der der der der, Leeboy & Freddy!!
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.[b said: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?
Stalking Freddy and Che?[b said:Quote[/b] (Leeboy @ June 18 2005,16:43)]der der der der, Leeboy & Freddy!!
Some weirdo wearing a tablecloth has infiltrated that picture. You should send it to FHM for their 'who the hell is that' section.[b said:Quote[/b] (Leeboy @ June 18 2005,17:59)]and Barrett
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??[b said:Quote[/b] (Leeboy @ June 18 2005,16:43)]der der der der, Leeboy & Freddy!!
*Leeboy adpots scary staring pose for the camera...*[b said:Quote[/b] (Leeboy @ June 18 2005,16:43)]der der der der, Leeboy & Freddy!!
Freddy's just told Leeboy where he'll be playing his football next season.[b said:Quote[/b] (Smudger @ June 18 2005,19:06)]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??[b said:Quote[/b] (Leeboy @ June 18 2005,16:43)]der der der der, Leeboy & Freddy!!
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[b said:Quote[/b] (Upminster Blue @ June 17 2005,20:39)]A swap deal makes financial sense given that Grays are on a cut of any fee.[b said: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?!
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).
Glad someone else picked up on that... percentage always based on Players value in deal, not cash changing hands.[b said:Quote[/b] (Firestorm @ June 20 2005,08:53)]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[b said:Quote[/b] (Upminster Blue @ June 17 2005,20:39)]A swap deal makes financial sense given that Grays are on a cut of any fee.[b said: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?!
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).
Freddy 500k
Mc Veigh -250 k
Grays -250 K
Nett Zero
allegedly[b said:Quote[/b] (Saafend @ June 20 2005,13:51)]They're all crooks out there!
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.[b said:Quote[/b] (Firestorm @ June 20 2005,08:53)]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[b said:Quote[/b] (Upminster Blue @ June 17 2005,20:39)]A swap deal makes financial sense given that Grays are on a cut of any fee.[b said: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?!
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).
Freddy 500k
Mc Veigh -250 k
Grays -250 K
Nett Zero
Yeah, I was going to make this point too.[b said:Quote[/b] (Upminster Blue @ June 20 2005,13:57)]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.[b said:Quote[/b] (Firestorm @ June 20 2005,08:53)]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[b said:Quote[/b] (Upminster Blue @ June 17 2005,20:39)]A swap deal makes financial sense given that Grays are on a cut of any fee.[b said: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?!
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).
Freddy 500k
Mc Veigh -250 k
Grays -250 K
Nett Zero
so did the Sun. Nice to see the national media being a week behind the times![b said: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.