[Albion] Viktor Gyokeres

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

Surely our sell on clause was only for Coventry rather than any further

Yes but as mentioned in this thread a few times. Any future fees paid to Coventry form part of the overall transfer fee they’ve received for the player and we will still be due our percentage of those fees.

I gave an example above that Barnsley were due a small payment from the bonus Everton got when John Stones won the Champions League with Man City as it still trickles down. As the player moves on further in his career those amounts become smaller and smaller, and if a club just sell for a flat fee with no add ons and bonus payments etc then the money would stop after any initial payment due from that final deal.

 

[sparkie]

Surely our sell on clause was only for Coventry rather than any further

Sure not how it actually works.

In practice we'll get a sell-on % of a sell-on %... and further sell-ons down the line if profit is made on future deals.

 

[Horses Arse]

Scored 9 in 12 appearances for Sporting. Now reportedly being lined up for Chelsea.

got bored of watching that highlights real - does he actually score in it?

 

[GT49er]

Sure not how it actually works.

In practice we'll get a sell-on % of a sell-on %... and further sell-ons down the line if profit is made on future deals.

Will we though? Assuming we did put a sell on clause when we sold him to Coventry, that would be inserted into the contract as a legally binding agreement. Coventry pay us whatever percentage - of profit or the total fee, whichever has been agreed - because they are legally bound to do so.
But we have no contract with Sporting Lisbon, and they are under no obligation to enter into a contract with us. If they have agreed a sell on clause with Coventry, we may get a bit dribbled down, but if there's no sell on clause that's the end of it for us.

 

[peterward]

got bored of watching that highlights real - does he actually score in it?

Should keep watching. Scores some good goals, 4 are pens and a couple of dodgy keepers, but in general looks pretty decent touch and finish for a bigger fella.

Similar physical stature to Evan Ferguson.

 

[AstroSloth]

Will we though? Assuming we did put a sell on clause when we sold him to Coventry, that would be inserted into the contract as a legally binding agreement. Coventry pay us whatever percentage - of profit or the total fee, whichever has been agreed - because they are legally bound to do so.
But we have no contract with Sporting Lisbon, and they are under no obligation to enter into a contract with us. If they have agreed a sell on clause with Coventry, we may get a bit dribbled down, but if there's no sell on clause that's the end of it for us.

Yes but the money that goes from Sporting Lisbon to Coventry as sell on profit is then profit on the transfer for Coventry.

This then entitles us to a % of that additional profit.

For example if he cost sporting £20m and sells for £50m and Coventry have a 20% of profit sell on clause and we have a 20% of profit sell on for the original transfer.

Sporting would then owe Coventry 20% of the £30m profit = £6m.

We would then be owed 20% of that £6m profit = £1.2m.

 

[albionalex]

I admire your confidence about something you are entirely wrong about.

If the sell-on clause stopped the second Coventry sold the player then why wouldn't they have sold him for a fiver + £xm when he makes 1 appearance?

Sometimes a modicum of common sense goes a long way.

Any add-ons e.g £xm after one appearance would be classed as part of the transfer fee, so any % would need to be paid on that.

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

Any add-ons e.g £xm after one appearance would be classed as part of the transfer fee, so any % would need to be paid on that.

That is exactly the point @Whitechapel is making.

 

[Super Steve Earle]

Surely our sell on clause was only for Coventry rather than any further

Have you just jumped in without reading ghe rest of the thread. If so, read the subsequent posts to yours. If not

 

[Springal]

Have you just jumped in without reading ghe rest of the thread. If so, read the subsequent posts to yours. If not

How could I have read the subsequent posts to mine ?

 

[GT49er]

Yes but the money that goes from Sporting Lisbon to Coventry as sell on profit is then profit on the transfer for Coventry.

This then entitles us to a % of that additional profit.

For example if he cost sporting £20m and sells for £50m and Coventry have a 20% of profit sell on clause and we have a 20% of profit sell on for the original transfer.

Sporting would then owe Coventry 20% of the £30m profit = £6m.

We would then be owed 20% of that £6m profit = £1.2m.

Yes - IF Sporting Lisbon had agreed to a sell on clause. They are under no obligation to agree one.

 

[AstroSloth]

Yes - IF Sporting Lisbon had agreed to a sell on clause. They are under no obligation to agree one.

It's widely reported that Coventry have a sell on clause, rumoured to be 20% of profit.

 

[Whitechapel]

Any add-ons e.g £xm after one appearance would be classed as part of the transfer fee, so any % would need to be paid on that.

That’s the point I’m making.

If it was simply a case of getting a percentage of the original transfer fee then teams would sell players for next to nothing with incredibly simple fees making up the actual bulk of the transfer.

Why would Coventry sell Gyokeres for £20m and give us 20% when they could give us 20% of a £1 and then receive £19,999,999 when he makes 1 appearance?

You only have to look at Sala to Cardiff to realise clubs will do anything possible to get out of paying for a player if they can.

 

[Super Steve Earle]

How could I have read the subsequent posts to mine ?

You posted at 7.19 am. I replied at 8.06pm, encouraging you to read the posts subsequent to yours I.e. those in the ensuing 13 hours between yours and mine, IF you had not read the explanations prior to yours.

 

[AlbionInUs]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"> Sporting manager Amorim on new links for Viktor Gyokeres and PL clubs: “He will only leave if someone pays the buyout clause in January — otherwise he will stay”.<br><br>Release clause: €100m. <a href="https://t.co/0y9H9OAmk9">pic.twitter.com/0y9H9OAmk9</a></p>&mdash; Fabrizio Romano (@FabrizioRomano) <a href="">December 18, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Scored yet again tonight, in top of the table clash with Porto.

 

[Simster]

Scored yet again tonight, in top of the table clash with Porto.

Just seen it. Absolutely superb goal - showed the electrifying pace that we didn't see any of when he was with us.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Just seen it. Absolutely superb goal - showed the electrifying pace that we didn't see any of when he was with us.

TBF unless you watched a lot of u23's you'd have barely seen him.

To me the lesson is to those who continually write off our players at the age of 18 or 19.

 

[Simster]

TBF unless you watched a lot of u23's you'd have barely seen him.

To me the lesson is to those who continually write off our players at the age of 18 or 19.

Fair.

Also, his goal against Benfica 3 weeks ago was absolutely terrific (although they somehow lost thanks to two injury time goals)

 

[Stat Brother]