Todays Echo- Tilson wants 4 signings

[BoyWonder2]

Can anyone confirm for DEFINITE whether we get anything from Freddy's sale? Cos as I understand it we don't as Wolves made a loss not a profit.

Where was it mentioned that Wolves had to make a profit for us to get a percentage.

The article on the official website when we sold him said the sell on was 25% it never mentioned that being of any profit Wolves made:

http://www.southendunited.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10444~1068008,00.html

The deal seeing Eastwood leave the Club is thought to include a number of clauses, as well as a sell on fee believed to be in the region of 25 per cent.

Thats from the official website.

 

[Angell Delight]

Where was it mentioned that Wolves had to make a profit for us to get a percentage.

The article on the official website when we sold him said the sell on was 25% it never mentioned that being of any profit Wolves made:

http://www.southendunited.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10444~1068008,00.html



Thats from the official website.

The site is somewhat vague at times and it's entirely plausible that they carelessly omitted the fact that a profit had to be made. After all where has all this talk of profit come from (from many people including some sources at Wolverhampton Wanderers).

I think the most telling sign that we have received naff all from Freddy's sale is that there is nothing on the OS, if we'd have received around £300k there's no doubt they'd have mentioned it with almost certainly a quote or two from Uncle Ron thrown in there for good measure.

Personally I firmly believe we've made nothing from Eastwood's switch.

 

[BoyWonder2]

The site is somewhat vague at times and it's entirely plausible that they carelessly omitted the fact that a profit had to be made. After all where has all this talk of profit come from (from many people including some sources at Wolverhampton Wanderers).

I think the most telling sign that we have received naff all from Freddy's sale is that there is nothing on the OS, if we'd have received around £300k there's no doubt they'd have mentioned it with almost certainly a quote or two from Uncle Ron thrown in there for good measure.

Personally I firmly believe we've made nothing from Eastwood's switch.

Who actually mentioned the profit in the first place? Surely that would have been put on the website if that was the case?

There isn't much need for that to be a story on the website to be fair, unless we sign someone over the course of the week i.e Mulgrew and it mentions it at the bottom of the story.

 

[undercovershrimper]

having been rons ex next door neighbour i can assure you there is no way it would have been a profit related clause, he's too shrewd a business man to make a deal like that with Mick the nose McCarthy!!!!

 

[BoyWonder2]

having been rons ex next door neighbour i can assure you there is no way it would have been a profit related clause, he's too shrewd a business man to make a deal like that with Mick the nose McCarthy!!!!

Having a profit related clauses wouldn't have made any sense to us anyways as there was a 50% chance he would fail at Wolves and move on for less money. I'd be very disappointed if this type of clause was put into the deal.

 

[Beefy]

Personally I firmly believe we've made nothing from Eastwood's switch.

Yeah, same here.

 

[BoyWonder2]

Yeah, same here.

What do you base that on, just out of interest?

 

[Beefy]

It doesn't make business sense for Wolves to agree to 25% of the sale. The point of a sell on is for the selling club to share in future transfer profits which they've basically contributed to by training and grooming the player prior to the sale. If they sell at a loss (as Wolves have this time) then it's a sign that the transfer was a failure.

 

[undercovershrimper]

the point of sell on clauses is that lower league teams like us gain from developing a talent more than just when once when he gets poached by a big nosed know nothing ****

 

[Angell Delight]

There isn't much need for that to be a story on the website to be fair.

Mate £300k is a LOT of money to pretty much every club in League One, there's EVERY need for something like that to be put up as a story on the OS - if the club considers that it is isn't I'd be absolutely staggered!!

I'd lay money on the fact we've made nothing from this deal, if we had we'd have definitely heard by now. From his comments Beefy is clearly of the same feeling.

 

[BoyWonder2]

It doesn't make business sense for Wolves to agree to 25% of the sale. The point of a sell on is for the selling club to share in future transfer profits which they've basically contributed to by training and grooming the player prior to the sale. If they sell at a loss (as Wolves have this time) then it's a sign that the transfer was a failure.

But you could say that about all transfers. Arsenal have a sell on clause with David Bentley and James Harper hence why the prices being rumoured to be spent on them are well over the top.

Its something a lot of lower league clubs puts into transfers as its a way to generate future money. Norwich have one in the deal that took Joe Lewis to Peterborough and Shrewsbury have something similiar in the Joe Hart deal (they earn't money because he played for England).

I can see to RM saying £1million upfront, £500k performance related like goals, international honours, promotions and 25% sell on. But I can't see that 25% being based on profit.

Hopefully I'm right, but I may well be wrong.

 

[BoyWonder2]

Mate £300k is a LOT of money to pretty much every club in League One, there's EVERY need for something like that to be put up as a story on the OS - if the club considers that it is isn't I'd be absolutely staggered!!

I'd lay money on the fact we've made nothing from this deal, if we had we'd have definitely heard by now. From his comments Beefy is clearly of the same feeling.

I can see it being mentioned, but I don't think its a massive story.

Also, it would alert Clubs like Bristol City with Keogh, that we have more money to spend and they can try and get as much out of us. Very much like transfer fees for Chelsea are massively different to other clubs going for similiar players.

 

[Shrimpersarmy]

Mate £300k is a LOT of money to pretty much every club in League One, there's EVERY need for something like that to be put up as a story on the OS - if the club considers that it is isn't I'd be absolutely staggered!!

I'd lay money on the fact we've made nothing from this deal, if we had we'd have definitely heard by now. From his comments Beefy is clearly of the same feeling.

I also have a gut feeling we have made nothing from the Eastwood deal. BUT, if we have made a tidy sum from it, do you really think we would announce it to the world on our official site? Clubs we are trying to negoiate transfer fees with at the moment for players (Bristol City for Keogh? And many others i'd imagine) would be holding out for a bigger transfer fee if they knew we had just inherited a couple of hundred grand.

 

[Shrimpersarmy]

I can see it being mentioned, but I don't think its a massive story.

Also, it would alert Clubs like Bristol City with Keogh, that we have more money to spend and they can try and get as much out of us. Very much like transfer fees for Chelsea are massively different to other clubs going for similiar players.

Snap ! Same point but you beat me to it.

 

[Beefy]

the point of sell on clauses is that lower league teams like us gain from developing a talent more than just when once when he gets poached by a big nosed know nothing ****

Yeah, from a lower-league Clubs perspective, but it's a buyers market and a of percentage of future transfer fees and not transfer profits is potentially a huge amount of money. It doesn't make business sense for Wolves to agree that kind of deal, where as it does make sense if it's profits.

If Freddy's move had worked out and he'd be signed by West Ham or Portsmouth this summer for £6m then Wolves would have made a £4.5m profit and we'd have been entitled to a cut of that profit, but that hasn't happened. The transfer was a failure, Wolves have taken a loss on the same and there's no way they would have agreed to give us a slice of the fee in that eventuality.

Look at the numbers involved. Wolves have paid £1.5m for the transfer fee, they've paid £400k for a year's wages, probably the same again for a signing on fee. They've recouped £1.2m from Coventry but have had to give 10% of that to Freddy as he didn't request a transfer. If you take BoyWonder2's suggestion that the transfer had a 50/50 chance of being a failure then you have to ask what kind of moron would agree to dishing out a 25% cut of the next transfer fee when there's a good chance of that transfer fee being less than they paid. They only signed Eastwood because they missed out on Billy Sharp, afterall.

 

[BoyWonder2]

If you take BoyWonder2's suggestion that the transfer had a 50/50 chance of being a failure then you have to ask what kind of moron would agree to dishing out a 25% cut of the next transfer fee when there's a good chance of that transfer fee being less than they paid. They only signed Eastwood because they missed out on Billy Sharp, afterall.

But what kind of moron would agree to it being based on profit as there is a 50% chance that it wont be profit.

 

[Beefy]

But you could say that about all transfers. Arsenal have a sell on clause with David Bentley and James Harper hence why the prices being rumoured to be spent on them are well over the top.

Yeah, but I bet that they are slices of profits and not slices of fees. Outside the World of Football Manager I'm not convinced that percentage cuts of transfer fees exist. Certainly the deal we made with Forest all those years ago for Stan Collymore was a cut of profits.

 

[BoyWonder2]

Yeah, but I bet that they are slices of profits and not slices of fees. Outside the World of Football Manager I'm not convinced that percentage cuts of transfer fees exist. Certainly the deal we made with Forest all those years ago for Stan Collymore was a cut of profits.

As far as I can tell with the research I have done into this, although thats very little, its on the transfer fee itself.

At the end of the day, we are going to continue to cover the same ground with this until we hear something official. Hopefully I'm right, but at the end of the day, you could well be right on this one.

 

[Beefy]

But what kind of moron would agree to it being based on profit as there is a 50% chance that it wont be profit.

It wouldn't be moronic, it would be the way these things work. If the same has been at a loss then how can we justify taking a share of the money? It doesn't make sense.

A share of profits is actually advantageous because it doesn't stop with the transfer. Say Wolves have included such a clause in their deal with Coventry and in a year's time they sell Freddy then potentially we could be entitled to a slice of that money.

I seem to remember that happening when Chris Powell moved from Charlton to Derby. We took a slice of the profit that Derby made on the same but had to pass on a slice of that to Crystal Palace.

EDIT - or maybe it was Stan's transfers actually. We had to give Palace a slice of the money we got from Forest when he moved to Liverpool....

 

[Beefy]

At the end of the day, we are going to continue to cover the same ground with this until we hear something official. Hopefully I'm right, but at the end of the day, you could well be right on this one.

True. Obviously I hope you're right, I just have my doubts.