as a dubious source of wealth then, about your owner... Unless you have more information, in which case I'd love to hear it? Or were you basing it purely on his nationality rather than any known fact? That would say more about you than him, I think.

[Kirsikka]

Interesting thoughts in general on Scott. The one thing I will say is the jump to the PL is larger than you think. Just ask the Forest fans, many of whom, were genuinely taken aback when they saw it in action every week. I could be wrong, I often am, but I don't see us spending £25m on Scott so if that is the minimum opening bid then I suspect we're just part of the agent frenzy trying to drum up more interest.

There was a thing a while back about how the Semenyo transfer came together thanks to some transfer software system or something. I forget its name but I wonder if you'll use that again if you decide to sell? Could be a way to smoke out all the bids and force the issue. Surely you'll want this done one way or another as soon as possible so you can secure your targets? Might even be better to get them in first so prices aren't put up because the selling clubs know you have extra cash available.

Edited July 12, 2023 by Kirsikka

[RedEyez]

5 minutes ago, Major Isewater said:

If Ekrem Konur says it then it must be true. 

Just sharing what I see mush

[Dastardly and Muttley]

7 minutes ago, Major Isewater said:

If Ekrem Konur says it then it must be true. 

Have a look at his Twitter. May be one of those who deletes where they’re wrong, but he seems to get a lot right.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Major Isewater said:

Mr P. Do sell ons only apply to the original contract signed with the selling club? 
For example, Kelly out of contract next year , signs a new contract with Bournemouth, does that mean we are no longer beneficiaries? 
 

1 hour ago, Monkeh said:

Sell on stays,

And if say Bournemouth sold him to united and they themselves put a 10% clause in, and united then sold him for 100m, Bournemouth get 10m and then we would get a cut of that 10mil,

The sell on clause on goes if said player is released by the club

It depends on the terms of the transfer clause.  Most will be along the lines of “the sell-on will apply at any point in the future”, so cover extensions and future sales that 1) are for a higher value and 2) if that sell included a sell-on we’d be entitled to that as per above.

However, it is possible to state that the sell-on only applies for x years or sometimes written as “within the time period of the initial contract”, e.g. if Alex signed a 3 + 1 Yr contract under this clause and moved in year 5 for £100m we’d get nothing.

[the1stknowle]

8 hours ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

Stepping stone clubs, haven't we tried that. Wasn't Bournemouth a stepping stone for Kelly, Brighton for Webster and Burnley for Brownhill? How's that worked out so far? I want him to stay but if he goes I'll take the highest bidder please from our end (but hope he goes to a club that would benefit his development). 

We will obviously take the highest bid. My point wasn't about that if you read back. 

Think you should give some of the examples you mention a bit of a longer timeline to yield any sell on clause, esp Kelly. But it doesn't really matter. The real point is that none of the three you mention above should be compared with Scott in terms of long term value. We made our big money with the initial sale of those three. But with Scott, he has a potential ceiling much higher than them or any player we have had before. (Marvin Brown aside, obviously). So from that point of view, its a completely unique case.

And, money and FFP aside, as you say, also need to think about his development, as I think most right minded City fans will take a lot of pride in seeing him reach his potential and going to a club where he will play regularly in a top league would be great.

[BCFCGav]

I would LOVE it if we said: 25 million was for early business to give us time to replace Alex, now the season is 3 weeks away he’s 30. 

[Riaz]

2 hours ago, TV Tom said:

Alex Scott will decide which bid he wants to accept and which club he wants to play for next and not the club, i doubt very much if he'll go to Bournemouth even if they offered 50 Million

That’s not how it works.

If Bournemouth, for example, are the only bid we accept, he can only go to Bournemouth, or stay at city

[Sleepy1968]

2 minutes ago, Riaz said:

That’s not how it works.

If Bournemouth, for example, are the only bid we accept, he can only go to Bournemouth, or stay at city

If the Bournemouth rumour is true, I think all that happens at this point is that clubs B, C and D phone his agent and ask if he'd still be will to talk with them. If so, they then phone City up with their 25M offers and get permission to speak to the player. That's if the agent hasn't been phoning them in the meantime to say 'get your bid in, he won't be at Bristol City this time next week ...'.

[TV Tom]

50 minutes ago, Riaz said:

That’s not how it works.

If Bournemouth, for example, are the only bid we accept, he can only go to Bournemouth, or stay at city

I think you're confused, my point is that in my opinion he won't go to Bournemouth under any circumstances even if they offered 100 Million but if Spurs offered 25 he'd be off in a flash and there would be absolutely nothing the club could do about it (other than cutting their nose to spite their face and refusing to sell him which they won't) my point is that he won't necessarily be sold to the highest bidder which is what the club would like to happen

[Simon bristol]

11 minutes ago, TV Tom said:

I think you're confused, my point is that in my opinion he won't go to Bournemouth under any circumstances even if they offered 100 Million but if Spurs offered 25 he'd be off in a flash and there would be absolutely nothing the club could do about it (other than cutting their nose to spite their face and refusing to sell him which they won't) my point is that he won't necessarily be sold to the highest bidder which is what the club would like to happen

Why would a club say spurs be willing to pay 5 million more than another club say bournemouth if we already accepted the bournemouth offer? while perhaps the extras, or the amount up front might be more agreeable to us only an idiot would pay the extra fee! That presumably means mark ashton is preparing a 50 million offer? Id be really interested in sitting down with tinman once this is all done and have a chat to explain the process of how a deal was reached, and how it compares to how we went about the knight deal.

[TV Tom]

4 minutes ago, Simon bristol said:

Why would a club say spurs be willing to pay 5 million more than another club say bournemouth if we already accepted the bournemouth offer? while perhaps the extras, or the amount up front might be more agreeable to us only an idiot would pay the extra fee! That presumably means mark ashton is preparing a 50 million offer? Id be really interested in sitting down with tinman once this is all done and have a chat to explain the process of how a deal was reached, and how it compares to how we went about the knight deal.

I'm just throwing figures in the air, don't take it literally, the point i'm trying to make is that Scott won't necessarily go to the highest bidder, he will have some say in what team he wants to play for for the next 4-5 years  

[BS3City]

1 hour ago, Kirsikka said:

 

Interesting information, please share more. As far as I know he was working as a consultant for Arther Anderson and, in his mid 20s in 1997, moved to a state oil company where his knowledge of foreign business and languages enabled him to help them get foreign financing (at a time when foreign financing companies were desperate to get into Russia). He rose up the ranks of Tatneft but was never a so-called oligarch. In 2005 he moved to London with his family and set up an oil trading company, making a lot of money on the markets traded there. He also invested in some companies back in Russia but, it appears, most of his fortune was generated during this period in London. For example, it once paid him a huge dividend (£100m off the top of my head, but that could be wrong). So, if we're classifying the London markets as a dubious source of wealth then, about your owner... Unless you have more information, in which case I'd love to hear it? Or were you basing it purely on his nationality rather than any known fact? That would say more about you than him, I think.

Well that's answered that then, how could I possibly respond to such detail? All rather defensive, sounds like you've probably dragged those facts out as proof before. Did it touch a nerve?

As for the nationality question - how presumptuous of you! Such a shame really, cos in the first part of your response you attack my post with facts and great detail. Yet you let yourself down with your final assumption.

[Simon bristol]

10 minutes ago, TV Tom said:

I'm just throwing figures in the air, don't take it literally, the point i'm trying to make is that Scott won't necessarily go to the highest bidder, he will have some say in what team he wants to play for for the next 4-5 years  

Yes agreed, he will definitely have a preferred list in his mind of where he would like to end up. Lots of people on this chat are talking about a bidding war, but i just dont see it happening, unless the bidding war is for his salary.

[!james]

and so it begins...

 

 

[Red Army 75]

 

[UpTheReds]

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/bristol-city-reject-15m-opening-8595739

[Lew-T]

Just as Knight signs. 
 

Here we go…

[AshtonRobin21]

£15m is a joke of an offer. Don’t insult us, our price has been made clear since the start of the window.

We are a few weeks out from the start of the season. Why would they expect us to drop our asking price by almost half for our prize asset? 

Pay the fee, get the player. 

[petehinton]

And so it begins 

[Mr Popodopolous]

£15m...It won't be the last bid but quite right too! 

£15m??