Surely sell-on fee clauses only apply to the profit made on the transfer fee by the selling club, rather than on the total fee paid by the next buying club?
Surely sell-on fee clauses only apply to the profit made on the transfer fee by the selling club, rather than on the total fee paid by the next buying club?
The only price I ever saw quoted widely was the one that Rick confirmed earlier in the thread - £200K.
I don't think you can sell on clauses for a player. They would have been binding on Charlton, if there were any, but I can't imagine that you can expect future employers to pick up the tab. At what stage would it stop?
Our clause for Michael Turner was sold on by Brentford to Hull.
I don't really understand how that could work. Passing on the clause would devalue the deal for Hull. Once Turner left Brentford, any clauses that were part of the original deal taking him there would be voided surely?
My point is if Brentford were happy with the add ons they could effectively take on the liability to Spurs.
If what is being said about us needing to sell is true and it sounds more than plausible then Tottenham would not lose out,as i say above I believe they are extremely astute when it comes to these sorts of clauses.
I do think Button will prove to be a good keeper at CCC / L1 level and his value will only increase with regular games much in the same way as it has done with Hamer.
Ok, so Brentford agreed a 30% sell on fee with Hull, and offered to split that with us, no doubt in lieu of the sell on payment that Brentford would have owed us. So they get extra cash in the short term, but potentially lose cash in the long term. We got less cash in the short term, but potentially more in the long term.
That's fine, but that wouldn't be possible in this case - no money would be due to Spurs unless there was a sell on clause AND we have sold him for more than we bought him for, which I very much doubt to be the case.
My point is if we haven't paid Spurs as many posters are suggesting and the bill was due last month , then the previous deal with Turner demonstrates that it is possible to trade on clauses if all of the parties are agreeable.
If I had been Tottenham I would be more concerned with Button's potential future value than suing Charlton for a late bill . I am not saying this has happened but it is possible.
Makes sense but a bit disheartening when you realise at this point in time, Brentford are stronger in the goalkeeper department than we are.
Our best goalkeeper is significantly better than their best keeper. So they might be stronger for the few games (if any) Hamer misses this season. In any case in that eventuality we will undoubtedly get a keeper on loan.
Over heard someone in the pub last night saying " are you sure Prothero is on a 2 week holiday now! no wonder no players are being signed". Anyone else heard this, it can't be true surely
Comments
My point is if we haven't paid Spurs as many posters are suggesting and the bill was due last month , then the previous deal with Turner demonstrates that it is possible to trade on clauses if all of the parties are agreeable.
If I had been Tottenham I would be more concerned with Button's potential future value than suing Charlton for a late bill . I am not saying this has happened but it is possible.
Edit: FLS doesn't appear to be on tonight so make that SSN