Harry Maguire

[Akinbiyi]

Don’t go there. I’ve done this once and was told by ‘experts’ that it’s not possible.

Same.

It definitely is and I’m pretty sure we have


Sell ons of sell ons are pretty normal in footy

 

[nopigfansintown]

Regardless of the number of times an ex academy player is sold, United receive a percentage of the fee. It's something like 2%. This doesn't require an agreement with the clubs we sell them onto - it's part of the EPPP rules.

 

[Robby Blade]

We gave him away when he went to Hull, but that's the way when you are not a Premiership club. Now we are Premiership, hopefully when we sign players from the lower leagues we too will be able to benifit from buying for ten million, having them for a couple of years before selling them on to the "Big Dogs" for 70-80 million.

 

[BushBlade]

We gave him away when he went to Hull, but that's the way when you are not a Premiership club. Now we are Premiership, hopefully when we sign players from the lower leagues we too will be able to benifit from buying for ten million, having them for a couple of years before selling them on to the "Big Dogs" for 70-80 million.

We should also be able to hang on to our academy players for longer as we can offer them decent contracts. If we’d gone up last season we could have kept Brooks as we could have matched the wages Bournemouth were offering. There could be another one round the corner.

 

[stringjunior]

Is that fucking OK sweetie?

A quality put down. Have a like.

 

[Sean Thornton]

This apart,

Regardless of the number of times an ex academy player is sold, United receive a percentage of the fee. It's something like 2%. This doesn't require an agreement with the clubs we sell them onto - it's part of the EPPP rules.

United are not part of Hulls contract with Leicester regarding sell on fees unless agreed otherwise at the outset.

 

[CarlMcBlade]

Our cut ends at the Hull-Leicester deal.

 

[Brian Deane]

Does this not come under Article 21 in FIFAs rules and regs regarding future transfer sell on fees ?

 

[blademark]

Our cut ends at the Hull-Leicester deal.

Not if our agreement with Hull was a percentage of future profit?

 

[Snowman]

Same.

It definitely is and I’m pretty sure we have


Sell ons of sell ons are pretty normal in footy

Let me just get this right. United contract with Hull to sell HM to them. The contract says Hull will pay 2mil, but if HM is sold to anyone other than SU within 5 years, SU will receive 20% of the profit made by Hull. OK so far? We have two contracting parties in agreement. Hull sell HM to Leicester. Hull receive 18 mil and we get 3.2 mil. That's because there is a contract between us and Hull. What about the contract between Hull and Leicester? We aren't party to that, it's nothing to do with us. Hull sell for what they want knowing they have to satisfy us and Leicester couldn't care a shit. They are just paying a lump sum and letting us and Hull sort it out between us.

I don't think that a non contracting party can bind another. For what you maintain happens then SU when contracting with Hull would have to insist that Hull agree to a clause that if they sell and make a profit on sale then not only are SU entitled to 20% of the profit, but also are entitled to insist that Hull bind the purchaser in the contract with a clause that benefits SU on a further sell on. Therefore Leicester are made to agree that if HM is sold on to MU then they must pay 20% of any profit to Hull and 10% to SU.

The alternative is that SU insert a clause in the contract that Hull must pay SU 20% of any profit they receive from sale but are entitled to receive a percentage of what Hull receive from their add on clause agreed with new purchaser (Leicester). Therefore if Leicester sell on for 90 mil and Hull get 20% add on from Leicester, 90 -18 x 20% = 14.4 and we are entitled to take 10% of that add on profit = 1.44.

All a bit complicated if you ask me!

 

[Snowman]

Does this not come under Article 21 in FIFAs rules and regs regarding future transfer sell on fees ?

Don't fucking complicate it with regulations!!!!!!!!!

 

[Brian Deane]

IIRC I think it's only International transfers as for complicating things. It's hardly like trying to explain the offside rule without the use of VAR

 

[Sean Thornton]

Post 36.

Let me just get this right. United contract with Hull to sell HM to them. The contract says Hull will pay 2mil, but if HM is sold to anyone other than SU within 5 years, SU will receive 20% of the profit made by Hull. OK so far? We have two contracting parties in agreement. Hull sell HM to Leicester. Hull receive 18 mil and we get 3.2 mil. That's because there is a contract between us and Hull. What about the contract between Hull and Leicester? We aren't party to that, it's nothing to do with us. Hull sell for what they want knowing they have to satisfy us and Leicester couldn't care a shit. They are just paying a lump sum and letting us and Hull sort it out between us.

I don't think that a non contracting party can bind another. For what you maintain happens then SU when contracting with Hull would have to insist that Hull agree to a clause that if they sell and make a profit on sale then not only are SU entitled to 20% of the profit, but also are entitled to insist that Hull bind the purchaser in the contract with a clause that benefits SU on a further sell on. Therefore Leicester are made to agree that if HM is sold on to MU then they must pay 20% of any profit to Hull and 10% to SU.

The alternative is that SU insert a clause in the contract that Hull must pay SU 20% of any profit they receive from sale but are entitled to receive a percentage of what Hull receive from their add on clause agreed with new purchaser (Leicester). Therefore if Leicester sell on for 90 mil and Hull get 20% add on from Leicester, 90 -18 x 20% = 14.4 and we are entitled to take 10% of that add on profit = 1.44.

All a bit complicated if you ask me!

Post 36?

 

[Pompey_Blade]

I've seen it mentioned a few times. As an acadamy product we will receive a small percentage of every HM transfer for the rest of his career.

 

[Snowman]

Post 36.




Post 36?

Well ok, if you want to make it simple.

 

[Chali 2na]

I’ve not seen any contracts, as I’m sure you also haven’t, but the clause was for a percentage of the sell on fee Hull received. When they sold him and paid the fee all of their financial responsibilities to Sheffield Uniged were fully discharged.

I'm confused:

If you've not seen any contracts, how would you know the "financial responsibilities" of either party?

 

[shorehamview]

I'm confused:

If you've not seen any contracts, how would you know the "financial responsibilities" of either party?

Because that's how sell on fees usually work? The selling club pays a percentage back, thus fulfilling their financial obligations.

 

[I should coco]

United are not part of Hulls contract with Leicester regarding sell on fees unless agreed otherwise at the outset.

Anyway, any extra sell on money would be trousered by KM. We know this becuase the experts on here keep telling us how much he has taken out of the club. Something like £9.6 trillion at the last estimate.

 

[Chali 2na]

Because that's how sell on fees usually work? The selling club pays a percentage back, thus fulfilling their financial obligations.

How do you know that without seeing any contracts?

 

[Barney]

What part of my point to you disagree with? Why would we not get a percentage of all of Hull's overall profit? As I said in my initial response, if the initial fee that Hull received "fully discharged" our sell on percentage it would be very easy for them to worm their way out of paying a sell on amount by making the initial fee artificially low.

You are right in what you're saying to a degree but you've got mixed up.

Making the initial fee artificially low would not get themselves out of paying the sell on as the clause would have been for a % of monies received as a result of the sale of that player from that club. So it doesn't matter if they made it a low initial fee and received the rest later, we'd still end up receiving the same as we would also be collecting the same percentage of the "rest".

I'm not aware of any clauses that allow for money to be earned from another clubs sell on clause. That would be a clause that concerns only Hull City and Leicester.

 

[LenTednTony]

Let me just get this right. United contract with Hull to sell HM to them. The contract says Hull will pay 2mil, but if HM is sold to anyone other than SU within 5 years, SU will receive 20% of the profit made by Hull. OK so far? We have two contracting parties in agreement. Hull sell HM to Leicester. Hull receive 18 mil and we get 3.2 mil. That's because there is a contract between us and Hull. What about the contract between Hull and Leicester? We aren't party to that, it's nothing to do with us. Hull sell for what they want knowing they have to satisfy us and Leicester couldn't care a shit. They are just paying a lump sum and letting us and Hull sort it out between us.

I don't think that a non contracting party can bind another. For what you maintain happens then SU when contracting with Hull would have to insist that Hull agree to a clause that if they sell and make a profit on sale then not only are SU entitled to 20% of the profit, but also are entitled to insist that Hull bind the purchaser in the contract with a clause that benefits SU on a further sell on. Therefore Leicester are made to agree that if HM is sold on to MU then they must pay 20% of any profit to Hull and 10% to SU.

The alternative is that SU insert a clause in the contract that Hull must pay SU 20% of any profit they receive from sale but are entitled to receive a percentage of what Hull receive from their add on clause agreed with new purchaser (Leicester). Therefore if Leicester sell on for 90 mil and Hull get 20% add on from Leicester, 90 -18 x 20% = 14.4 and we are entitled to take 10% of that add on profit = 1.44.

All a bit complicated if you ask me!

Surely it is based upon the wording of the contract (other than the Academy bit).to which we will never be a party to. It could be a percentage of any profit made on the sale of a player which would include additional sell on fees or it could be a percentage of any proceeds from the sale of said player above the price at which you purchased said player from SUFC. Don’t forget, some teams might take a bigger pay day now rather than wait for a sell on to kick in.

 

[AdamSufc1997]

At least we know how much we value O'Connell should anyone come in

 

[Snowman]

Surely it is based upon the wording of the contract (other than the Academy bit).to which we will never be a party to. It could be a percentage of any profit made on the sale of a player which would include additional sell on fees or it could be a percentage of any proceeds from the sale of said player above the price at which you purchased said player from SUFC. Don’t forget, some teams might take a bigger pay day now rather than wait for a sell on to kick in.

Yes possibly. See #36 says ST

 

[Sean Thornton]

Yes possibly. See #36 says ST

 

[Snowman]

You been following me around or have access to my credit card bills?

 

[Rufus Smalls]

This is great reading ...... I used to love doing share by’s at school !!

 

[Paulus]

For god’s sake don’t tell he’ll start banging on about 3rd party ownership.....

 

[Riccardo]

Harry is not worth 70mill. We all know tht , he's too slow for man. Utd or city
I reckon Leicester were robbed

 

[Gavlar]

Blades version of steve bruce. slow as a brick, but reads the game v well and scores goals.

Hopefully he will be a better manager.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

If Leicester sell him for less, do we have to give Hull some money back?