I've been perusing the Luton forums, and it seems that Norwich put a 50% sell-on clause in the deal which took him to Luton. Therefore, Luton want to insert a very large sell-on clause in any deal they strike to sell McGeehan. This is now starting to make sense as to why January's deal fell through. It appears that we didn't simply refuse to put a sell-on clause into the deal, we just weren't prepared for it to be whatever Luton were wanting, presumably something around 30% or more.
There's still no evidence that he's coming... Except for a website the Luton fans say are never right.. and have twice in transferred him out the club without going anywhere...
This wouldn't surprise me. I was amazed that Norwich were willing to let him go in the first place and they must have reckoned on his value increasing, hence the big sell-on clause. It has to be worth our while to develop him further and then sell him on again, but that gets less and less appealing if a large chunk is taken away in sell-on. we will need to make a profit on our investment. I still think that we should do all we can to sign him, even ganging up with Luton against Norwich to get them to reduce the sell-on. If they have set it so high that no one is willing to pay, they will lose out, as will Luton, if he goes on a free. Come on Delia. Give us a slice back.
Why should Norwich reduce the sell on clause? Luton clearly accepted the deal when they signed the player therefore they should be prepared to lose that chunk of money. If they thought this may have caused an issue, they should have negotiated harder when they signed the player end of story.
Agree. It was probably the only way Norwich would agree to the sale. We have been stung with sh1tty clauses before like Hammills release clause and Craig Davies. They new what they were doing when they signed him.
I'd only be interested in a deal that's good for us. I wonder if Norwich's deal is a percentage of what Luton make or of all future transfers? I'd only be happy if we agree to less than a 25%sell on presuming it's the former rather than the latter. If it's the latter. We're best waiting until he's out of contract. Sent from my WAS-LX1A using Tapatalk
The problem being that we might then lose out. Imagine he has a stonking season. Out of contract at the end of the season, plenty of clubs could trump us on wages. Or Luton go up and the unthinkable, we go down. Suddenly we don't seem like such an attractive proposition.
that shouldn't make a difference to us. it just means luton would miss out again as Norwich would take half of any sell fee they make from us. its probably the reason they want such a big sell on fee, but its no reason for us to leave it until hes out of contract if we can agree a sell on fee now
If we want to sign him id imagine now is the time. If we leave it til he's out of contract we will be outbid on wages.
Ooh Gerry Gerry had a 50% sell on clause . We rely on sell on clauses (or should do) so why complain when others do ?
