Initial Rogers fee higher than widely quoted

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...
Ok Nano, a challenge for you, if this is allowed find me evidence of one transfer where this has occurred before, there must be hundreds of them…
 
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...

Nobody else has provided any evidence that it doesn't happen.

They've given their own opinions and linked an unrelated bit of guidance about third party ownership, which is usually around companies (not clubs) owning the rights to players.
 
The nature of a ‘in perpetuity’ sell on clause means that every sale that player is involved in would have to have an additional sell on clause added to protect the seller. Lets say we bought Roger’s from city for 1.5m with a 20% sell on. We sold to Villa for 16m, but only add a 10% sell on. Now let’s fast forward 2 years and Villa sell Roger’s for 100m to Chelsea.
TeaCider said:
Nobody else has provided any evidence that it doesn't happen.
Click to expand...
it would absolutely be recorded in clubs accounts, if you are asking us to l prove a negative, that really isn’t possible other than no Middlesbrough accounts have ever shown this kind of transaction. But if it does happen, I’m sure you can prove the assertion
 
TeaCider said:
www.google.com

Toney's sell-on clause revealed as rivals set for huge payday in Arsenal deal

NEWCASTLE and Peterborough are set for huge windfalls if Arsenal sign Ivan Toney. The Brentford striker has been strongly linked with a move to the Gunners this month. Arsenal face competition from…
www.google.com www.google.com

If Ivan Toney is sold, Newcastle will profit.

Newcastle > Peterborough > Brentford > new club.
Click to expand...
www.standard.co.uk

Toney sell-on clause rumours denied amid talk of £100m Arsenal transfer

Peterborough chief Darragh MacAnthony dismisses claims of lucrative package impacting Brentford sale tactics
www.standard.co.uk www.standard.co.uk
 
TeaCider said:
www.google.com

Toney's sell-on clause revealed as rivals set for huge payday in Arsenal deal

NEWCASTLE and Peterborough are set for huge windfalls if Arsenal sign Ivan Toney. The Brentford striker has been strongly linked with a move to the Gunners this month. Arsenal face competition from…
www.google.com www.google.com

If Ivan Toney is sold, Newcastle will profit.

Newcastle > Peterborough > Brentford > new club.
Click to expand...
That’s the sun. Let’s see if it happens in the summer. These claims create in effect, lifelong claims to sell on fees, which is in effect retaining life long ownership of a share of a player
 
BoroMart said:
That’s the sun. Let’s see if it happens in the summer. These claims create in effect, lifelong claims to sell on fees, which is in effect retaining life long ownership of a share of a player
Click to expand...

No, they don't.

The chain ends when the chain ends.

If Rogers leaves Villa on a free, we get nothing and that's the end of it, we're not entitled to anything in any future contracts.

If a player signs a new contract beyond their existing one, the sell-on clause is often gone.

As happened with Raheem Sterling, and it's why Liverpool didn't profit from Man City selling him Chelsea.

Clubs sometimes give up their rights to a sell-on for an immediate pay-off, as happened with Southampton before Spurs sold Gareth Bale.
 
Quicksilvera said:
www.standard.co.uk

Toney sell-on clause rumours denied amid talk of £100m Arsenal transfer

Peterborough chief Darragh MacAnthony dismisses claims of lucrative package impacting Brentford sale tactics
www.standard.co.uk www.standard.co.uk
Click to expand...
"Posh co-owner Stewart ‘Randy’ Thompson was quoted in the summer of 2022 referencing a 30 per cent clause, prompting MacAnthony to imply that, while a sell-on may well exist, it is not that high.
"Sell-ons for large transfers are never that much to be fair," he is quoted by the Peterborough Telegraph as saying. "We would do ok from any deal, but also have to give Newcastle a percentage of it."
 
Quicksilvera said:
www.standard.co.uk

Toney sell-on clause rumours denied amid talk of £100m Arsenal transfer

Peterborough chief Darragh MacAnthony dismisses claims of lucrative package impacting Brentford sale tactics
www.standard.co.uk www.standard.co.uk
Click to expand...
This article also quotes the Peterborough chairman as saying

"Sell-ons for large transfers are never that much to be fair," he is quoted by the Peterborough Telegraph as saying. "We would do ok from any deal, but also have to give Newcastle a percentage of it."

So it does appear to hold some water, straight the (a ?) horses mouth
 
TeaCider said:
No, they don't.

The chain ends when the chain ends.

If Rogers leaves Villa on a free, we get nothing and that's the end of it, we're not entitled to anything in any future contracts.

If a player signs a new contract beyond their existing one, the sell-on clause is often gone.

As happened with Raheem Sterling, and it's why Liverpool didn't profit from Man City selling him Chelsea.

Clubs sometimes give up their rights to a sell-on for an immediate pay-off, as happened with Southampton before Spurs sold Gareth Bale.
Click to expand...
OK, it doesn't absolutely, but it CAN create a lifelong chain of "ownership".

I'm not sure on the "sign a new contract" element.
 
Nano said:
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.
Click to expand...
You think sell on clauses in perpetuity are not complicated? Ok.

In any event mart had posted the same rules I looked at a couple of days ago.

That really should end the argument.
 
Way_Out_West said:
"Posh co-owner Stewart ‘Randy’ Thompson was quoted in the summer of 2022 referencing a 30 per cent clause, prompting MacAnthony to imply that, while a sell-on may well exist, it is not that high.
"Sell-ons for large transfers are never that much to be fair," he is quoted by the Peterborough Telegraph as saying. "We would do ok from any deal, but also have to give Newcastle a percentage of it."
Click to expand...
fair enough, seems like it might be legit, sounds like it shouldn't though.
 
BoroMart said:
The nature of a ‘in perpetuity’ sell on clause means that every sale that player is involved in would have to have an additional sell on clause added to protect the seller. Lets say we bought Roger’s from city for 1.5m with a 20% sell on. We sold to Villa for 16m, but only add a 10% sell on. Now let’s fast forward 2 years and Villa sell Roger’s for 100m to Chelsea.

it would absolutely be recorded in clubs accounts, if you are asking us to l prove a negative, that really isn’t possible other than no Middlesbrough accounts have ever shown this kind of transaction. But if it does happen, I’m sure you can prove the assertion
Click to expand...
I presume the Toney "evidence" is enough. It would 100% be talking about breaking rules and regulations if that was the case, even if the article was wrong about there being multiple sell-on clauses.


RE: in perpetuity:

The sell-on clause is not "in perpetuity". The sell-on clause is on "profit of future sale". Sale there is singular, not sales. In your hypothetical the £100m to Chelsea is a different sale than the Boro to Villa one and Man City don't get a % of that. What you are missing from your hypothetical is that the transfer from Boro to Villa is not finalised at £16m, it is £16m + 10% of the £84m profit (£8.4m) for a total of £24.4m. We bought him from City for £1.5m, sold him for a total of £24.4m so owe City 20% of £24.4m - £1.5m = £4.58m. Villa do not pay City anything, Chelsea do not pay City anything, but we do. We won't wait until the final payment from Villa to pay City the lot. We'll take the amount that isn't profit from the 1st payment and City will get 20% of the remainder and 20% of the payments of any installments, add-ons or sell-on clauses. City's contract is with us and us alone.

It would be in the club accounts but not in the published accounts because it would just be aggregated under non-current assets and liabilities. Transactional level accounts aren't available for anyone to view.

Laughing said:
You think sell on clauses in perpetuity are not complicated? Ok.

In any event mart had posted the same rules I looked at a couple of days ago.

That really should end the argument.
Click to expand...
It would end the argument if it was relevant but it is not. It is not ownership and it is not in perpetuity as I've shown in my example above. You have over-complicated things.
 
BoroMart said:
OK, it doesn't absolutely, but it CAN create a lifelong chain of "ownership".

I'm not sure on the "sign a new contract" element.
Click to expand...

It's seemingly not an every time thing.

Matt Doherty was at Wolves for 10 years, so presumably signed multiple contracts, and when he was finally sold to Tottenham, Bohemians made a big sum from their sell-on clause.
Though I suspect this may just be because he was a youth player at Bohemians.

But when Man City sold Sterling to Chelsea, the reason given for Liverpool not receiving a sell-on (which they'd had in the initial contract), was that it only lasted for the duration of his initial contract when he was sold, and he'd signed a new contract at Man City since then.
 
TeaCider said:
It's seemingly not an every time thing.

Matt Doherty was at Wolves for 10 years, so presumably signed multiple contracts, and when he was finally sold to Tottenham, Bohemians made a big sum from their sell-on clause.
Though I suspect this may just be because he was a youth player at Bohemians.

But when Man City sold Sterling to Chelsea, the reason given for Liverpool not receiving a sell-on (which they'd had in the initial contract), was that it only lasted for the duration of his initial contract when he was sold, and he'd signed a new contract at Man City since then.
Click to expand...
Not saying that is wrong TC, but City didn't make a profit on the sale of Sterling so clause or no clause, Liverpool wouldn't get anything as any % of £0 profit is £0.
 
WilliamMunny said:
Not saying that is wrong TC, but City didn't make a profit on the sale of Sterling so clause or no clause, Liverpool wouldn't get anything as any % of £0 profit is £0.
Click to expand...

£49m to Man City, including add-ons.

£50m to Chelsea, including add-ons.

They'll have made a slight profit if the reported figures were accurate.

But the reports from Liverpool were that the sell-on clause had lapsed anyway.
 
Nano said:
I presume the Toney "evidence" is enough.
Click to expand...
It appears to be
Nano said:
The sell-on clause is not "in perpetuity". The sell-on clause is on "profit of future sale".
Click to expand...
It could be in perpetuity, as long as he is a registered player. Under this arrangement club A could sell a player at 18 with a sell-on, he's sold again at 24 with a sell on, and again at 29, with a sell-on. That club he left at 18 would receive money 11 years later, and in fact with that last sell on having a sell-on, could last to the end of his career, although unlikely to ever see any of it. Surely a club owning a % of sales of a player a decade after he left, will be challenged at some point.

TeaCider said:
But when Man City sold Sterling to Chelsea, the reason given for Liverpool not receiving a sell-on (which they'd had in the initial contract), was that it only lasted for the duration of his initial contract when he was sold, and he'd signed a new contract at Man City since then.
Click to expand...
Maybe Liverpool dropped a ball-on the wording of the contract? In such a case, why couldn't Villa agree a new contract with Morgan Rogers tomorrow, with improved terms and an extra year, the old employment contract is effectively nulled, as you cannot have two consecutive playing contracts registered with the FA, therefore Villa would not need to pay us anything, and we would not need to pay Man City anything. If Villa then sold him, they would retain an extra 20% of the sale. Surely you would get your legals to tie it to the registration of the player, not to the contract he signs with his new club? Although then that brings the concept of loan registrations into play....it's a minefield.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top