Initial Rogers fee higher than widely quoted

Laughing said:
Anyone suggesting man city get additional sell on clauses beyond our agreement with villa is probably wrong according to efl regulations. Man city can take a% of the fee agreed with villa but not any fees after that.

So if we have a sell on clause with villa that is solely between villa and Boro and nothing to do with city.
Click to expand...
The sell on clause is part of the fee that villa are paying for Rogers. Just like the sell on clause was part of the fee Middlesbrough paid City for Rogers. It is not a separate agreement, it is part of the same deal. Middlesbrough didn't pay City £1.5m for Rogers. They paid £1.5m plus 20% of future profits. An upfront fee, a performance related add-on, an international appearance add-on, a trophy winning add-on or an additional sell-on clause would all count towards that total fee we would receive from Villa.

City don't retain any rights to the player, his contract could run out at villa and Boro (and city) get no cut of any transfer fee. There is no regulations being breached by having sell on clauses on top of sell on clauses. There's no multiple ownership or anything like that. It's a fairly basic clause.
 
Nano said:
The sell on clause is part of the fee that villa are paying for Rogers. Just like the sell on clause was part of the fee Middlesbrough paid City for Rogers. It is not a separate agreement, it is part of the same deal. Middlesbrough didn't pay City £1.5m for Rogers. They paid £1.5m plus 20% of future profits. An upfront fee, a performance related add-on, an international appearance add-on, a trophy winning add-on or an additional sell-on clause would all count towards that total fee we would receive from Villa.

City don't retain any rights to the player, his contract could run out at villa and Boro (and city) get no cut of any transfer fee. There is no regulations being breached by having sell on clauses on top of sell on clauses. There's no multiple ownership or anything like that. It's a fairly basic clause.
Click to expand...
Except I think this is against rules. Not sure I am right as I am not a contract lawyer but it's how I read the rules.

I never mentioned ownership.
 
Nano said:
The sell on clause is part of the fee that villa are paying for Rogers. Just like the sell on clause was part of the fee Middlesbrough paid City for Rogers. It is not a separate agreement, it is part of the same deal. Middlesbrough didn't pay City £1.5m for Rogers. They paid £1.5m plus 20% of future profits. An upfront fee, a performance related add-on, an international appearance add-on, a trophy winning add-on or an additional sell-on clause would all count towards that total fee we would receive from Villa.

City don't retain any rights to the player, his contract could run out at villa and Boro (and city) get no cut of any transfer fee. There is no regulations being breached by having sell on clauses on top of sell on clauses. There's no multiple ownership or anything like that. It's a fairly basic clause.
Click to expand...
That has never been a thing, they only get 20% of profit from the sale to Villa, nothing more.

They will receive nothing if Villa sell him on and we have a sell on in place.
 
Those talking about how clubs would structure fees to be very heavily weighted in addons to avoid this... I don't think clubs would do that. Imagine selling your star player for £1m and £29m after 1 appearance, and then he gets a career ending injury in preseason.

Unlikely I know, but would you risk it to avoid paying £2m in sell-on?
 
BoroMart said:
It is against the rules, it’s always been against the rules
Click to expand...
What rules? It's not ownership. It's a % of a % of future profits. City wouldn't get 20% of future profits, they'd get 20% of our 20% i.e. 4%. If there was no profit they'd get nowt. If his contract runs out they'd get nowt. If we sold him without a sell-on they'd get nowt.
 
Matt said:
Those talking about how clubs would structure fees to be very heavily weighted in addons to avoid this... I don't think clubs would do that. Imagine selling your star player for £1m and £29m after 1 appearance, and then he gets a career ending injury in preseason.

Unlikely I know, but would you risk it to avoid paying £2m in sell-on?
Click to expand...
100% they would. Especially those clubs that are part of a group like the Watford/Udinese group or the City group etc.
 
Nano said:
What rules? It's not ownership. It's a % of a % of future profits. City wouldn't get 20% of future profits, they'd get 20% of our 20% i.e. 4%. If there was no profit they'd get nowt. If his contract runs out they'd get nowt. If we sold him without a sell-on they'd get nowt.
Click to expand...
Really? You believe this?
 
Laughing said:
Really? You believe this?
Click to expand...
Yes, 100%. I think you think things are more complicated than they are. There is no separation between upfront fee, add-ons or sell on fee. They all contribute to total transfer fee received. Sell on clause for % of profit on future fee = % of total fee received less total fee paid.
 
Nano said:
What rules? It's not ownership. It's a % of a % of future profits. City wouldn't get 20% of future profits, they'd get 20% of our 20% i.e. 4%. If there was no profit they'd get nowt. If his contract runs out they'd get nowt. If we sold him without a sell-on they'd get nowt.
Click to expand...
Sorry it doesn’t work like that. What next 20% of 20% of 20% on his third transfer. The rules are a club isn’t permitted to get future fees from any transfer beyond the initial agreement
 
BoroMart said:
Sorry it doesn’t work like that. What next 20% of 20% of 20% on his third transfer. The rules are a club isn’t permitted to get future fees from any transfer beyond the initial agreement
Click to expand...
This isn’t correct

Compensation for a player brought through a youth system can continue on future fees
 
Nano said:
What rules? It's not ownership. It's a % of a % of future profits. City wouldn't get 20% of future profits, they'd get 20% of our 20% i.e. 4%. If there was no profit they'd get nowt. If his contract runs out they'd get nowt. If we sold him without a sell-on they'd get nowt.
Click to expand...
I’ll save you trawling the 96 page fifa regulation document. It’s in legalise but “you can’t have a transfer…where a third party is entitled to compensation payable in relation to FUTURE transfer of a player. its right there in the regs, there’s a reason you don’t here about this all the time, in fact ever.

There are strict rules on sell on clauses, because it can harm employment opportunities. Arsenal even found themselves in the crap when they put a sell on in akpoms sale that tried to make them more money if he came back to Uk rather than stay in Europe.

1714607323954.jpeg
 
Man City must know all the rules. They, somehow, have never been found guilty of any financial irregularities. :eek:
 
BoroMart said:
I’ll save you trawling the 96 page fifa regulation document. It’s in legalise but “you can’t have a transfer…where a third party is entitled to compensation payable in relation to FUTURE transfer of a player. its right there in the regs, there’s a reason you don’t here about this all the time, in fact ever.

There are strict rules on sell on clauses, because it can harm employment opportunities. Arsenal even found themselves in the crap when they put a sell on in akpoms sale that tried to make them more money if he came back to Uk rather than stay in Europe.

View attachment 75921
Click to expand...
This is a different thing. That regulation is about ownership otherwise a basic sell-on fee wouldn't be permitted. When we sold Rogers to Villa then City were a 3rd party and that was definitely allowed. A sell-on fee has nothing to do with ownership and villa wouldn't be paying city anything, they would be paying Boro 20% and then Boro would be paying 20% of that to City because that is who their deal is with. City's sell-on fee doesn't affect Rogers or his rights in any way.

The reason you don't hear about it is because it's a tiny percent so it's barely newsworthy. If Villa are looking to sell and they have a 20% of profit sell-on that they have to pay Boro then the fact that some of that will be going to City wouldn't make the news. Villa don't care because it doesn't affect them, Rogers wouldn't care, the buying club wouldn't care. It's not newsworthy.

I'm finding it hard to believe we've had 50 odd messages on something so trivial. Just think about how obviously wrong you are. A 20% of future profit contract clause wouldn't exclude a big chunk of the potential profit or it would be worthless. The sell-on is not a separate contract. It is part of the same thing but it's a variable element which can't be determined at the point of sale (like any other add-on).
 
Almost makes you wish Jed Spence had ripped it up at Spurs - almost.

We probably didn't bother inserting a sell-on though. Too keen to just trouser the money before they realised...
 
Nano said:
This is a different thing. That regulation is about ownership otherwise a basic sell-on fee wouldn't be permitted. When we sold Rogers to Villa then City were a 3rd party and that was definitely allowed. A sell-on fee has nothing to do with ownership and villa wouldn't be paying city anything, they would be paying Boro 20% and then Boro would be paying 20% of that to City because that is who their deal is with. City's sell-on fee doesn't affect Rogers or his rights in any way.

The reason you don't hear about it is because it's a tiny percent so it's barely newsworthy. If Villa are looking to sell and they have a 20% of profit sell-on that they have to pay Boro then the fact that some of that will be going to City wouldn't make the news. Villa don't care because it doesn't affect them, Rogers wouldn't care, the buying club wouldn't care. It's not newsworthy.

I'm finding it hard to believe we've had 50 odd messages on something so trivial. Just think about how obviously wrong you are. A 20% of future profit contract clause wouldn't exclude a big chunk of the potential profit or it would be worthless. The sell-on is not a separate contract. It is part of the same thing but it's a variable element which can't be determined at the point of sale (like any other add-on).
Click to expand...

"I'm definitely definitely right, you won't actually find any evidence of this anywhere because it's not newsworthy. All that pesky evidence people keep coming up with can only be talking about something different, as I'm never wrong. I can't believe there's been 50 posts from people who have the temerity to challenge my godlike authority, just accept I'm right and move on. Remember in future, things I make up in my head carry far more weight than any of your stupid factually based evidence."
 
The Card Cheat said:
"I'm definitely definitely right, you won't actually find any evidence of this anywhere because it's not newsworthy. All that pesky evidence people keep coming up with can only be talking about something different, as I'm never wrong. I can't believe there's been 50 posts from people who have the temerity to challenge my godlike authority, just accept I'm right and move on. Remember in future, things I make up in my head carry far more weight than any of your stupid factually based evidence."
Click to expand...
What evidence do you mean?

The bit of rules highlighted, if it was applicable for a sell on % of profit from transfer fee, would mean City can't benefit from Rogers moving from Boro to Villa. This has clearly been reported as happening. There's your evidence that the rule highlighted doesn't apply.
 
Humpty said:
The correct answer is that no one knows apart from the clubs involved. Any commercial deal can be set any number of different ways.
Click to expand...
Agree, and besides which, who cares.
Reading this thread, like many others, reads like it’s people’s personal dosh involved in transfers, and not that of the club 😂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top