Initial Rogers fee higher than widely quoted

The Card Cheat said:
I wonder if that's why the figure of 8 rather than 10.is reported. Obviously 20% of £10 million takes you down to £8 million.
Click to expand...

calculation-math.gif
 
The most positive thing is the 'significant' sell on clause. That is a great bonus if he keeps improving.

Villa are not big enough to turn down bids from the big hitters. Watkins is being linked with a move to arsenal.

I'm clearly getting ahead of myself. Yet a percentage of 50mil+ is a decent wedge if he goes onto play for England etc. He's young enough. Also at his current rate of progression why not?
 
S7DiscoDown said:
The most positive thing is the 'significant' sell on clause. That is a great bonus if he keeps improving.

Villa are not big enough to turn down bids from the big hitters. Watkins is being linked with a move to arsenal.

I'm clearly getting ahead of myself. Yet a percentage of 50mil+ is a decent wedge if he goes onto play for England etc. He's young enough. Also at his current rate of progression why not?
Click to expand...

Hopefully enough that we still get a good amount even with Man City's cut.

We'll get 80% of any sell-on and have to kick the rest pack to them.
 
Kevcharben said:
Are you sure this is the way it is.

Yes they get a % of profit we made on the sale to Villa.

We then (if included in the transfer deal) would get a % of profit Villa make if they sell him for more than the 10 million quoted.
I have never heard of c lub getting 2 percentages for a sale of a player
Click to expand...
It always happens like that otherwise clubs would just structure payments to avoid it. We give 20% of any fee we receive to City. The reason for that fee coming to us is irrelevant.

If Villa sell him for £50m and a sell-on fee of 20% to Chelsea and then he goes back to City for £100m we'd get 20% of the profit on the £50m to Chelsea and 20% of the 20% that Villa get from Chelsea and we'd still owe 20% of that to City.

I haven't read anywhere but I would't be surprised if WBA don't have a sell-on percentage from when City bought him from them so they will be getting some of City's profit as well.
 
Nano said:
Yes they will
Click to expand...
There is a thread on the brighton forum where someone said they spoke to Paul Barber

There was a debate on a thread a couple of days ago about how transfer sell-on clauses typically work. I can't find it now, so I've taken the liberty of starting a new thread...

I had always thought that sell-ons would be based on the profit of the subsequent player sale, a view shared by one of those debating it, whilst others seemed to think sell-ons were based on the gross selling price when a player is sold on again.

So, I asked the best person I could think of, Paul Barber, and what he said is below. I stress this is all speaking generally and is not indicative of any deals the Albion have done, are doing or will do....

In my experience, calculations for sell-ons are only ever made on the amount over and above what the selling club has already received.
So, in its simplest form, player is sold for £10m with a 10% sell-on.
Player subsequently sold for £15m.
Original selling club receives 10% of £5m profit = £500k.
There can however be many, many (almost limitless) different variations of the simple model above.
Again in its simplest form, where the original selling club has also included add-ons in the original sale: for example, they receive £1m if the club they sell to win promotion.
It would then be £15m - £10m - £1m = £4m profit x 10% sell-on = £400k to original selling club.
I do not know of any cases where a sell-on has been calculated on the subsequent sale price. That would be nice but doesn’t happen!
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top