Man Utd in for Harry for £65 Million

[Pinchy]

Our

Fucking ‘our’.

 

[BushBlade]

Not sure. My point is, why should a selling club have part of any incoming fees passed on to a player's previous clubs? It's not reasonable or deserved. As a selling club that's your opportunity to benefit from any transfer. Once this is done and dusted the player belongs to another club. However they choose to deal with any potential transfer of said player in future, it has nothing to do with a player's previous clubs.

The size of a transfer is irrelevant to what you're entitled to as a club who once, long ago, employed the player.

Because we had a sell on clause with Hull that entitles us to a percentage of the transfer fee Hull receives for selling him. That’s a percentage of the total transfer fee. So if Hull also have a similar clause, they will receive an additional fee now, a percentage of which we are entitled to.

 

[Nicolaus_Copernicus]

Is it just me who couldn't find any mention of Maguire in the link?

If Man Utd are in the market for a CB, they should go for Koulibaly. Probabaly the best CB in the world right now with the possible exception of Van Dijk

Maguire, Koulibaly & VvD are all about the same height and all possesses the physicality and technique needed for a top quality, modern CB (in varying degrees)

Koulibaly is decent, but he is 27 approaching 28, and elements of his game are limited and he seems to come unstuck against the better opposition. Less than 250 games for Metz, Genk & Napoli is hardly a stellar CV. Napoli want £95m for him (or even 150m euros according to Italian press).

VvD is very good, but is approaching 28 and cost £75m. He's not really been tested at the top, top level.

Maguire has 300 odd games under his belt, and has made the step up to all levels that he has played at. This season has been indifferent, because he's sat in his comfort zone and not pushing himself at the top level of the prem and in the latter stages of European competition. Whether he's stayed at Leicester through loyalty or due to no serious bids, he wasted this season.

There is a serious shortage of international quality (and international experienced) CB's in that 24 to 27 age range and they command a premium. Maguire is near enough in the current top 10 CB's in that range, along with Stones, VvD, Koulibaly, Laporte, Umtiti, Varane, etc. £65m for Maguire may sound a lot, but it is there or there abouts his current market value.

 

[itsinyerblood]

Because we had a sell on clause with Hull that entitles us to a percentage of the transfer fee Hull receives for selling him. That’s a percentage of the total transfer fee. So if Hull also have a similar clause, they will receive an additional fee now, a percentage of which we are entitled to.

This may become a circular discussion, so let's see if we can find some form of agreement.

We sell a player and receive a fee. Then said player is sold by his current club and we receive an already agreed fee due to a clause that states we receive an agreed percentage of this sale. Any sale of said player after this is where the cut off point arrives, so should the player be sold at this point we're not entitled to anything.

If there's an example of where this (disputed) ongoing payment exists perhaps it can be provided to clear this up.

 

[grafikhaus]

He's good, but he's not that good.

Even in today’s absurd market, and even when Champs League clubs need English players, and even a year ago at his World Cup zenith, 65m for Harry M would have been bloody ridiculous.

Today, after a come-down season of mixed performances and some ropey reviews, it’s bordering on insane.

John Stones is worth nowhere near the £47.5m (plus add-ons) that City paid for him nearly six years ago (after Everton bought him from Barnsley for £3m in 2013). 'Fools and their money...'

 

[Chali 2na]

Maguire, Koulibaly & VvD are all about the same height and all possesses the physicality and technique needed for a top quality, modern CB (in varying degrees)

Not sure I agree. "Leadboots" jokes aside, in terms of physicality, don't think Maguire has the mobility needed to reach the levels of the other 2 players you mention, personally.

I'd love to be wrong though, as I really like Maguire.

Koulibaly is decent, but he is 27 approaching 28, and elements of his game are limited and he seems to come unstuck against the better opposition. Less than 250 games for Metz, Genk & Napoli is hardly a stellar CV. Napoli want £95m for him (or even 150m euros according to Italian press).

VvD is very good, but is approaching 28 and cost £75m. He's not really been tested at the top, top level.

Can't say I agree that Koulibaly is limited, he has all the tools in my eyes.
He doesn't have a fantastic CV, as you point out, but the reason why Napoli are right to demand such a fee is because of his ability, rather than his pedigree.

As for Van Dijk, he hasn't been tested thoroughly at the top level in terms of champions league, but he has played over 100 PL games, which is a high enough standard to regard him as one of the world's best.

Maguire has 300 odd games under his belt, and has made the step up to all levels that he has played at. This season has been indifferent, because he's sat in his comfort zone and not pushing himself at the top level of the prem and in the latter stages of European competition. Whether he's stayed at Leicester through loyalty or due to no serious bids, he wasted this season

While Maguire does have a lot of appearances under his belt, more than half of them have been outside the top flight: 129 of those were in L1.

I agree that for the sake of his career, he probabaly should have moved on - I think he knows that too, which would suggest no acceptable bids have been forthcoming - That may tell a story in itself.

There is a serious shortage of international quality (and international experienced) CB's in that 24 to 27 age range and they command a premium. Maguire is near enough in the current top 10 CB's in that range, along with Stones, VvD, Koulibaly, Laporte, Umtiti, Varane, etc. £65m for Maguire may sound a lot, but it is there or there abouts his current market value.

Agree with all of that to be honest, including his valuation. The only thing I might add is that if he is in that top 10 bracket, there is an almighty drop off between #1 and #10.

 

[Chali 2na]

John Stones is worth nowhere near the £47.5m (plus add-ons) that City paid for him nearly six years ago (after Everton bought him from Barnsley for £3m in 2013). 'Fools and their money...'

You're wrong, he was worth what the buying club was willing to pay.

He's come one a lot since he's been at City too, I can only assume you don't watch much PL football.

 

[Nicolaus_Copernicus]

Agree with all of that to be honest, including his valuation. The only thing I might add is that if he is in that top 10 bracket, there is an almighty drop off between #1 and #10.

I'd also throw Marquinhos and Kimpembe from PSG into the mix as well, although they are both 24 i think. Phil 'The Gurner' Jones probably creeps into the top 10 in 10th.

It's a funny market tbh, the likes of Barca & Real would rather pay silly money for an unproven/less proven 19/20 year old and work on them, de Ligt from Ajax being the next one i think.

 

[Chali 2na]

I'd also throw Marquinhos and Kimpembe from PSG into the mix as well, although they are both 24 i think. Phil 'The Gurner' Jones probably creeps into the top 10 in 10th.

It's a funny market tbh, the likes of Barca & Real would rather pay silly money for an unproven/less proven 19/20 year old and work on them, de Ligt from Ajax being the next one i think.

You've lost all your credibility by allowing Jones in that bracket!

I agree about your assessment of the market though, I have often wondered why the biggest clubs don't go out and buy the finished product, like they might in other positions.

Man Utd are another example. When you look at the money they've spent on players like Bailly and Lindelof - who, while both decent players, are not of a high enough standard (yet at least) - you wonder why they don't spend that money on a player such as Van Dijk or Koulibaly.

 

[BushBlade]

This may become a circular discussion, so let's see if we can find some form of agreement.

We sell a player and receive a fee. Then said player is sold by his current club and we receive an already agreed fee due to a clause that states we receive an agreed percentage of this sale. Any sale of said player after this is where the cut off point arrives, so should the player be sold at this point we're not entitled to anything.

If there's an example of where this (disputed) ongoing payment exists perhaps it can be provided to clear this up.

Why is the cut off point where you say it is?

If we sell a player to club X for £2m plus 10% of any sell on fee, then club X sells a player for £20m plus 10% of any sell on fee, and the player is sold on for £60m, club X has received £20m + £6m = £26m. We are entitled to 10% of that. £2.6m. We already received £2m when the transfer went through and we get then get a further £0.6m when he moves on. Because the clause in our sell on deal specifically states that we receive 10% of the total sell on fee and the total sell on fee is £26m.

What is so implausible about that? What bit of England law could prevent that? What is illogical about that?

 

[Sean Thornton]

Why is the cut off point where you say it is?

If we sell a player to club X for £2m plus 10% of any sell on fee, then club X sells a player for £20m plus 10% of any sell on fee, and the player is sold on for £60m, club X has received £20m + £6m = £26m. We are entitled to 10% of that. £2.6m. We already received £2m when the transfer went through and we get then get a further £0.6m when he moves on. Because the clause in our sell on deal specifically states that we receive 10% of the total sell on fee and the total sell on fee is £26m.

What is so implausible about that? What bit of England law could prevent that? What is illogical about that?

The contract details would have to specifically state that surely? If not, there's no contractual link between the original club and the final deal.

 

[itsinyerblood]

Why is the cut off point where you say it is?

If we sell a player to club X for £2m plus 10% of any sell on fee, then club X sells a player for £20m plus 10% of any sell on fee, and the player is sold on for £60m, club X has received £20m + £6m = £26m. We are entitled to 10% of that. £2.6m. We already received £2m when the transfer went through and we get then get a further £0.6m when he moves on. Because the clause in our sell on deal specifically states that we receive 10% of the total sell on fee and the total sell on fee is £26m.

What is so implausible about that? What bit of England law could prevent that? What is illogical about that?

Simply put - because once a club buys and owns a player all expectation that said player's previous clubs can expect anything is unreasonable (one of the fundamentals of contractual exchange). By all means add whatever you feel is yours as an entitlement, including an agreed percentage of whatever fee the buying club is prepared to accept should they sell said player, but once the deal is done and dusted it's finalised, therefore the previous club no longer has a say or entitlement to what transpires in future.........so yes, we are entitled to a percentage of whatever fee the player's club sells him for. But beyond that...???

I've still not been shown an example of where this counter argument is meant to exist.

 

[FallowfieldBlade]

John Stones is worth nowhere near the £47.5m (plus add-ons) that City paid for him nearly six years ago (after Everton bought him from Barnsley for £3m in 2013). 'Fools and their money...'

Stones been one of there main center backs and city possibly about to win a quadrupole would say that that is a bargain

 

[FallowfieldBlade]

Might be been a bit bias but If you put Egan/occonel into teams like spurs/Leicester they’d soon be branded in the same category

Look at Tarkovski and keane I would say there is barely any difference and there is plenty of these center backs in the champ and lower

 

[Sean Thornton]

John Stones is worth nowhere near the £47.5m (plus add-ons) that City paid for him nearly six years ago (after Everton bought him from Barnsley for £3m in 2013). 'Fools and their money...'

Stones hasn't been at City three years yet.

 

[BushBlade]

The contract details would have to specifically state that surely? If not, there's no contractual link between the original club and the final deal.

There’s no reason why it can’t though. I’m nit saying it definitely has, I didn’t draft it, I’m just saying it’s not completely implausible.

 

[BushBlade]

Simply put - because once a club buys and owns a player all expectation that said player's previous clubs can expect anything is unreasonable (one of the fundamentals of contractual exchange). By all means add whatever you feel is yours as an entitlement, including an agreed percentage of whatever fee the buying club is prepared to accept should they sell said player, but once the deal is done and dusted it's finalised, therefore the previous club no longer has a say or entitlement to what transpires in future.........so yes, we are entitled to a percentage of whatever fee the player's club sells him for. But beyond that...???

I've still not been shown an example of where this counter argument is meant to exist.

All I’m saying is that there is nothing to prevent there being a clause saying we get a percentage of the total fee. There probably are examples and I have a vague recollection of some lower league sides getting similar fees but I’ve got bettter things to do than research it.

 

[Paulus]

We are due nowt from any future transfer.

 

[itsinyerblood]

All I’m saying is that there is nothing to prevent there being a clause saying we get a percentage of the total fee. There probably are examples and I have a vague recollection of some lower league sides getting similar fees but I’ve got bettter things to do than research it.

Unless it's written into an agreement then it has no validity, and you only receive a mutually agreed fee plus whatever sell on percentage that's part of that agreement.

Of course there's nothing to prevent a club attempting to alter existing transfer conventions. In the music business managers used to receive 10 percent gross for their services. a point came where this changed to 20 percent gross. So it's possible that something as far reaching as this would need to be tested in the courts. Personally I think that it's unreasonable and creates a never-ending income stream for the player's original club, assuming that the player is in-demand and transferred several times in future. My question would be; why is it acceptable and feasible for a club to continue to receive fees for transfers they were not involved in, and more pertinently, for players that they long ceased being involved with? It's unreasonable, period.

 

[Tom Bott]

Are best hopes are Brooks and twat Adams

Chedwyn ? easy as bac.

 

[Tom Bott]

Hope we get some money from this

We'd only spunk it on a new fax machine or court fees.

 

[RammyBlade]

Whats the note about Pigs ,Villa and Derby facing sanctions ? Thought thay had adhered to the rules since the soft sanction so wouldnt get points deduction ? We can hope of course !!

 

[Not_a_Cheat]

Why is the cut off point where you say it is?

If we sell a player to club X for £2m plus 10% of any sell on fee, then club X sells a player for £20m plus 10% of any sell on fee, and the player is sold on for £60m, club X has received £20m + £6m = £26m. We are entitled to 10% of that. £2.6m. We already received £2m when the transfer went through and we get then get a further £0.6m when he moves on. Because the clause in our sell on deal specifically states that we receive 10% of the total sell on fee and the total sell on fee is £26m.

What is so implausible about that? What bit of England law could prevent that? What is illogical about that?

Perfectly plausible BUT does 10% of next sale price extend to AND 10% of that teams sell on clause?

 

[Blend-it-like-Harris]

If Man Utd buy Harry M, Joe Shaw's statue will fall from its plinth

 

[ourbob]

Is this the same one that was going to that same team in the summer?

Lets move on.

 

[BushBlade]

The contract details would have to specifically state that surely? If not, there's no contractual link between the original club and the final deal.

Actually, there doesn’t have to be. Man U pay Leicester. Under the terms of the contract between Hull and Leicester, Leicester has to pay Hull a sell on fee. That increases Hull’s total transfer fee received. We have a contract with Hull for x% of the total transfer fee they receive. Thus, they owe us.

 

[guancheblade]

article 21.

https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/s...pensation-and-solidarity-payments-in-football

If it's not a transfer sell-on clause option in Football Manager, it doesn't exist

 

[Sean Thornton]

Actually, there doesn’t have to be. Man U pay Leicester. Under the terms of the contract between Hull and Leicester, Leicester has to pay Hull a sell on fee. That increases Hull’s total transfer fee received. We have a contract with Hull for x% of the total transfer fee they receive. Thus, they owe us.

So while ever a players transfer value on subsequent moves increases, we keep getting a payment?

More likely that the sell on clause would be restricted to just the first move.

 

[itsinyerblood]

So while ever a players transfer value on subsequent moves increases, we keep getting a payment?

More likely that the sell on clause would be restricted to just the first move.

That's the long and short of this particular point. I'm not sure why anyone thinks a club is entitled to payments from transfers long after the player in question has left their club? If their logic is to be understood, we'd have received payments for former Blades who happened to be transferred several times after leaving United.

There's no history of this so it seems that the original poster who suggested this has caused an opinion, and a not very authoritative one at that, to have become folk-lore over the course of this thread. It's bollocks and bullshit, pure and simple, and no amount of wishful thinking makes it right or worth supporting.

For the sake of clarity, a club is entitled to a transfer fee for selling a player, plus it is entitled to an agreed inclusion of a clause that gives the selling club a percentage of any fee from any future transfer of said player. Beyond that, the original selling club have no entitlement to anything whatsoever from future transfers.