£1.5m initially for Mings... 09:03 - Jul 11 with 1609 views | Kieran_Knows | ... not sure he/we will meet the other clauses for the extra bit though!
| |
| | |
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 09:06 - Jul 11 with 1574 views | Marshalls_Mullet | I assume he means that Bournemouth have to pay Ipswich £1.5m of their proceeds. Can't see that Villa would have to pay us 'an additional £1.5m'. | |
| |
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 09:11 - Jul 11 with 1538 views | Herbivore |
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 09:06 - Jul 11 by Marshalls_Mullet | I assume he means that Bournemouth have to pay Ipswich £1.5m of their proceeds. Can't see that Villa would have to pay us 'an additional £1.5m'. |
They might have agreed as part of the deal that Villa would cover our end of it, but yeah it's usually the selling club that pays the sell on to the former club. | |
| |
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 09:14 - Jul 11 with 1515 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure | If that’s accurate, would that not mean that we only got £6.5m for him in the first place? [Post edited 11 Jul 2019 9:14]
| |
| |
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 09:18 - Jul 11 with 1480 views | itfc48 |
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 09:14 - Jul 11 by C_HealyIsAPleasure | If that’s accurate, would that not mean that we only got £6.5m for him in the first place? [Post edited 11 Jul 2019 9:14]
|
Or the total fee reached £10m and the sell on was 15% of profit. If it was 10% it would have meant Bournemouth only paid £5m. | | | |
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 09:22 - Jul 11 with 1445 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 09:18 - Jul 11 by itfc48 | Or the total fee reached £10m and the sell on was 15% of profit. If it was 10% it would have meant Bournemouth only paid £5m. |
10% would be £6.5m - if the fee in total was £21.5m as suggested by the OP’s tweet the profit is £15m For it to have been 15% we would have to have already received £11.5m, which is highly unlikely Possible it could sit in the middle somewhere I guess | |
| |
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 09:30 - Jul 11 with 1401 views | WarkTheWarkITFC |
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 09:22 - Jul 11 by C_HealyIsAPleasure | 10% would be £6.5m - if the fee in total was £21.5m as suggested by the OP’s tweet the profit is £15m For it to have been 15% we would have to have already received £11.5m, which is highly unlikely Possible it could sit in the middle somewhere I guess |
Perhaps it was a 12.5% sell on? £8m to Bournemouth. £20m to Villa. £12m profit. 12.5% of that is £1.5m. Otherwise it appears we got £10m for him overall and then got 15% of the profit. It can't be 10% as that would have meant we only sold him for £5m, which we clearly didn't. Given that the top ups were presumably related to England call ups, I'd guess it was 12.5%. Only other likely top up was keeping Bournemouth up but hadn't they already stayed up a couple of years running, so less likely Bournemouth would agree? | |
| |
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 09:34 - Jul 11 with 1363 views | JakeITFC |
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 09:30 - Jul 11 by WarkTheWarkITFC | Perhaps it was a 12.5% sell on? £8m to Bournemouth. £20m to Villa. £12m profit. 12.5% of that is £1.5m. Otherwise it appears we got £10m for him overall and then got 15% of the profit. It can't be 10% as that would have meant we only sold him for £5m, which we clearly didn't. Given that the top ups were presumably related to England call ups, I'd guess it was 12.5%. Only other likely top up was keeping Bournemouth up but hadn't they already stayed up a couple of years running, so less likely Bournemouth would agree? |
It's possible we took a slightly higher fee now and have effectively been bought out of our sell on for the top ups. | | | |
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 09:35 - Jul 11 with 1359 views | WarkTheWarkITFC |
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 09:22 - Jul 11 by C_HealyIsAPleasure | 10% would be £6.5m - if the fee in total was £21.5m as suggested by the OP’s tweet the profit is £15m For it to have been 15% we would have to have already received £11.5m, which is highly unlikely Possible it could sit in the middle somewhere I guess |
The way I read that initially is that Bournemouth knew we would be owed £1.5m, so they asked Villa to pay that on top. There is no doubt a way to do that specifically to ensure that we don't then get 15% of that £1.5m as well. If Bournemouth get them to up the fee to take our cut into account, then we'd technically get a cut of that increase, so I am sure there's some way of agreeing with us first to accept a fixed sum instead, that Villa can then get Bournemouth to pay. But knowing the figures banded about I reckon you are more likely right. We only got £6.5m so they've got it up to £21.5m so they clear £20m once we are paid. Seems more likely we only got £6.5m than £8m and 12.5% clause was added. Seem to remember it was £8m with 'most' of it up front. So I'd guess £6.5m and that he never hit any of the clauses (appearances for Bournemouth, England etc). | |
| | Login to get fewer ads
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 09:36 - Jul 11 with 1348 views | WarkTheWarkITFC |
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 09:34 - Jul 11 by JakeITFC | It's possible we took a slightly higher fee now and have effectively been bought out of our sell on for the top ups. |
Yeah quite possibly. Can't wait for it to reinvested! PMSL | |
| |
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 09:46 - Jul 11 with 1313 views | PhilTWTD | Slightly different to what's previously been reported, which was £20m up front climbing to £26.5m. Not sure £1.5m works as our percentage, I'd make it £1.35m if £21.5m is the initial fee rather than £1.5m, assuming no top-ups were triggered on the initial £8m, which in any case would make it lower. Am guessing that figure might not be precise. | | | |
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 09:48 - Jul 11 with 1287 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 09:35 - Jul 11 by WarkTheWarkITFC | The way I read that initially is that Bournemouth knew we would be owed £1.5m, so they asked Villa to pay that on top. There is no doubt a way to do that specifically to ensure that we don't then get 15% of that £1.5m as well. If Bournemouth get them to up the fee to take our cut into account, then we'd technically get a cut of that increase, so I am sure there's some way of agreeing with us first to accept a fixed sum instead, that Villa can then get Bournemouth to pay. But knowing the figures banded about I reckon you are more likely right. We only got £6.5m so they've got it up to £21.5m so they clear £20m once we are paid. Seems more likely we only got £6.5m than £8m and 12.5% clause was added. Seem to remember it was £8m with 'most' of it up front. So I'd guess £6.5m and that he never hit any of the clauses (appearances for Bournemouth, England etc). |
Don’t think this is rocket science, it’s common for fees to be inflated as the selling club know they have to pay a sell on Fee from Bournemouth to Villa was £21.5m, which was inflated to take into account the sell on. % of profit would be based on that figure, so if we got £1.5m: 10% sell on means we got £6.5m initially (10% of £15m = £1.5m) 12.5% sell on means we got £9m (12.5% of £12m = £1.5m) 15% sell on means we got £11.5m (15% of £10m = £1.5m) It’s possible that some complicated deal was done but seems far more likely to have been done in the above manner, which suggests to me that the initial fee we got for Mings was lower than thought* *assuming the tweet is accurate of course | |
| |
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 10:11 - Jul 11 with 1183 views | Guthrum |
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 09:48 - Jul 11 by C_HealyIsAPleasure | Don’t think this is rocket science, it’s common for fees to be inflated as the selling club know they have to pay a sell on Fee from Bournemouth to Villa was £21.5m, which was inflated to take into account the sell on. % of profit would be based on that figure, so if we got £1.5m: 10% sell on means we got £6.5m initially (10% of £15m = £1.5m) 12.5% sell on means we got £9m (12.5% of £12m = £1.5m) 15% sell on means we got £11.5m (15% of £10m = £1.5m) It’s possible that some complicated deal was done but seems far more likely to have been done in the above manner, which suggests to me that the initial fee we got for Mings was lower than thought* *assuming the tweet is accurate of course |
Or the figures (officially "undisclosed") have been rounded up to the nearest £0.5m. | |
| |
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 10:14 - Jul 11 with 1167 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 10:11 - Jul 11 by Guthrum | Or the figures (officially "undisclosed") have been rounded up to the nearest £0.5m. |
Of course - as noted those sums are based on the figures quoted in the tweet being accurate, which may or may not be the case | |
| |
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 10:15 - Jul 11 with 1161 views | PhilTWTD |
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 09:48 - Jul 11 by C_HealyIsAPleasure | Don’t think this is rocket science, it’s common for fees to be inflated as the selling club know they have to pay a sell on Fee from Bournemouth to Villa was £21.5m, which was inflated to take into account the sell on. % of profit would be based on that figure, so if we got £1.5m: 10% sell on means we got £6.5m initially (10% of £15m = £1.5m) 12.5% sell on means we got £9m (12.5% of £12m = £1.5m) 15% sell on means we got £11.5m (15% of £10m = £1.5m) It’s possible that some complicated deal was done but seems far more likely to have been done in the above manner, which suggests to me that the initial fee we got for Mings was lower than thought* *assuming the tweet is accurate of course |
I don't think it's in question we got £8m as an initial fee so any queries over the precise sell-on aren't likely to relate to that. | | | |
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 10:18 - Jul 11 with 1142 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 10:15 - Jul 11 by PhilTWTD | I don't think it's in question we got £8m as an initial fee so any queries over the precise sell-on aren't likely to relate to that. |
Fair enough, all that maths this morning for nothing then! | |
| |
| |