| Jack Clarke price on 14:00 - Sep 5 with 4824 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
Pretty much as reported at the time. |  |
|  |
| Jack Clarke price on 15:07 - Sep 5 with 4387 views | Kropotkin123 |
They say grim reading, but the worst part of their deal was the sell-on fee they agreed with Spurs. Sunderland did the hard work, turning him into a premiership ready player, but the deal gave too much money to Spurs for their meager contribution to the outcome. |  |
| Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top. | | Poll: | Would you rather | | Blog: | Round Four: Eagle |
| |
| Jack Clarke price on 15:18 - Sep 5 with 4300 views | oldburian |
Rutter cost £40m, just shows how good our deal was.
An exciting player. |  | | |
| Jack Clarke price on 15:38 - Sep 5 with 4150 views | HighgateBlue |
| Jack Clarke price on 15:07 - Sep 5 by Kropotkin123 |
They say grim reading, but the worst part of their deal was the sell-on fee they agreed with Spurs. Sunderland did the hard work, turning him into a premiership ready player, but the deal gave too much money to Spurs for their meager contribution to the outcome. |
The sell on percentage was high, but as I understand it, that was because the cash fee that they paid to Spurs was not high. So I think at the time that deal was done, Sunderland got a bit of a free hit in that if Clarke had disappointed, it wouldn't have cost them much. The price of the free hit was that as he's been a big success, Spurs have had a bit of a windfall. |  | | |
| Jack Clarke price on 15:41 - Sep 5 with 4108 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| Jack Clarke price on 15:07 - Sep 5 by Kropotkin123 |
They say grim reading, but the worst part of their deal was the sell-on fee they agreed with Spurs. Sunderland did the hard work, turning him into a premiership ready player, but the deal gave too much money to Spurs for their meager contribution to the outcome. |
That's what sell on fee's are for.
A lower initial fee paid by Sunderland meant Spurs share the upside risk / reward.
Sunderland signed the deal.
We have benefitted from similar sell on fees. Rhodes, Webster, Mings, Downes etc. | |
| |
| Jack Clarke price on 15:58 - Sep 5 with 3921 views | Kropotkin123 |
| Jack Clarke price on 15:41 - Sep 5 by Marshalls_Mullet |
That's what sell on fee's are for.
A lower initial fee paid by Sunderland meant Spurs share the upside risk / reward.
Sunderland signed the deal.
We have benefitted from similar sell on fees. Rhodes, Webster, Mings, Downes etc. |
Thanks... Obviously I know what sell on fees are for, I know that they "share the risk", and we have benefited from deals like this. But I think when signing they have committed to giving Spurs too much, and that is why it is a bad deal for them with us now. I don't think we are underpaying.
I don't think smaller clubs should be agreeing to such high sell on fees with clubs that buy up massive amounts of young talent. For clubs like us, getting young talent or academy talent and letting them go with a sell on clause before we see that potential allows us to continue investing in talent and that and is good for the game. | |
| Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top. | | Poll: | Would you rather | | Blog: | Round Four: Eagle |
| |
| Jack Clarke price on 16:27 - Sep 5 with 3763 views | tonybied |
| Jack Clarke price on 15:58 - Sep 5 by Kropotkin123 |
Thanks... Obviously I know what sell on fees are for, I know that they "share the risk", and we have benefited from deals like this. But I think when signing they have committed to giving Spurs too much, and that is why it is a bad deal for them with us now. I don't think we are underpaying.
I don't think smaller clubs should be agreeing to such high sell on fees with clubs that buy up massive amounts of young talent. For clubs like us, getting young talent or academy talent and letting them go with a sell on clause before we see that potential allows us to continue investing in talent and that and is good for the game. |
Not sure they've really given Tottenham too much seeing as they only paid £750,000 for him after spuds had paid £10M for him 2 years previous. |  | | |
| Jack Clarke price on 16:59 - Sep 5 with 3522 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| Jack Clarke price on 15:58 - Sep 5 by Kropotkin123 |
Thanks... Obviously I know what sell on fees are for, I know that they "share the risk", and we have benefited from deals like this. But I think when signing they have committed to giving Spurs too much, and that is why it is a bad deal for them with us now. I don't think we are underpaying.
I don't think smaller clubs should be agreeing to such high sell on fees with clubs that buy up massive amounts of young talent. For clubs like us, getting young talent or academy talent and letting them go with a sell on clause before we see that potential allows us to continue investing in talent and that and is good for the game. |
Spurs paid £10m to buy him from Leeds in 2019.
They sold him to Sunderland in 2022 for a reported £750k (according to Sunderland Echo).
I think they were entitled to insert a fairly standard 25% sell on clause.
Without that, the initial fee would likely be higher. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Jack Clarke price on 16:59 - Sep 5 with 3512 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| Jack Clarke price on 16:27 - Sep 5 by tonybied |
Not sure they've really given Tottenham too much seeing as they only paid £750,000 for him after spuds had paid £10M for him 2 years previous. |
Indeed.
Hadnt read this when I responded. | |
| |
| Jack Clarke price on 17:19 - Sep 5 with 3413 views | Stenvict |
| Jack Clarke price on 16:59 - Sep 5 by Marshalls_Mullet |
Spurs paid £10m to buy him from Leeds in 2019.
They sold him to Sunderland in 2022 for a reported £750k (according to Sunderland Echo).
I think they were entitled to insert a fairly standard 25% sell on clause.
Without that, the initial fee would likely be higher. |
Tbf, he took Sunderland from L1 to the Championship, and then the Play Offs in the following year in the Championship, so effectively did enough for them. They've made a very tidy profit from him, and are doing alright without him so far. [Post edited 5 Sep 2024 17:33]
| |
| |
| Jack Clarke price on 21:21 - Sep 5 with 2718 views | Kropotkin123 |
| Jack Clarke price on 16:59 - Sep 5 by Marshalls_Mullet |
Spurs paid £10m to buy him from Leeds in 2019.
They sold him to Sunderland in 2022 for a reported £750k (according to Sunderland Echo).
I think they were entitled to insert a fairly standard 25% sell on clause.
Without that, the initial fee would likely be higher. |
• "Spurs paid £10m to buy him from Leeds in 2019."
• He went out on loan to 4 different teams.
• His last loan was in League one for Sunderland where he played 17 games scoring once.
• He was then sold for 750k.
• Sunderland then coached him, developed him, and turned him into a player that got 25 goals across 87 league games.
• They sell him for a reported 20m, meaning Spurs get 5m + their 750k fee. So 5.75m for a player with 17 apps and 1 goal in league one. That's more than half what Spurs paid for him, as a player that had question marks at the time of whether he could make it in the Championship (hence why other established Championship sides didn't recruit him).
• This is not good business. 25% is not standard. In our deal we have given Sunderland a reported 15% sell on fee.
• The initial article describes the deal as grim, lumping us in there too. 20m for him is more than fair. Giving a 15% sell on is more than fair. The 25% sell on is what makes it seem grim.
• Spurs are entitled to put in any sell on clause they want, if the buying party agrees. But for me it underlines why Spurs are one on the best run clubs financially in England. [Post edited 5 Sep 2024 22:01]
| |
| Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top. | | Poll: | Would you rather | | Blog: | Round Four: Eagle |
| |
| Jack Clarke price on 21:26 - Sep 5 with 2662 views | Kropotkin123 |
| Jack Clarke price on 17:19 - Sep 5 by Stenvict |
Tbf, he took Sunderland from L1 to the Championship, and then the Play Offs in the following year in the Championship, so effectively did enough for them. They've made a very tidy profit from him, and are doing alright without him so far. [Post edited 5 Sep 2024 17:33]
|
+ they'll get more if we sell him on! | |
| Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top. | | Poll: | Would you rather | | Blog: | Round Four: Eagle |
| |
| Jack Clarke price on 09:51 - Sep 6 with 2016 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| Jack Clarke price on 21:21 - Sep 5 by Kropotkin123 |
• "Spurs paid £10m to buy him from Leeds in 2019."
• He went out on loan to 4 different teams.
• His last loan was in League one for Sunderland where he played 17 games scoring once.
• He was then sold for 750k.
• Sunderland then coached him, developed him, and turned him into a player that got 25 goals across 87 league games.
• They sell him for a reported 20m, meaning Spurs get 5m + their 750k fee. So 5.75m for a player with 17 apps and 1 goal in league one. That's more than half what Spurs paid for him, as a player that had question marks at the time of whether he could make it in the Championship (hence why other established Championship sides didn't recruit him).
• This is not good business. 25% is not standard. In our deal we have given Sunderland a reported 15% sell on fee.
• The initial article describes the deal as grim, lumping us in there too. 20m for him is more than fair. Giving a 15% sell on is more than fair. The 25% sell on is what makes it seem grim.
• Spurs are entitled to put in any sell on clause they want, if the buying party agrees. But for me it underlines why Spurs are one on the best run clubs financially in England. [Post edited 5 Sep 2024 22:01]
|
The sell on % will be higher if the selling club has effectively given a discount on the initial fee. 25% is not an unusual amount in these circumstance's.
I think it was a fair deal for both sides, its just an entitled fan / journo moaning.
Happy to agree to differ. | |
| |
| Jack Clarke price on 09:52 - Sep 6 with 2008 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| Jack Clarke price on 21:26 - Sep 5 by Kropotkin123 |
+ they'll get more if we sell him on! |
And thats OK.
Thats what sell on fee's are designed to do. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
