Why wouldn't they? They receive 20% of any profit we make on his sale. Every time we receive an amount, they get 20% of the profit. You realise how easy the system would be to avoid paying the fee if it was just on the initial selling fee? It would all just be add-ons etc.Why would they?
They don't own him. We have no rights to his registration but the whole nature of a sell-on fee is that you get a part of any future income. Obviously if we didn't have a sell-on fee with Villa then we (and therefore City) will get nothing when Villa sell him and the chain is ended. There are also other clauses in it sometimes. It might be time-limited so it is only valid if the sale happens within a set period of time etc.No they don’t - are you saying Man City, Middlesbrough or even WBA own part of him forever - They will get a % of the profit of our fee and any add - ons from our fee
There are various variations of selling fees. Some are based on the value and some are based on the profit. Typically a young player moving for very little money would basically be the same whether it was based on profit or total fee so might just be a % of total fee. There is a big difference between the two and that would probably be reflected in the up-front payment. A sell-on fee based on the total sell-on value would be worth more than one based on the profit so would have a bigger impact on the up-front fee.There is a thread on the brighton forum where someone said they spoke to Paul Barber
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.