No sell on clause then

The way the interviewer said 'that's confirmed that then', we've deffo got a sell on clause

 

See above but I'm just guessing of course. When you're wealthy (and in charge) you're less arsed about breaching legal documents.

 

Saying we didn't get as much money as expected up front doesn't do any damage.

If stones is sold and they say we hve a 20% sell on fee then anyone we try to buy players from know how much cash we have.

Think that is what he meant by doesnt benefit barnsley to release details. It's not confidentiality reasons.

That clearly insinuated there is a clause. But will not say how much. For fairly obvious reasons I think.

 

I don't get it, pal.

"is there a sell on clause?"

"yes/no"

Simple.


The whole confidentiality nonsense was ruined the night Patrick disclosed the fee paid.

 

That's the next line we'll be fed once he is sold on for millions.

"we did have a clause and yes we have received a payment from Everton, but we're not going to disclose the amount because that will alert our competitors to how much we have to spend and affect the price tags they put on players we're pursuing."

 

How's that work then? The interviewer is just forging an opinion like me and thee. He knows nothing. He could also have been meaning that's confirmed we haven't.

 

Yep yep

 

I simply can't believe there'd be a confidentiality clause which prevents him from saying there is one. The confidentiality would normally be on the detail. Shirley?

 

My thinking is that there is a clause. Patrick can do what he likes because he is the boss so no one can fire him and he has deep pockets in case he gets any nasty letters. Also I think more damage can be done by releasing sell on clause figure than the transfer fee, which is history.

All will become clear in the accounts the year after he is sold to Man Utd I imagine anyway...

 

It sounded to me like there definitely is a sell on clause but Ben couldn't say much do to legal restrictions.

 

No mate, it's quite common

 

I believe there is a clause. I just don't understand why we can't be told 'yes' when asked if there is one.

 

Is it? In football? Sell on clauses get mentioned all the time.

 

Wouldn't people knowing only have a positive effect on any future transfer fee? Its in the interests of all parties for it to be known surely. We satisfy our supporters and Everton can demand a higher fee when they sell him, arguing that as they have to pay a sell on fee then a 10 million pound bid doesn't mean 10 million to them really so the buyer will have to up their bid to 12.

The only way it is in anyones interests to keep quiet is if there isn't one.

 

I predict that stones will be sold for 700 million and we will spend 20 quid on players.

I mean its hardly like we splashed the cash after selling everyone else in the last ten years is it

 

An agent I spoke to suggested 15-20%

 

Agreed

 

All I want to know is yes/no

It sounds like it is a yes.

But for arguments sake.

Let's say we bought winnall for 300k.

If S****horpe knew we had 3 million in the skyrocket from the sell on clause (let's again say he was already sold then) then they will want a bigger chunk. They know we have it. So will start demanding probably a million quid.

 

That's the scared and small time attitude we need to rid ourselves of. That's why they sold John in the first place. They feared relegation, saw £2.2m and took the first offer. We ended up staying up that year. We'd have had more suitors with more money offered for John had we just held firm and either told them 'no' or set an asking price we wouldn't budge from. Look at Peterborough and the ******* barmy money they've got for lads not anywhere near as talented as Stonesy. Dwight Gayle for example. Wasn't it £6m? That's proper business that.

So for us to worry that 'X' club will want more because they know we've got the money... for me that's the same kind of small time mentality. Winnall (using your example) would have wanted the move, nowt Scunny could do about that. He'd turned down a new deal. If they'd have said "arr, but tha got all that coin for Stones so we want more" we just tell em 'no' and they eventually cave in and take the original offer.

To be fair, I think the signings we've made in the last 7 or 8 months have been negotiated well from what we can gather. The likes of Hourihane, Berry, Scowen and of course Winnall, all bought relatively cheaply, on decent contracts and so long as they perform well for us (I think they have done, albeit Berry seems to have dropped off the radar a bit) they're going to make us big profits should bigger clubs fancy them one day. We've given the wings to lots of our own kids too and there's serious money in Holgate and Bree if looked after properly. And Davies looks an absolute find on a free.

More I think about it, the more happy I am that we did appoint Danny for a second time. He knows a player.

 

Difficult to counter that TBH