Eastwood.....the saga continues

[Leeboy]

der der der der, Leeboy & Freddy!!

 

[Andy_S]

Quote[/b] (Angell Delight @ June 18 2005,11:12)]There is NO WAY Uncle Ron would have sanctioned such a massive sell-on for Grays - my guess is its somewhere between 20-25%....may even be lower. Do you know the figure Andy_S?

I don't know the exact figure no, although 10% was mentioned. Basically it came from the Grays end that they wanted shot of Freddy as they knew he had absolutely no intention of going back to them, thus a deal was sorted out quicker than they would've liked. I'm lead to believe there was a promotion clause in the contract, but there was originally going to be no sell on.

I'll try to find out for certain if I ever get to see my Southend 'man' in the near future, which is becoming difficult.

 

[blues_r_best]

Quote[/b] (Leeboy @ June 18 2005,16:43)]der der der der, Leeboy & Freddy!!

Stalking Freddy and Che?

Please leave the players alone.

Although he looks more happy to meet you than you to meet him.

 

[Leeboy]

and Barrett  

 

[Shrimper2thecore]

Ive seen Freddy with ice-cream all over the place




*not to self, word senteces better in future

 

[MrB]

Quote[/b] (Leeboy @ June 18 2005,17:59)]and Barrett  

Some weirdo wearing a tablecloth has infiltrated that picture. You should send it to FHM for their 'who the hell is that' section.

 

[Smudger]

Quote[/b] (Leeboy @ June 18 2005,16:43)]der der der der, Leeboy & Freddy!!

Good pic - but why the serious face Leeboy? Was Freddy tampering with your plums out of the camera shot? Doesn't he know you're a happily married man??

 

[Shrimper2thecore]

We should all have a guess what Leeboy is thinking in the Freddy pic.

It has to be due to excitement of touching Freddy "i hope that shepherds pie in my undies"

Or waht i thought when i put my arm on Freddy's shoulder "f**king hell, youve got big shoulders for a little fella!"

 

[phil08]

eastwood has said he is staying so he will. The club needs him if they want to go anywhere. If we sell him its like shooting ourselves in the foot.:angry:

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (Leeboy @ June 18 2005,16:43)]der der der der, Leeboy & Freddy!!

*Leeboy adpots scary staring pose for the camera...*

When was that taken, mate?

Matt

 

[sufcintheprem]

Quote[/b] (Smudger @ June 18 2005,19:06)]

Quote[/b] (Leeboy @ June 18 2005,16:43)]der der der der, Leeboy & Freddy!!

Good pic - but why the serious face Leeboy? Was Freddy tampering with your plums out of the camera shot? Doesn't he know you're a happily married man??

Freddy's just told Leeboy where he'll be playing his football next season.

 

[Leeboy]

Matt - the Trust POTY night, along with the Barrett one with Naps

 

[Firestorm]

Quote[/b] (Upminster Blue @ June 17 2005,20:39)]

Quote[/b] (Angell Delight @ June 17 2005,18:52)]No I'm sorry that can't be right IMO, surely the club would prefer a straight cash deal to an exchange? Doesn't make sense for Blues to rebuff a straight cash offer and insist on a swap - surely they'd be open to either a straight cash deal or either?!

A swap deal makes financial sense given that Grays are on a cut of any fee.

Assuming for illustration purposes Grays are on a 50% cut and the straight cash price for Freddy is £500k, we'd only see £250k.  Supposing we then use all of the £250k to sign a replacement we'd then end up with:

- no Freddy  

- a replacement striker valued at £250k; and
- no cash from the deal

However, in a swap deal the player we get in exchange will eat in to Grays share of the fee, effectively subsidising the fee for the player received.  For example, taking the above scenario we'd end up with:

- no Freddy;
- a replacment striker valued at £250k; and
- £125k in the bank (£250k net transfer fee less Grays' 50% share).

Grays % would be based on the value placed on Freddy at the point of sale. So using your example of 50% we would end up with
Freddy 500k
Mc Veigh -250 k
Grays -250 K

Nett Zero

 

[Saafend]

Quote[/b] (Firestorm @ June 20 2005,08:53)]

Quote[/b] (Upminster Blue @ June 17 2005,20:39)]

Quote[/b] (Angell Delight @ June 17 2005,18:52)]No I'm sorry that can't be right IMO, surely the club would prefer a straight cash deal to an exchange? Doesn't make sense for Blues to rebuff a straight cash offer and insist on a swap - surely they'd be open to either a straight cash deal or either?!

A swap deal makes financial sense given that Grays are on a cut of any fee.

Assuming for illustration purposes Grays are on a 50% cut and the straight cash price for Freddy is £500k, we'd only see £250k.  Supposing we then use all of the £250k to sign a replacement we'd then end up with:

- no Freddy  

- a replacement striker valued at £250k; and
- no cash from the deal

However, in a swap deal the player we get in exchange will eat in to Grays share of the fee, effectively subsidising the fee for the player received.  For example, taking the above scenario we'd end up with:

- no Freddy;
- a replacment striker valued at £250k; and
- £125k in the bank (£250k net transfer fee less Grays' 50% share).

Grays % would be based on the value placed on Freddy at the point of sale. So using your example of 50% we would end up with
Freddy 500k
Mc Veigh -250 k
Grays -250 K

Nett   Zero

Glad someone else picked up on that... percentage always based on Players value in deal, not cash changing hands.

That said though, exchange deals can be subject to a bit of creative accountancy.

For example in the example used earlier (purely hypothetical as its complete rubbish)...Shrimpers and Canaries agree £500k for Eastwood, £250k for McVeigh ie balancing payment of £250k to Shrimpers...however deal is reported as £350k for Eastwood & £50k for McVeigh, thus same cash changing hands, but screwing Grays out of £100k.


They're all crooks out there!

 

[Its Only A Game]

Quote[/b] (Saafend @ June 20 2005,13:51)]They're all crooks out there!

allegedly

 

[Upminster Blue]

Quote[/b] (Firestorm @ June 20 2005,08:53)]

Quote[/b] (Upminster Blue @ June 17 2005,20:39)]

Quote[/b] (Angell Delight @ June 17 2005,18:52)]No I'm sorry that can't be right IMO, surely the club would prefer a straight cash deal to an exchange? Doesn't make sense for Blues to rebuff a straight cash offer and insist on a swap - surely they'd be open to either a straight cash deal or either?!

A swap deal makes financial sense given that Grays are on a cut of any fee.

Assuming for illustration purposes Grays are on a 50% cut and the straight cash price for Freddy is £500k, we'd only see £250k.  Supposing we then use all of the £250k to sign a replacement we'd then end up with:

- no Freddy  

- a replacement striker valued at £250k; and
- no cash from the deal

However, in a swap deal the player we get in exchange will eat in to Grays share of the fee, effectively subsidising the fee for the player received.  For example, taking the above scenario we'd end up with:

- no Freddy;
- a replacment striker valued at £250k; and
- £125k in the bank (£250k net transfer fee less Grays' 50% share).

Grays % would be based on the value placed on Freddy at the point of sale. So using your example of 50% we would end up with
Freddy 500k
Mc Veigh -250 k
Grays -250 K

Nett   Zero

Yep, but it wouldn't be the first swap deal where artificially low values are put on the players resulting in much the same effect.

 

[sufcintheprem]

Quote[/b] (Upminster Blue @ June 20 2005,13:57)]

Quote[/b] (Firestorm @ June 20 2005,08:53)]

Quote[/b] (Upminster Blue @ June 17 2005,20:39)]

Quote[/b] (Angell Delight @ June 17 2005,18:52)]No I'm sorry that can't be right IMO, surely the club would prefer a straight cash deal to an exchange? Doesn't make sense for Blues to rebuff a straight cash offer and insist on a swap - surely they'd be open to either a straight cash deal or either?!

A swap deal makes financial sense given that Grays are on a cut of any fee.

Assuming for illustration purposes Grays are on a 50% cut and the straight cash price for Freddy is £500k, we'd only see £250k. Supposing we then use all of the £250k to sign a replacement we'd then end up with:

- no Freddy

- a replacement striker valued at £250k; and
- no cash from the deal

However, in a swap deal the player we get in exchange will eat in to Grays share of the fee, effectively subsidising the fee for the player received. For example, taking the above scenario we'd end up with:

- no Freddy;
- a replacment striker valued at £250k; and
- £125k in the bank (£250k net transfer fee less Grays' 50% share).

Grays % would be based on the value placed on Freddy at the point of sale. So using your example of 50% we would end up with
Freddy 500k
Mc Veigh -250 k
Grays -250 K

Nett Zero

Yep, but it wouldn't be the first swap deal where artificially low values are put on the players resulting in much the same effect.

Yeah, I was going to make this point too.

Easy enough getting a value for a player like Freddy, perhaps, but harder to value someone like McVeigh where the demand may be harder to guage. That said, if Norwich can value McVeigh at £500,000 then they will have to pay out considerably less cash than if they value him at £250,000 so they'd be better off with a high value of McVeigh that wouldn't be as profitable for SUFC.

Either way, Freddy's going to be here come the start of the season or else we'd have almost certainly made serious noises about a replacement rather than releasing one of our strikers and not moving to quash rumours of another leaving.

 

[Banksy]

If Johnson leaves the Palace, then watch out !

 

[BoyWonder2]

The Mirror, today, reported about Eastwood turning down Forest saying they are no bigger than Southend. Always good to read something along those lines.

 

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (BoyWonder2 @ June 21 2005,14:35)]The Mirror, today, reported about Eastwood turning down Forest saying they are no bigger than Southend. Always good to read something along those lines.

so did the Sun. Nice to see the national media being a week behind the times!