Knight's sell on cost

[Yorkie]

The Argus makes it a little clearer (probably).

Meanwhile, Albion are hoping mega-rich Chelsea will waive the £37,500 cut they are due from Knight's £125,000 switch to Swansea last week.

Knight cost £50,000 when his goals led the Seagulls to promotion two seasons ago and the runaway Premiership leaders also had a 50 per cent sell-on.

 

[hitony]

The Argus makes it a little clearer (probably).

Meanwhile, Albion are hoping mega-rich Chelsea will waive the £37,500 cut they are due from Knight's £125,000 switch to Swansea last week.

Knight cost £50,000 when his goals led the Seagulls to promotion two seasons ago and the runaway Premiership leaders also had a 50 per cent sell-on.

In all fairness, it wouldnt hurt Chelski to waive the money, as reported in many other threads / posts, its not like they are desperate for the money, well if they can consider an 80 million loss as good on there first year of trading under Roman, £37.500 to them, is about the same as 10p to you and me

 

[Horses Arse]

Crystal clear I reckon, 50% of the sum over our original fee.

Where on earth did the £100,000 fee for Leon come from?

Makes Turienzo look an absolute steal at £150K!

 

[Yorkie]

Crystal clear I reckon, 50% of the sum over our original fee.

Where on earth did the £100,000 fee for Leon come from?

Makes Turienzo look an absolute steal at £150K!

Where did the £150K come from? His fee has never been disclosed. Six figures have been mentioned but that could be including wages, appearance money etc etc.

 

[Icy Gull]

Where did the £150K come from? His fee has never been disclosed. Six figures have been mentioned but that could be including wages, appearance money etc etc.

Yorkie, please stop trying to lighten the stick beating of McGhee's transfer activities, thanks

 

[Woodchip]

Yorkie, please stop trying to lighten the stick beating of McGhee's transfer activities, thanks

Errrr, Carole, Frutos, possibly Hendo. He's not that bad in the market, just a bit naff on the sidelines when the pressure is on.

 

[GUNTER]

Why should Chelsea waive it. Although it would be nice, from a business perspective, they run a business not a charity.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Why should Chelsea waive it. Although it would be nice, from a business perspective, they run a business not a charity.

The same reason why Man U waived the ticket revenue for Exeter. Good PR for the club....

 

[Silent Bob]

Why should Chelsea waive it. Although it would be nice, from a business perspective, they run a business not a charity.

Because it is a total and utter irrelevance to them. It's not even pocket change to Abramovich, if he saw it lying in the street he would't bother bending down to get it.



I hope.

 

[BensGrandad]

Insider has confirmed that it is 50% of any profit made from his sale.

How easy is it to not make a profit on a sale so that we dont have to give Chelski anything.

 

[Everest]

How easy is it to not make a profit on a sale so that we dont have to give Chelski anything.

But if we did that, we'd be missing out on extra money.

 

[BensGrandad]

But if we did that, we'd be missing out on extra money.

I was thinking along the lines that you add everything together like agents fees travel etc to arrange the transfer so as to use up the money I am not an accountant but dont they call it something like 'creative accounting'.

eg original cost of purchase £50k
Agents fees 10% 5k
Meeting and travel etc 3k
Total 58k

Therefore at a sale price of £125k 50% profit would be £33,500.

I don't know if that is possible or even legal just a suggestion to shaft Chelski and to give them less of the £125k

 

[Yorkie]

So you would do all that just to save £4,000?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I suspect that if Chelsea give us £37,500, Crewe Alexandra might be on the phone to them, asking for a similar favour.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Tight fists

I see Insider has finally confirmed that Chelsea did not waive the sell on clause.

I understand they shouldn't have to, but really....!!

 

[Rangdo]

Tight fists

I see Insider has finally confirmed that Chelsea did not waive the sell on clause.

I understand they shouldn't have to, but really....!!

We signed him on those terms so no complaints really.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Quite Chelsea still have bills to pay.

 

[Albion Rob]

Quite Chelsea still have bills to pay.

Innit. The money will cover Bollock's wages for two days.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

I think they are bitter about their drubbing at Withdean.

I know they have bills to pay etc. but I would have hoped that a club of their means would waive such a pawltry figure. In the same way that Clubs allow the opponents to take all the gate receipts from the championship playoff and along the lines of Man Utd letting Exeter keep all the TV money from their FA cup tie.