Initial Rogers fee higher than widely quoted

[Nano]

Why would they?

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.

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

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.

There is a thread on the brighton forum where someone said they spoke to Paul Barber

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.


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.

 

[Quicksilvera]

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.


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.


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.


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.

Man City will only receive 20% of the profit from our fee agreed with Villa, any sell on we agreed with Villa is nothing to do with Man City.

 

[Humpty]

The correct answer is that no one knows apart from the clubs involved. Any commercial deal can be set any number of different ways.

 

[Nano]

Man City will only receive 20% of the profit from our fee agreed with Villa, any sell on we agreed with Villa is nothing to do with Man City.

The sell-on is part of the fee. It isn't a separate deal. We accept less up front because we have a sell-on. It's all part of the total fee we will receive for Rogers. The up-front fee, any add-ons and any sell-on.

 

[FishofContemplation]

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

Any obligation we have to pay Man City won't be created by them retaining part-ownership of the player's registration, it will be created by the contract we signed when it was transferred.

In that sense, all obligations are future obligations, whether they relate to the initial fee, to guaranteed stage payments, to conditional stage payments or to a sell on clause payment. It would be trivially easy to write the contract so we were obliged to pass 20% of ANY payments we receive from Aston Villa for any cause back to Man City (harder indeed to limit it to only some of them). After all, we don’t own the player registration now, so both conditional add-ons and sell-ons have exactly the same current status. And there are very good reasons why the selling clubs (both City and WBA up the chain, and us down it) would wish to see a clause that did that, to avoid the next sale being structured to fiddle them.

I don't know what these contracts do say, but I'd be surprised if the didn't say we owe Man City 20% of anything we EVER get from his sale.

 

[Since1973]

Having thought about this I agree - Aston Villa will / may have paid a reduced fee because we insisted ed on a sell on clause - ie the might have paid 18 million including add ons with no sell on.

Therefore Man City will prob be entitled to the percentage of any money we receive through the sell on clause

 

[EuropaParmo]

Lots of people talking here as if they know for a fact what will happen.

 

[Redwurzel]

I only quote what is documented in the established media, for Rogers.

Some other posters just appear to make stuff up.

Ref Azaz fee - he was bought several weeks before Rogers was even in the news with regards a transfer, so its likely nothing to do with the Rogers deal.

If clubs continue to get performance payments for ex players are we getting money for Jason Steele from Brighton

 

[The Card Cheat]

What can I say, I'm a maffs genuis.

 

[johnsmithsno2]

Humpty is right that we might not know for sure. But City aren't stupid. As someone mentioned earlier, if they didn't get part of our ongoing profit, we would simply structure deals so that only a small amount of the total fee was up front. Contracts like this are designed so that clubs can't exploit obvious loopholes.

 

[free_pint]

Having thought about this I agree - Aston Villa will / may have paid a reduced fee because we insisted ed on a sell on clause - ie the might have paid 18 million including add ons with no sell on.

Therefore Man City will prob be entitled to the percentage of any money we receive through the sell on clause

They'll also receive 20% of the performance payments as well. Anything that is a profit above what we paid is subject to that. This also includes Villa selling him for a profit and us getting paid via our sell on clause.

West brom would get money from any transfer as part of their compensation for bringing him through under the age of 21 I believe? Can't fully remember the junior training rules age on that.

 

[AytonMews]

We’ll pay City whatever the contract stipulates.

As far as I’m aware, no one on here has seen it

 

[BoroMart]

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.

It’s usually a % of profit not sale fee. So unless he signed for free then it won’t have been 2m to Man City. It’s been said to be 1.5m fee. 20% of 8.5m profit. 1.7m to city and 8.5m to us

 

[borolad259]

It won't matter because he's gash remember.

 

[BoroMart]

They'll also receive 20% of the performance payments as well. Anything that is a profit above what we paid is subject to that. This also includes Villa selling him for a profit and us getting paid via our sell on clause.

West brom would get money from any transfer as part of their compensation for bringing him through under the age of 21 I believe? Can't fully remember the junior training rules age on that.

That’s not quite correct. Man City will not be due any bonus from a sell on fee that we have included with Villa. I believe those kind of perpetual clauses are not allowed, as it’s effectively creating a third party ownership situation. They are due 20% of performance bonuses though, that’s correct

 

[Rueben]

They get 20% of our profit on him, we make more and they make more.

So if Rogers makes ten money moves in his career Man City get 20% of every move aswell any % Boro inserted?
Who paid Citys 20% us or Villa?

 

[Laughing]

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.

 

[Gunslinger]

The eveing gazette just guessing again to fill column inches

 

[Quicksilvera]

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.

Yes I don’t think there are many or any governing bodies that allow a double take.

 

[Muttley]

We’ll pay City whatever the contract stipulates.

As far as I’m aware, no one on here has seen it

This

Everything else is just people making stuff up. It might include any future sell on, it might include the clauses and...

...it might not. So let's not be preachy about stuff you are imagining.