| Clucas deal specifics. 18:24 - Aug 21 with 17342 views | E20Jack |
I read the main Clucas thread and didnt see it clarified anywhere.
£16.5m is the total value of the package it is reported. I read one person say £15m + £1.5m in add-ons.. But where does that leave Kingsley? He is worth a couple of million surely?
£12m + £1.5m add ons + £3m Kingsley? =£16.5m.
Surely it isnt £16.5m AND Kingsley on top.... is it?
EDIT - just saw it in the Kingsley thread funnily enough. Ignore this! [Post edited 21 Aug 2017 18:25]
|  |
| |  |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 10:44 - Aug 22 with 1625 views | WarwickHunt |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 10:43 - Aug 22 by E20Jack |
As opposed to you making it up on the spot? And posting a link to the Salah deal which showed it was on the profit where as the same source also stated that it was on the full fee of the Gylfi deal you mean? What a moron 
As you have been told many times by a few now. Sell on deals steuctured on the full fee are perfectly possible. Get stocking up on those pineapples now.  |
Tedious. Cünt. |  | | |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 10:45 - Aug 22 with 1622 views | E20Jack |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 10:43 - Aug 22 by one_upmanship |
I'm glad I was on the right track. I did try the same but it fell on deaf ears. |
Ah so when you said that it was not based on the whole concept of the sell on fee that we were debating, it was regarding the fact that the bickering was annoying.
Yes I agree, but that is besides the point isnt it now?  | |
| |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 10:46 - Aug 22 with 1617 views | E20Jack |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 10:44 - Aug 22 by WarwickHunt |
Tedious. Cünt. |
Old timer. Moron.
This is fun. I guess it makes a change from battering you with your own stupidity  | |
| |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 10:47 - Aug 22 with 1611 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 10:35 - Aug 22 by E20Jack |
That is certainly how you wanted it to come across as I am sure, however by stating that it is perfectly possible that the deal was structured on the whole fee is where you entered the realm of my side, unfortunately for yourself that is. That is my point in a nutshell. |
What do you mean unfortunately for myself? As I said, I said the same thing at least a week ago.
I'm also saying that just because reports say something doesn't mean they've are right.
A few years ago, every single newspaper report swore blind that Neil Taylor had a release clause of a million quid and was going to Newcastle. Every single one. Not one said anything different.
Every single report was wrong. I don't understand the obsession carrying on arguing constantly and I certainly don't understand the obsession that you have with trying to make out others can't understand your point.
I'm sure Warwick can understand the concept of a percentage being applied to the fee, he's just saying it's stupid. And it is. |  | | |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 10:53 - Aug 22 with 1593 views | WarwickHunt |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 10:46 - Aug 22 by E20Jack |
Old timer. Moron.
This is fun. I guess it makes a change from battering you with your own stupidity |
Yes, and "analysing risks" in the City.  | | | |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 10:55 - Aug 22 with 1589 views | E20Jack |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 10:47 - Aug 22 by londonlisa2001 |
What do you mean unfortunately for myself? As I said, I said the same thing at least a week ago.
I'm also saying that just because reports say something doesn't mean they've are right.
A few years ago, every single newspaper report swore blind that Neil Taylor had a release clause of a million quid and was going to Newcastle. Every single one. Not one said anything different.
Every single report was wrong. I don't understand the obsession carrying on arguing constantly and I certainly don't understand the obsession that you have with trying to make out others can't understand your point.
I'm sure Warwick can understand the concept of a percentage being applied to the fee, he's just saying it's stupid. And it is. |
I said that because I don't believe it was your intention to enter my side of the debate. I also think if you knew that then you wouldn't have entered it.
Far more reports are right than wrong. Reports also woukd have suggested that Taylor was moving to Villa, which proved correct. Taylor may also have had a release clause at the time of writing and reached an agreement for an amendment to his contract in return for a bump in pay due to the promotion to the Premier League.
My point is that if every single report suggests that 10% was on the full fee (which is not in any way shape or form "stupid" considering the nature if the swap deal) and many transfers have been structured in this way previous... It is logical to assume this is the case until reported otherwise. Stay neutral and undecided is also fine.
However what is completely illogical is to state these deals DO NOT happen and every report in history regarding deals such as this must be wrong as a result. I am stating the oppsosite, as are you - it is entirely possible this deal was structured in this way.
These deals do happen, usually it seems when the intitial transfer is not considered the norm (Cornelius, Gylfi, Ben, youth player wih mass potential). There is not a single reason to claim the opposite.
As for arguing. An argument is a two way street. The one to blame, I would suggest, and as common sense would surely dictate - is the one that started it and the one participating in continuing it, not the one who made the intial on topic staement backed up by worldwide reports and the subsequent replies to said argumentative retorts. Go to page one and decide whom that refers to.  [Post edited 22 Aug 2017 11:02]
| |
| |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 10:57 - Aug 22 with 1579 views | E20Jack |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 10:53 - Aug 22 by WarwickHunt |
Yes, and "analysing risks" in the City. |
Yes great fun. Almost as fun as pineapple watching and being a general moron, old man | |
| |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 10:59 - Aug 22 with 1568 views | one_upmanship |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 10:45 - Aug 22 by E20Jack |
Ah so when you said that it was not based on the whole concept of the sell on fee that we were debating, it was regarding the fact that the bickering was annoying.
Yes I agree, but that is besides the point isnt it now? |
What?! I think you will find I said on atleast 3 occasions- all figures that you read & base your knowledge on are imaginary. The links you provide (the ones that work anyway) are from journalists who in the next breath say something different in the next article. For example, some now state the fee being at £42m.
Now, once more, get a grip & move on. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Clucas deal specifics. on 11:06 - Aug 22 with 1525 views | E20Jack |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 10:59 - Aug 22 by one_upmanship |
What?! I think you will find I said on atleast 3 occasions- all figures that you read & base your knowledge on are imaginary. The links you provide (the ones that work anyway) are from journalists who in the next breath say something different in the next article. For example, some now state the fee being at £42m.
Now, once more, get a grip & move on. |
Again, we aren't debating the fee (check on page 1 what the debate is about if confused).
We are debating the common denominator - the sell on deal and the structures of said deals globally. One side claimed it does not happen and is not the case and therefor ever report in history regarding these deals are incorrect, the other has said that they do happen and provided many reported links to many transfers claiming this to be the case.
Now once more, take in what is being said. Not what you want to think is being said. [Post edited 22 Aug 2017 11:07]
| |
| |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 11:06 - Aug 22 with 1522 views | WarwickHunt |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 10:55 - Aug 22 by E20Jack |
I said that because I don't believe it was your intention to enter my side of the debate. I also think if you knew that then you wouldn't have entered it.
Far more reports are right than wrong. Reports also woukd have suggested that Taylor was moving to Villa, which proved correct. Taylor may also have had a release clause at the time of writing and reached an agreement for an amendment to his contract in return for a bump in pay due to the promotion to the Premier League.
My point is that if every single report suggests that 10% was on the full fee (which is not in any way shape or form "stupid" considering the nature if the swap deal) and many transfers have been structured in this way previous... It is logical to assume this is the case until reported otherwise. Stay neutral and undecided is also fine.
However what is completely illogical is to state these deals DO NOT happen and every report in history regarding deals such as this must be wrong as a result. I am stating the oppsosite, as are you - it is entirely possible this deal was structured in this way.
These deals do happen, usually it seems when the intitial transfer is not considered the norm (Cornelius, Gylfi, Ben, youth player wih mass potential). There is not a single reason to claim the opposite.
As for arguing. An argument is a two way street. The one to blame, I would suggest, and as common sense would surely dictate - is the one that started it and the one participating in continuing it, not the one who made the intial on topic staement backed up by worldwide reports and the subsequent replies to said argumentative retorts. Go to page one and decide whom that refers to. [Post edited 22 Aug 2017 11:02]
|
Brevity.
Look it up, fückwit. | | | |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 11:09 - Aug 22 with 1508 views | E20Jack |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 11:06 - Aug 22 by WarwickHunt |
Brevity.
Look it up, fückwit. |
Incongruous.
Look it up old timer. | |
| |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 11:12 - Aug 22 with 1487 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 10:55 - Aug 22 by E20Jack |
I said that because I don't believe it was your intention to enter my side of the debate. I also think if you knew that then you wouldn't have entered it.
Far more reports are right than wrong. Reports also woukd have suggested that Taylor was moving to Villa, which proved correct. Taylor may also have had a release clause at the time of writing and reached an agreement for an amendment to his contract in return for a bump in pay due to the promotion to the Premier League.
My point is that if every single report suggests that 10% was on the full fee (which is not in any way shape or form "stupid" considering the nature if the swap deal) and many transfers have been structured in this way previous... It is logical to assume this is the case until reported otherwise. Stay neutral and undecided is also fine.
However what is completely illogical is to state these deals DO NOT happen and every report in history regarding deals such as this must be wrong as a result. I am stating the oppsosite, as are you - it is entirely possible this deal was structured in this way.
These deals do happen, usually it seems when the intitial transfer is not considered the norm (Cornelius, Gylfi, Ben, youth player wih mass potential). There is not a single reason to claim the opposite.
As for arguing. An argument is a two way street. The one to blame, I would suggest, and as common sense would surely dictate - is the one that started it and the one participating in continuing it, not the one who made the intial on topic staement backed up by worldwide reports and the subsequent replies to said argumentative retorts. Go to page one and decide whom that refers to. [Post edited 22 Aug 2017 11:02]
|
You believe that I was incapable of understanding the argument or that I was incapable of understanding what I posted myself?
Genuinely, you are being ridiculous now.
Let me put this as simply as possible. I don't care whose 'side' I'm taking when I post my opinion.
The reason being, I'm not 12. | | | |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 11:15 - Aug 22 with 1479 views | E20Jack |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 11:12 - Aug 22 by londonlisa2001 |
You believe that I was incapable of understanding the argument or that I was incapable of understanding what I posted myself?
Genuinely, you are being ridiculous now.
Let me put this as simply as possible. I don't care whose 'side' I'm taking when I post my opinion.
The reason being, I'm not 12. |
Not incapable, no. Understandably didn't read through 5 pages of bickering to fully understand what has been said is more likely. Unless you did enter the debate with the intention to shadow my thoughts in which I then apologise unreservedly for my assumption.
The bottom line is we both agree that the Gylfi deal is perfectly possible to be structured on the full transfer fee. The other side disagrees with that notion. Anything else is irrelevant and merely a side issue. [Post edited 22 Aug 2017 11:16]
| |
| |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 11:26 - Aug 22 with 1437 views | one_upmanship |
Wow, I give up. You just can't comprehend 'your facts' are based on fictional reports by journalists.
No one knows apart from the clubs - who haven't released any information. | | | |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 11:32 - Aug 22 with 1423 views | E20Jack |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 11:26 - Aug 22 by one_upmanship |
Wow, I give up. You just can't comprehend 'your facts' are based on fictional reports by journalists.
No one knows apart from the clubs - who haven't released any information. |
Again you are missing the point spectacularly.
The debate is regarding the notion of a sell on fee. I refer you to post 19 on page 1.
It stated that my figures, which admittedly are based on worldwide reports (and stated at the time), WERE WRONG because sell on fees are not structured in this way. On post 25 of page 1 the same poster went on to confuse what the phrase "sell-on" actually means. Which is probably the basis for his lack of understanding of the concept. I pointed out that if I bought something for £1000 and sold it on for £900 - I would still be selling it on, regardless of profit or loss. So the fact it is called a sell on, refers to what triggers the clause - that simple.
All the bumf regarding reports and figures are a side issue. A side issue that backs my case? Sure. But a side issue all the same. The point in hand was one persons misunderstanding of the sell on part of deals assuming they are rigidly conducted in a solitary way - which is not the case. | |
| |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 11:46 - Aug 22 with 1371 views | one_upmanship |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 11:32 - Aug 22 by E20Jack |
Again you are missing the point spectacularly.
The debate is regarding the notion of a sell on fee. I refer you to post 19 on page 1.
It stated that my figures, which admittedly are based on worldwide reports (and stated at the time), WERE WRONG because sell on fees are not structured in this way. On post 25 of page 1 the same poster went on to confuse what the phrase "sell-on" actually means. Which is probably the basis for his lack of understanding of the concept. I pointed out that if I bought something for £1000 and sold it on for £900 - I would still be selling it on, regardless of profit or loss. So the fact it is called a sell on, refers to what triggers the clause - that simple.
All the bumf regarding reports and figures are a side issue. A side issue that backs my case? Sure. But a side issue all the same. The point in hand was one persons misunderstanding of the sell on part of deals assuming they are rigidly conducted in a solitary way - which is not the case. |
No - you have & continue to miss the point spectacularly. I do not care.
You have no knowledge of any sell on fee regarding this deal, whether this is final fee or profit based or indeed exists. Any knowledge you believe you have is from fictional journalism.
Please accept you are just as right as the other person you mention. Mainly due to the fact it is make believe.
I also have a bag of magic beans I would be willing to sell you (no sell on fee included) | | | |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 12:38 - Aug 22 with 1283 views | snork44 |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 12:04 - Aug 22 by E20Jack |
So you claim I am missing the point and in doing so spectcularly miss the point. A wonderful oxymoron of which not even the news sources could make up.
Again, the discussion is regarding sell on fees and their structures. One party claims they are only structured in one way and revealed the basis of his misunderstanding by his explanation if the term "sell on". The other party explained that the term sell on is a trigger term for a sale and not an explanation of profit. So in summary it is entirely possible that this transfer is indeed how every single global report has claimed and how many have been done previously as the accounts of Barnsley and Cardiff will no doubt show, to name but two.
For the purpose of balance you have said the global reports are based on fiction, but you don't actually know that, do you? The source of information could very well be someone involved in the deal as are many/majority of the reports that turn out to be true - like Bony to Man City for example. The agreement was leaked several months later showing said reports to be correct - yet neother club officially released the details.
There is a chance it may not be structured like that too of course, but that is not the debate - and I have not argued otherwise. The debate is the global reports vs the person who claims they are certainly wrong based on a misunderstanding of the term. I will happily go with the global reports until I am informed otherwise, as will most I presume. And of course, as common sense dictates.
No thank you regarding the beans, although if we did the deal in which you gave them to me on the proviso I would give you 10% of the value I recieved when I sold them on - thats exactly what I would do. [Post edited 22 Aug 2017 12:14]
|
Sorry to break into this little bitchfest (this wasn't aimed at you Lisa, as I respect and admire your opinion, it was aimed at the two squabbling five year olds in E20 and Warwick Hunt). When is this transfer going to announced as so far we have had a bid accepted by Hull or will it last as long as the Siggy saga? Somehow I get this image of Huw counting the pennies from a upturned giant Bells whisky bottle in Chateau Jenkins with him mumbling "11 f*cking million,11 f*cking MILLION !!" [Post edited 22 Aug 2017 14:37]
|  |
| |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 13:06 - Aug 22 with 1236 views | E20Jack |
What has the Resurrection got to do with this?  | |
| |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 14:17 - Aug 22 with 1160 views | awayjack |
I know it's a forum but far too many threads overtaken by petty bickering between a few posters.
Back to thread title, does anyone have any more details on transfer and how Kingsley is structure as part of deal. With those new cosy relationship with Yanks, do the Trist have any details? |  | | |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 14:46 - Aug 22 with 1101 views | one_upmanship |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 14:17 - Aug 22 by awayjack |
I know it's a forum but far too many threads overtaken by petty bickering between a few posters.
Back to thread title, does anyone have any more details on transfer and how Kingsley is structure as part of deal. With those new cosy relationship with Yanks, do the Trist have any details? |
I've been asking the same question with regards to Kingsley. Think if we sell for 5m plus addons, then we are getting a home grown, 1st team player for £10m. He can also play in several positions which ties in with the gaffers need for a smaller, better equipped squad - even though he may not have had the final decision. | | | |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 12:23 - Aug 23 with 883 views | Devz00 |
Not wanting to take sides or anything with E20 and Warwick but the Clucas deal means Chesterfield get some money due to a sell-on clause. They get 5% of profit.
http://www.derbyshiretimes.co.uk/sport/football/spireites-set-for-massive-pay-da |  |
| Genetically, paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me. Now that is scientific fact. There's no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact. |
| |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 13:00 - Aug 23 with 849 views | E20Jack |
There is no side to be taken Devz. The discussion is not about the Clucas deal, it is about the Sigurdsson sell on deal reported worldwide as being on the full fee, just as many before it have been and many will be after. They are not related, as I have stated these deals can be - and are - structured either way.
Just as in Callum Pattersons move to Cardiff includes a deal for 15% of ANY transfer fee received...
"Hearts have secured a future sell-on fee for Callum Paterson should Cardiff City cash in on the Scotland defender. The English Championship club will pay Hearts around £400,000 after signing the 22-year-old youth academy graduate on a three-year contract.
Paterson also requested that a sell-on clause be inserted in the deal, which is believed to be 15 per cent of any future transfer money . The Cardiff City manager Neil Warnock confirmed the agreement to the Evening News as the right-back severed ties at Tynecastle after seven years."
[Post edited 23 Aug 2017 13:25]
| |
| |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 13:10 - Aug 23 with 813 views | macthejack |
This forums gone to the dogs. |  | | |
| Clucas deal specifics. on 13:17 - Aug 23 with 794 views | E20Jack |
And funnily enough upon checking whether to trade out Van Dijk in my fantasy football draft, I searched the latest transfer news on him and stumbled across this...
"Celtic must wait for £5m windfall for £50m rated defender.
Van Dijk was a fans favourite at Celtic Park
It’s understood the Hoops are due a 10 per cent slice of any transfer fee when Van Dijk does eventually leave Saints.
“Virgil is a very important player for us and he will stay here.
“It will be important with Virgil to continue his work and help us go up on the table.
“For me it’s not an idea or view with Virgil to leave.” [Post edited 23 Aug 2017 13:21]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
