|
Post by heyheyalanshoulder on Jun 4, 2024 8:35:43 GMT
Presume an international cap will trigger a payment to us? If it’s 100k or so we should just ask for some decent loans for next season. Everton might actually go for that, given that they're skint. Wonder if we've had anyone scouting their reserves/under 23s or whatever they call them now? Or is that asking too much? What's this scouting you mention?
|
|
|
Post by 183blue on Jun 4, 2024 8:58:26 GMT
I think he will be included. Southgate has left out the likes of Rashford and Sterling , who have previously regularly featured , but included the likes of Eze and Palmer in their place. Maddison seems likely to get left out of the 26, even though he has played before and not done too much wrong. It’s a bit different with defenders , as they often don’t have that much to do in some qualifying and warm up games, so it probably seems a bit harsh leaving someone out who has played and done OK, but I think Branthwaite will get the nod over Dunk.
|
|
|
Post by blumineauxnoir on Jun 4, 2024 9:13:50 GMT
Dipped in and out of a commentary channel, on youtube, hoping to hear his name, but never did, and turned it off, cursing southgate.
Pleased to bits for him, to finally get on ! Aside from the sell-on, do we have any other clauses ? Is it a sole payment for a single England appearance, or could we get more for say 5/10 appearances ? Going by Football Manager, those clauses only tend to be for 1 game.
|
|
|
Post by happyblue on Jun 4, 2024 9:49:18 GMT
Dipped in and out of a commentary channel, on youtube, hoping to hear his name, but never did, and turned it off, cursing southgate. Pleased to bits for him, to finally get on ! Aside from the sell-on, do we have any other clauses ? Is it a sole payment for a single England appearance, or could we get more for say 5/10 appearances ? Going by Football Manager, those clauses only tend to be for 1 game. . All depends of what the deal is , rumour is it's a sell on percentage , although some of said it's a profit percentage which would mean any payments from England caps would be taken off . So benefits depend on structure of the deal .
|
|
|
Post by heyheyalanshoulder on Jun 4, 2024 15:08:02 GMT
Dipped in and out of a commentary channel, on youtube, hoping to hear his name, but never did, and turned it off, cursing southgate. Pleased to bits for him, to finally get on ! Aside from the sell-on, do we have any other clauses ? Is it a sole payment for a single England appearance, or could we get more for say 5/10 appearances ? Going by Football Manager, those clauses only tend to be for 1 game. . All depends of what the deal is , rumour is it's a sell on percentage , although some of said it's a profit percentage which would mean any payments from England caps would be taken off . So benefits depend on structure of the deal . Why is that btw? Not being funny and I know it is a computer game but you set a deal for a 1st cap and another for either percentage of profit or whole transfer fee, you get paid out if both happen, I don't see the coralation as to why him getting a cap means we get less when sold, pointless having both in the deal if that was the case, surely they are seperate entities?
|
|
|
Post by munchymagic on Jun 4, 2024 15:31:25 GMT
Wouldn't it be funny if Holdsworth had done a fantastic deal after the dogs abuse we all gave him previously.
If you think of it though, Holdsworth's ego and wanting to prove that he could do his role and negotiate the Branthwaite move to Everton might have done us a right favour.
From previous transfer sales you just know that Jenkins would have took 250k and a 5% sell on, a jubilant Nixon in the ENS claiming his role with the FA taught him how to get the best price possible for the club.
|
|
|
Post by wukkie on Jun 4, 2024 15:42:09 GMT
I still wouldn't trust Holdworth as far as I could scop him.
|
|
|
Post by dstander on Jun 4, 2024 19:02:13 GMT
. All depends of what the deal is , rumour is it's a sell on percentage , although some of said it's a profit percentage which would mean any payments from England caps would be taken off . So benefits depend on structure of the deal . Why is that btw? Not being funny and I know it is a computer game but you set a deal for a 1st cap and another for either percentage of profit or whole transfer fee, you get paid out if both happen, I don't see the coralation as to why him getting a cap means we get less when sold, pointless having both in the deal if that was the case, surely they are seperate entities? Because the profit made by Everton would decrease if they had to pay us out for an international cap, although it doesn’t alter the final figure all that much. In a purely fictional scenario, if a player is originally sold for £1m then moves on again for £21m with the original club solely getting 10% of profit then the legacy payment is a simple 10% of £20m = £2m. If it’s 10% of profit, 500k for 50 games and £500k for an international cap (both of which he meets), it then becomes 10% of £19m = £1.9m
|
|
|
Post by heyheyalanshoulder on Jun 4, 2024 19:14:50 GMT
Why is that btw? Not being funny and I know it is a computer game but you set a deal for a 1st cap and another for either percentage of profit or whole transfer fee, you get paid out if both happen, I don't see the coralation as to why him getting a cap means we get less when sold, pointless having both in the deal if that was the case, surely they are seperate entities? Because the profit made by Everton would decrease if they had to pay us out for an international cap, although it doesn’t alter the final figure all that much. In a purely fictional scenario, if a player is originally sold for £1m then moves on again for £21m with the original club solely getting 10% of profit then the legacy payment is a simple 10% of £20m = £2m. If it’s 10% of profit, 500k for 50 games and £500k for an international cap (both of which he meets), it then becomes 10% of £19m = £1.9m I understand that maths when set out like that but why is it even n play, it is two separate clauses, pay us 100k for an INT cap and then 17% of the future transfer fee, to me they are not linked together. Take it a step further and say you also add in set fees at 20, 40, 60 and 100 appearances etc 50k a time, again to me this is a separate clause in the deal, it is not part of any future profit, it is an agreed clause to get us to sell the player to that club and is used to generally keep the initial transfer fee lower. You could go further for strikers and add in goals scored etc but none of this should be affecting the sell on fee as it is a stand alone clause imo Surely the claue is profit on the sale price over the fee they paid, not overall profit on the player or you'd get some sharp guy trying to take his wages off the bill
|
|
|
Post by dstander on Jun 4, 2024 19:21:26 GMT
Because the profit made by Everton would decrease if they had to pay us out for an international cap, although it doesn’t alter the final figure all that much. In a purely fictional scenario, if a player is originally sold for £1m then moves on again for £21m with the original club solely getting 10% of profit then the legacy payment is a simple 10% of £20m = £2m. If it’s 10% of profit, 500k for 50 games and £500k for an international cap (both of which he meets), it then becomes 10% of £19m = £1.9m I understand that maths when set out like that but why is it ieven n play, it is two seperate clauses, pay us 100k for an INT cap and then 17% of the future transfer fee, to me they are not linked together. Take it a step further and say you also add in set fees at 20, 40, 60 and 100 appearances etc 50k a time, again to me this is a seperate clause in the deal, it is not part of any future profit, it is an agreed clause to get us to sell the player to that club and is used to generally keep the initial transfer fee lower. You could go further for strikers and add in goals scored etc but none of this should be affecting the sell on fee as it is a stand alone clause imo That’s why it depends on what sort of sell-on it actually is. If it’s 15% of the future transfer fee then that’s exactly what it is, 15% of £70m for instance = £10.5m. If it’s 15% of any profit Everton make then it’s 15% of (£70m minus any payments already made (initial fee, appearances fees, international cap fee, etc)).
|
|
|
Post by heyheyalanshoulder on Jun 4, 2024 19:35:01 GMT
I understand that maths when set out like that but why is it ieven n play, it is two seperate clauses, pay us 100k for an INT cap and then 17% of the future transfer fee, to me they are not linked together. Take it a step further and say you also add in set fees at 20, 40, 60 and 100 appearances etc 50k a time, again to me this is a seperate clause in the deal, it is not part of any future profit, it is an agreed clause to get us to sell the player to that club and is used to generally keep the initial transfer fee lower. You could go further for strikers and add in goals scored etc but none of this should be affecting the sell on fee as it is a stand alone clause imo That’s why it depends on what sort of sell-on it actually is. If it’s 15% of the future transfer fee then that’s exactly what it is, 15% of £70m for instance = £10.5m. If it’s 15% of any profit Everton make then it’s 15% of (£70m minus any payments already made (initial fee, appearances fees, international cap fee, etc)). but that would surely still have to be worded different, 15% of profit on sale is surely profit above the 1m fee the rest are surely separate clause in a contract? The key words in your sentence there is of ANY profit opposed to than just on selling as a straight transfer fee profit. Though when I tried to look up an example I found a BHA site discussing percentage on profit over percentage on fee, it was quite interesting and even Carlisle got a mention, it would explain why big transfer fees are settled on profit over top end fee percentage. The guy used Caceido as an example, I'll put the link up, it isn't really relevant to our discusion as such but was a good example of sell on fee profit www.northstandchat.com/threads/how-transfer-sell-on-clauses-typically-work.402928/
|
|
|
Post by dstander on Jun 4, 2024 19:51:19 GMT
That’s why it depends on what sort of sell-on it actually is. If it’s 15% of the future transfer fee then that’s exactly what it is, 15% of £70m for instance = £10.5m. If it’s 15% of any profit Everton make then it’s 15% of (£70m minus any payments already made (initial fee, appearances fees, international cap fee, etc)). but that would surely still have to be worded different, 15% of profit on sale is surely profit above the 1m fee the rest are surely separate clause in a contract? The key words in your sentence there is of ANY profit opposed to than just on selling as a straight transfer fee profit. Though when I tried to look up an example I found a BHA site discussing percentage on profit over percentage on fee, it was quite interesting and even Carlisle got a mention, it would explain why big transfer fees are settled on profit over top end fee percentage. The guy used Caceido as an example, I'll put the link up, it isn't really relevant to our discusion as such but was a good example of sell on fee profit www.northstandchat.com/threads/how-transfer-sell-on-clauses-typically-work.402928/The link is basically what I illustrated above! If there’s a sell-on plus clauses then the profit is the profit Everton make on the deal. If they’ve had to pay Carlisle out several times due to add-ons being met then that reduces the profit Everton make. Of course they would have to be worded different, but as the article in the link says, they are loads of different variations of sell-on deals which can be done. Entirely up to the two clubs involved how the deal is worded and works.
|
|
|
Post by heyheyalanshoulder on Jun 4, 2024 20:00:19 GMT
but that would surely still have to be worded different, 15% of profit on sale is surely profit above the 1m fee the rest are surely separate clause in a contract? The key words in your sentence there is of ANY profit opposed to than just on selling as a straight transfer fee profit. Though when I tried to look up an example I found a BHA site discussing percentage on profit over percentage on fee, it was quite interesting and even Carlisle got a mention, it would explain why big transfer fees are settled on profit over top end fee percentage. The guy used Caceido as an example, I'll put the link up, it isn't really relevant to our discusion as such but was a good example of sell on fee profit www.northstandchat.com/threads/how-transfer-sell-on-clauses-typically-work.402928/The link is basically what I illustrated above! If there’s a sell-on plus clauses then the profit is the profit Everton make on the deal. If they’ve had to pay Carlisle out several times due to add-ons being met then that reduces the profit Everton make. Of course they would have to be worded different, but as the article in the link says, they are loads of different variations of sell-on deals which can be done. Entirely up to the two clubs involved how the deal is worded and works. I meant in the link the part where BHA could have had CFCs pants down if the deal was a sell on on total transfer fee, CFC would still lose money if they sold Caicedo for the same amount they paid for him. The last part was pretty much what I was getting at all along. Be interesting to see what the actual deal is when he eventually gets sold, let's hope EFC get the 90m they want for him, they needto get City interested in him to at least get a bidding war going.
|
|
|
Post by northernsoul on Jun 5, 2024 6:15:37 GMT
Isnt this all irrelevant as the last i heard you didnt get caps for playing in games deemed as friendlies
|
|
|
Post by kickergold on Jun 5, 2024 7:12:55 GMT
Isnt this all irrelevant as the last i heard you didnt get caps for playing in games deemed as friendlies This would suggest not I guess. I didn't know about that rule tbh.
|
|