Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
£1.5m initially for Mings... 09:03 - Jul 11 with 1609 viewsKieran_Knows

... not sure he/we will meet the other clauses for the extra bit though!


Poll: We’ve got super KM, he knows exactly what we need. Woolfie at the back…

0
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 09:06 - Jul 11 with 1574 viewsMarshalls_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'.

Poll: Would Lambert have acheived better results than Cook if given the same resources

0
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 09:11 - Jul 11 with 1538 viewsHerbivore

£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.

Poll: Should someone on benefits earn more than David Cameron?
Blog: Where Did It All Go Wrong for Paul Hurst?

0
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 09:14 - Jul 11 with 1515 viewsC_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]

Highlighting crass stupidity since sometime around 2010
Poll: Would you want Messi to sign?

0
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 09:18 - Jul 11 with 1480 viewsitfc48

£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.
0
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 09:22 - Jul 11 with 1445 viewsC_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

Highlighting crass stupidity since sometime around 2010
Poll: Would you want Messi to sign?

0
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 09:30 - Jul 11 with 1401 viewsWarkTheWarkITFC

£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?

Poll: How many points from 18 would Lambert need to have to actually be sacked?
Blog: Ipswich Town and the Rotten Kitchen Cupboards

0
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 09:34 - Jul 11 with 1363 viewsJakeITFC

£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.
0
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 09:35 - Jul 11 with 1359 viewsWarkTheWarkITFC

£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).

Poll: How many points from 18 would Lambert need to have to actually be sacked?
Blog: Ipswich Town and the Rotten Kitchen Cupboards

0
Login to get fewer ads

£1.5m initially for Mings... on 09:36 - Jul 11 with 1348 viewsWarkTheWarkITFC

£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

Poll: How many points from 18 would Lambert need to have to actually be sacked?
Blog: Ipswich Town and the Rotten Kitchen Cupboards

0
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 09:46 - Jul 11 with 1313 viewsPhilTWTD

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.
0
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 09:48 - Jul 11 with 1287 viewsC_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

Highlighting crass stupidity since sometime around 2010
Poll: Would you want Messi to sign?

0
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 10:11 - Jul 11 with 1183 viewsGuthrum

£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.

Good Lord! Whatever is it?
Poll: McCarthy: A More Nuanced Poll
Blog: [Blog] For Those Panicking About the Lack of Transfer Activity

0
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 10:14 - Jul 11 with 1167 viewsC_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

Highlighting crass stupidity since sometime around 2010
Poll: Would you want Messi to sign?

0
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 10:15 - Jul 11 with 1161 viewsPhilTWTD

£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.
0
£1.5m initially for Mings... on 10:18 - Jul 11 with 1142 viewsC_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!

Highlighting crass stupidity since sometime around 2010
Poll: Would you want Messi to sign?

0
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© TWTD 1995-2024