Initial Rogers fee higher than widely quoted

theathletic.com

‘A sell-on clause is a massive boost for a club in the lower levels of football’

Ollie Watkins and Ben Godfrey both made big-money moves this summer - but the clubs they've just left aren't the only ones cashing in
theathletic.com theathletic.com

Plenty of examples in this article, although its a bit out of date now, to back up Nano's point, how technically Ollie Mcburney is Bradfords record sale as his move from Swansea to Sheff Utd earned Bradford an extra 3.2 Million.
 
Nano said:
I know Football Manager is not real life but they know how the system works and all the rules around these sort of things are included. There are loads of options to add in as clauses into transfer fees and they are based on real-world procedures.
Click to expand...
I'm glad someone else name checked Footy Man! The Bible on this stuff!
 
BoroMart said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm really struggling to understand why it would be a problem. If teams want to include a % of the profit of a sell-on instead of an upfront fee then that is up to them. City sold us a player for £1.5m with a sell-on because we wouldn't have paid £6m up front. It is really no different to any other add-on in that it is a variable element that probably increases the better the performance.

Even if the previous hypothetical was true the max city are going to get is £1.5m plus £4.58m. It's a risk to let a player go for less than they are worth with the potential that it could be worth more in the long run but it could also be worth nothing. We were talking on here recently about Nathan Wood and how we let him go for cheap with a big sell-on and he was linked with a PL move but it's looking more likely his contract runs out next year and we get nothing. Every time a player gets sold with a sell-on it dilutes the amount. 20% of 20% is only 4% and if the player was sold again for another 20% then that's only 0.8% (and that's only on the profit). If Chelsea sold him to Madrid for £200m then Villa would get £20m and from that we'd get £4m and from that City would get £0.8m.

Future profit clauses are really for young players that haven't reached their full potential yet. There won't be % of profit on players that have been sold for £100m because there's no point. Those deals are more likely to have performance related add-ons instead.
 
I would imagine a player signing a new contract would not have any effect on the sell on clause.

If it did a club could just offer a player a very slightly improved contract not long after he signs and that would negate the sell on clause they would all be doing it.
 
Since1973 said:
I would imagine a player signing a new contract would not have any effect on the sell on clause.

If it did a club could just offer a player a very slightly improved contract not long after he signs and that would negate the sell on clause they would all be doing it.
Click to expand...
It's more likely to be time limited to the length of an initial contract term than pegged to the actual contract.

BoroMart said:
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.
Click to expand...
The contract between club and player and the one between two parties transferring the registration is separate. I'm sure the legal eagles know what they are doing when writing these contracts. Transfers used to be simple pay x for a player and that was it. They are a lot more complicated now in terms of how payments are made, why, when etc with certain actions required to trigger them. Loan registrations probably have no bearing but loan fees are potentially included.

You can also buy out clauses. Villa could offer us £5m now to buy out our clause in case he goes for £100m in the future. We might turn that down thinking we'll get more in the future or we might be desperate for the money now and £5m now is better than £15m in 4 years.
 
Nano said:
The contract between club and player and the one between two parties transferring the registration is separate.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know, your point about Sterling and some other contracts was that it was tied to his playing contract / registration. Which seems a mad thing to do,I was commenting that it would be poor by a club to ever do that, really risky
 
Last edited:
Nano said:
You can also buy out clauses. Villa could offer us £5m now to buy out our clause in case he goes for £100m in the future. We might turn that down thinking we'll get more in the future or we might be desperate for the money now and £5m now is better than £15m in 4 years.
Click to expand...
...or zero ever, yes, it's a gamble either way
 
Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:
I wonder if IRL clubs pay £500k for a player with a clause of an additional £30million should they play 50 games, as their only intention is moving a player on for a massive profit in a year or so.
Click to expand...

It's what happened with Dele Alli, and it's derailed his career even further.

Signed for Everton for free with huge appearance clause fees that could rise to £30m.
 
This is all fascinating stuff.
Can I take the thread a slightly different direction to ask about promotion benefits and relegation clauses in player contracts?
It was widely reported that Boro had no relegation clauses in player contracts when we came down from the EPL in 2017.
This felt like a massive oversight and highly risky.

Now I understand there is a case to be made that such clauses making it less likely players would sign in the first place but have relegation clauses become more common over the last few years do you think?

Seems a mad risk to maybe double a players salary due to a promotion - then due to their part in an underperforming team they then get the same increased wage for the rest of the length of their contract?

I'd like to think we've learnt from our mistake (if it actually happened) and would now have something in place to insure against the financial calamity of our last relegation??
 
Badonde said:
This is all fascinating stuff.
Can I take the thread a slightly different direction to ask about promotion benefits and relegation clauses in player contracts?
It was widely reported that Boro had no relegation clauses in player contracts when we came down from the EPL in 2017.
This felt like a massive oversight and highly risky.

Now I understand there is a case to be made that such clauses making it less likely players would sign in the first place but have relegation clauses become more common over the last few years do you think?

Seems a mad risk to maybe double a players salary due to a promotion - then due to their part in an underperforming team they then get the same increased wage for the rest of the length of their contract?

I'd like to think we've learnt from our mistake (if it actually happened) and would now have something in place to insure against the financial calamity of our last relegation??
Click to expand...
I think teams are more realistic these days. However, getting a pay increase on promotion and then retaining that increase on relegation seems like a bad deal for the club but there are parachute payments to cover that scenario and I would expect the wages would still be well below the level a player would get if they were signed as a PL club. I would hazard a guess that players would only agree to clauses that reduce wages if there is a higher base salary so it's a risk-reward thing for the club. It would get a bit messy trying to negotiate wage increases/decreases for a yo-yo club but I assume it happens.

Clubs in the PL, especially well established clubs, see relegation release/relegation wage reduction clauses as "small time". I can't imagine Liverpool, Utd, City etc have them in their players contracts as the risk of relegation is basically 0% (financial irregularity penalties aside). It is rumoured that Everton, until last season, had no relegation clauses in theirs which is why they would struggle so much if they were to be relegated. I don't think Leicester had many either. It's probably something that should be made mandatory by the PL but I'd guess the PFA are against them.

When we were relegated in 2017 most of the new signings we made for the PL left so that is one way of dealing with the situation.
 
I agree that relegation clauses would be of little interest to the rich/big clubs.
BUT I'd like to think Boro will be more pragmatic in the future.

I've not done my research admittedly but I bet teams like Brentford, Luton, Sheff Utd, Burnley and others will have some degree of wage insurance protection in case of relegation. I'd imagine ambitious champo teams like Norwich and West Brom too????

IIRC a few of our 'names' left straightaway after relegation which did help our finances.
Ramirez was completely mercenary and was always going to leave.
Valdes & Negredo were never going to want to play in the Championship.

Sliding door moments and that.
But I was surprised and pleased at the time how many players we kept on after relegation.
I guess part of our infamous attempt to 'smash the league'?
eg, Traore, Downing, Bamford, Ayala, Gibson, Gestede (£5m Leeds bid rejected :cry:), Leadbitter, Clayton.
I thought at the time we had a great chance of going back up straight away.

We were left with probably the largest wage bill in the Championship for the next 3-5 years.
An amount super-enlarged by some awful summer signings such as Britt and Fletcher.
Underperforming regularly yet knowing we were the biggest spenders was not a good feeling.

Transfers out summer 2018 where we got a few quid back
Stuani, Rhodes, Fischer, De Roon, Forshaw
 
So just to add to all the talk on buy on clauses.

It would be normal in such contracts to actually specify the things people are arguing about.

"Man City will be entitled to 20% of any profit Middlesbrough make on the sale of Rogers. This will include any profit made from performance related clauses and would also include if Middlesbrough profit from a percentage of sale fee in the future."

Also it could state or not state "this is only applicable if... is sold during the duration of his initial contract (5 years)... signing a new contract will not alter this"

Contracts are complex - they will have massive amounts of minutiae intentionally. That's why lawyers exist...
 
kuepper said:
10m is still ridiculously low, terrible business by us
Click to expand...

Lets hope there's some obscure clause in there that gives us first dibs on Archer when Villa take him back in the summer and offer him out on loan again next season. ;)

But yeah, I think they've had our pants down on the Rogers deal. He's going to be a top player imo.
 
I really can't see Rogers being in contention for a place this summer ahead of Bellingham, Saka, Foden, Palmer, Bowen, Gordon, Grealish, Maddison and Rashford. The last 3 named aren't in the best form admittedly, but you've still got the likes of Elliott and Eze ahead in the pecking order.
 
WilliamMunny said:
I really can't see Rogers being in contention for a place this summer ahead of Bellingham, Saka, Foden, Palmer, Bowen, Gordon, Grealish, Maddison and Rashford. The last 3 named aren't in the best form admittedly, but you've still got the likes of Elliott and Eze ahead in the pecking order.
Click to expand...
He is playing well for a more fashionable and well performing club, but I get your point. I also imagine any fee would be based on him getting an England cap, which could be in a pre-tournament friendly
 
Just looking short term we have at least £12.5m in the bank now from Rogers and Crooks. that quite a bit in the Championship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top