Town chief executive Simon Clegg has revealed that the club will pay the Official Receiver cash relating to the sell-on clause agreed with the now wound-up Chester City when Jon Walters joined the Blues in 2007. A sell-on of 20% was included in the deal, along with an initial fee of £100,000 plus another £100,000 on the player’s appearances and based on Town’s performances.

Walters was sold to Stoke City yesterday for a fee of £2.75 million rising to £3.25 million and Clegg has confirmed that the Blues will make a payment to what remains of the old Chester City club: "I can confirm that while Chester City FC was wound up in March 2010 it remains a legal entity and is controlled by the Official Receiver.

"I can also confirm that our respective lawyers have recently reached a mutually agreeable financial settlement in respect of the contracted sell-on clause in Jon Walters's contract which was triggered by yesterday's sale."

As reported yesterday, the new club formed from the ashes of the old one over the summer, Chester FC, is not entitled to any of the cash.

Photo: Action Images

ITFCkezza added 13:27 - Aug 19 boobs
0

notoriousITFC added 13:29 - Aug 19 still a lot of money to town... Walters is good but he's not that good! i would have thought he is a bit too short for Stoke!
0

Suffolk_n_Good added 13:30 - Aug 19 So by "reaching a mutually agreeable financial settlement in respect of the sell-on clause in Walters' contract" does that mean we've not paid as much as we would have done if the OLD Chester City were still a football club & not a legal entity?! Why is it whenever Clegg speaks, it creates more questions than bloody answers?!?!
0

oldbluestu added 13:32 - Aug 19 Good hoepfully it means we didn't pay the full amount we owed. After all when Chester were wound-up they never paid the full amount to every person/company who they owned money too, it would have been a % of the debt. So why should we have to pay the full amount to them. It's tough I know but it's business
0

FifeITFC added 13:32 - Aug 19 I wonder if that amount of money would have been enough to save the original Chester City FC?
0

backinbeige added 13:33 - Aug 19 MATHS FANS: 20% sell on fee means we stand to get £550k less of our initial £2.75m, i.e. £2.2m. Would the 20% clause remain eligible when (if) the fee rises to £3.25m? We would owe another £100k (and receive £2.8m).
0

Yallop added 13:36 - Aug 19 Suffolk n good - Isn't it obvious? We're hardly going to pay more than was previously agreed. Does Clegg really need to spell it out to the n'th degree?!
0

tractored added 13:40 - Aug 19 Chester newspapers are claiming it is 350K to be paid to the receiver which will be distributed to the debtors in accordance with the winding up order.
0

chalkandcheese added 13:42 - Aug 19 backinbeige it will not be 20% ,as statement said "our respective lawyers have recently reached a mutually agreeable financial settlement in respect of the contracted sell-on clause"
0

Suffolk_n_Good added 13:42 - Aug 19 For goodness sake Yallop!! What a stupid comment! Of course were not going to pay more than previously agreed!! My point is an agreement has been reached, so that would suggest that we have paid LESS than the original sell-on clause stated that we would have been due to pay, but how much less?
0

jas0999 added 13:45 - Aug 19 I suspect we have rightly negotiated the amount. Hopefully the money will find it's way to those who really struggled due to Chester being wound up.
0

BlooooCD added 13:47 - Aug 19 I'm fairly sure that Old man Cleggs attentions might be better focused elsewhere other tahn paying creditors for a club no longer trading! Hmmmmmmmmm let me think - Oh yeah! A bleedin new striker or two for our club so we might actually score some goals! maybe just for the loyal fans rather than the goals of the bank manager!!! frustratedtownfan@work.com!!!
0

LincsBluebelly added 13:53 - Aug 19 As stated in the article: "while Chester City FC was wound up in March 2010 it remains a legal entity". Which means that we are still legally obliged to pay up what we owe (to the Official Receiver). That's that settled then.
0

promotionparty added 13:54 - Aug 19 bloooooooooo 3 games 7 goals !!!!!!
0

hadleighbluearmy added 13:57 - Aug 19 Forget about this Clegg, sign a bloody striker please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
0

SiBo added 14:29 - Aug 19 Good point promotionparty... We have scored 7 goals in 3 games, but I do agree we need to strengthen the Foward line now we have lost Pablo, Walters and Martin... so we need a striker that can score about 10 goals a season, coz that's all they could manage between them! (I'm not serious here... just making the poin we are not loosing bags of goals... yes we need a decent striker, but it isn't ALL bad with the partings.)

0

colonel added 14:34 - Aug 19 Anyone know the details over the trigger for the fee rising to 3.25m i.e. how likely is it to kick in I wonder?
0

TractorRoyNo1 added 15:22 - Aug 19 i wonder if Town will also pay something more to the debters of the Sheepshanks-ITFC company
0

slowerball added 16:01 - Aug 19 This is the right and proper action to take - perhaps we were hanging on for as much as we could beacuse they knew of this and that the monies owed to Chester City FC as part of the sell on clause would indeed be payable to the OR?
0

Hugoagogo added 16:43 - Aug 19 @hadleighbluearmy Yes, that's right - forget doing what we are legally obliged to do - sod the lot of those silly law-enforcing types! Lets blow it all on a striker then pretend we haven't got any money. Tsk.
0

alfromcol added 16:58 - Aug 19 Agreement has been reached, and it has to be 20% of the amount, if this is what was originally agreed. You can't just come up with some other figure even if it would be nice to do so. The receiver has to collect all that is legally due, to share amongst the creditors.
0

8ashblue added 17:05 - Aug 19 Its obvious that Chester's share was factored in when the fee was agreed but at least the creditors will get a nice surprise that they weren't expecting. Whether Chester would ahve survived had it been paid earlier, i guess it would have made a difference.
0

Barhamblue added 17:41 - Aug 19 Boo
0

Guthrum added 17:58 - Aug 19 Pretty much exactly what I was expecting to happen. Suffolk_n_Good - the old Chester City FC *remains* a legal entity, rather than becoming one. It's basically just a shell run by the Official Receiver (or solicitors on their behalf) to collect money owed and redistribute to remaining creditors. The negotiations were probably along the lines of an instalment plan, or possibly some kind of 'discount for cash' on a grand scale. If Town were willing to come to an agreement making it easy for the Receivers to collect the money, they may have knocked a bit off or given the club favourable terms (less interest?). Obviously, I don't know which of those possibilities may be the correct one.

0

brogansnose added 19:10 - Aug 19 When a club like Chester goes belly up its often the small trader that gets whacked so lets hope some of the money goes to the little guy. Be nice if Walters dipped in a bit too.
0

Blogs 295 bloggers

Ipswich Town Polls