hats off for swindon

[westsussexranger]

apparently they've screwed over spurs and more importantly Daniel Levy on this deal. despite it being a combined fee for Luongo and Gladwin of 3-4mill we've apparently got Luongo for less than a million! Swindon have done it this way so they don't have to pay a wacking big sell on percentage to Spurs. Pulling a Levy on Levy which is fantastic

[kenthoop]

I remember Swansea doing the same thing with Vorm - his original club were due 25% of any sale, so they done a straight swap with Spurs for Sigurdsson to avoid any fees. Clever business if you ask me!

[West Acton]

Let's not get too flash it could be us losing out on £15mil in few weeks if Liverpool do same thing over sterling

[maidstone_hoop]

Great business by them and nice to se someone screwing levy.

[MYU]

Great idea... Let's Levy him out of the deal.

[dsqpr]

Hmmm, as West said, what goes around comes around.

[bakes8]

Is this how it works? I thought possibly in deals like this where a sell on clause in envoked would involve some sort of arbitration panel who judge how much each player went to each club for?

ie. Arsenal sign Sterling for Walcott +10m. Panel view Walcott at 30m, +10m = 40m. We get 20% of 40m (8m)

............... At least thats how I hope it works, or sell on clauses are now completely ####ed.

[Hove Ranger]

Is this how it works? I thought possibly in deals like this where a sell on clause in envoked would involve some sort of arbitration panel who judge how much each player went to each club for?

ie. Arsenal sign Sterling for Walcott +10m. Panel view Walcott at 30m, +10m = 40m. We get 20% of 40m (8m)

............... At least thats how I hope it works, or sell on clauses are now completely ####ed.

No bakes unfortunately not. Someone mentioned earlier it was what swansea did with the vorm deal who had a sell on fee with Utrecht. Because there were a few players involved they declared vorm as a free transfer and Utrecht got screwed. I think they tried taking it to court but not sure what happened.

[bakes8]

No bakes unfortunately not. Someone mentioned earlier it was what swansea did with the vorm deal who had a sell on fee with Utrecht. Because there were a few players involved they declared vorm as a free transfer and Utrecht got screwed. I think they tried taking it to court but not sure what happened.

Hmmmmmmm. This makes sell on deals completely redundant. Say I have Austin who's worth 20m but Burnley have 50% sell on. Liverpool want to sign him but I dont wanna give BFC 10m, so I raid Liverpool for 20m of talent (say Lucas, and Lovren) and leave the little guy with 0.

This will send small clubs to the wall, clubs that thrive on sell-on clauses in contracts. Sure this can't be legal.

[lymehoop]

Hmmmmmmm. This makes sell on deals completely redundant. Say I have Austin who's worth 20m but Burnley have 50% sell on. Liverpool want to sign him but I dont wanna give BFC 10m, so I raid Liverpool for 20m of talent (say Lucas, and Lovren) and leave the little guy with 0.

This will send small clubs to the wall, clubs that thrive on sell-on clauses in contracts. Sure this can't be legal.

agree, surely the players value must be considered whether it's a cash transaction or a swap deal

[klonk]

agree, surely the players value must be considered whether it's a cash transaction or a swap deal

i think in the example quoted (swap austin for 2 players), then yeah, the players' value does get included. but, if we sold them austin for £4m and then swapped, say, clint hill for lucas and lovren in a separate deal, then the sell on would be meaningless.

usually, the sell-on percentage only applies to anything above the original fee paid, so, if the op is correct, here swindon have sold luongo on at cost (so no sell-on percentage applies), but got a very good price for gladwin in a completely separate deal.

probably explains why the 2 were announced separately with gladwin (who was supposedly in more advanced discussions throughout) being announced second.

[QprQpr]

I was expecting lots of the clowns ramseys Spurs boys here maybe that won't happen now, oh the joy

[bakes8]

i think in the example quoted (swap austin for 2 players), then yeah, the players' value does get included. but, if we sold them austin for £4m and then swapped, say, clint hill for lucas and lovren in a separate deal, then the sell on would be meaningless.

usually, the sell-on percentage only applies to anything above the original fee paid, so, if the op is correct, here swindon have sold luongo on at cost (so no sell-on percentage applies), but got a very good price for gladwin in a completely separate deal.

probably explains why the 2 were announced separately with gladwin (who was supposedly in more advanced discussions throughout) being announced second.

That does make more sense now, still a bit sneaky, and surely there must be some sort of appeal process for the club who had 50% stake? Not that this should bother us mind, it's a matter between Swindon and Levy and I for one want to see Levy screwed.

Is interesting regarding the Walcott/Sterling situation. Hopefully we wont get fitted up here.

[Hitman34]

we also have a sell on fee with swindon regarding the aussie player.

dont know what % though

[Brian Wilson]

Doubt they would screw over Levy as that would mean no more Spurs loanees for them.