All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?
He’s not going to Man United.Some will moan and say this is the wrong section but he’s a homegrown ex blade so i feel it’s relevant
Off to Manure by the looks of it, GLTTL. Always seemed down to earth and chuffed for him. Our best ever homegrown defender?
Why not? If we were entitled to a proportion of the profit Hull City made from Maguire's sale to Leicester then it stands to reason that we'd be eligible for a proportion of their sell on as that's effectively further profit for Hull. Assuming that's 20% we'd be in line for a further £2.1m (£70m Leicester to Man U = £53m profit x 20% to Hull = £10.6m x 20% to United = £2.1m).
Don’t go there. I’ve done this once and was told by ‘experts’ that it’s not possible.
That's because it's not.
It'll be 72 by then.
That’s not an explanation though. Just your opinion. If you can back your opinion up with some facts, please do.
You are wrong. As Hull will be making more money so will we. We had a clause to receive a percentage of any profit Hull made this still stands. Otherwise any team with a player with a sell on clause could sell for an initial £1 with £x million payable on the players first appearance in order to get out of paying the sell on percentage to the previous club!
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. Any sell on fee negotiated between Hull and Leicester should in theory be between those two clubs only.
Club A sells Player X to club B, and says that when you sell him we want xx% of the fee you get. Club B then sell X to Club C, and pay Club A the agreed percentage. This completes the financial obligation from B to A. When Club C sell X on there is usually no money going to Club A, because when B paid the percentage to A that concluded the contract.
That’s still just your opinion though. I’m not interested in arguing opinions on this. I’ve done it once. We’ll find out if Maguire moves.
It’s an opinion just the same as yours. You’re saying we are entitled to a fee, I’m saying we aren’t. And we will indeed find out if we are due any money.
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.
I said in my first post to Balham that I had no interest in this argument again and I only responded because of your fucking condescending comment ‘ I wonder how many times this needs to be explained. I suspect quite a few more.’
If you’re not interested then don’t fucking reply if you don’t like someone’s fucking post. Is that fucking okay, sweetie?
Basically it’s because when they got a fee they gave us the agreed part of it, be that a percentage or a set amount. That meant they’d concluded their part of the agreement. Of course if we insisted on a percentage of any sell on fee they got then they’d have to pay it, but I strongly suspect this isn’t the case. Time will tell.
I asked you for facts to support your opinion. You didn’t provide any, just repeated your opinion. Which I pointed out, trying to politely end the conversation and got another condescending reply ‘By the way, isn’t this forum for discussing opinions? Or did Foxy fuck up when he started the whole shebang, and it’s only for opinions you like?’
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?
