Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] Marc Cucurella *Signed For Chelsea 05/08/2022*
- Thread starter Bring back Bryan wade!!
- Start date
It was the case for one of ours a while ago (which was a surprise for everyone) and now the idea seems to have taken hold that it’s the case for all of them. Agree with your assessment there’s little evidence for it being true.I'm not sure that's the case at all, although I've often heard it touted. For example, this article (which seems to be readable even though I don't have an Athletic subscription) on sell-on clauses does not seem to mention profit at all:
Sell-on clauses: The transfer pre-assist that keeps some football clubs alive
The anticipation of a sell-on clause being activated will continue to offer hope to many clubs throughout the pyramidtheathletic.com
This also makes no mention of profit:
Sell-on Clause Definition - What Does Sell-on Clause Mean?
The meaning of the term Sell-on clause is explained in this article.www.sports-king.com
This does mention profit as a potential part of a sell-on clause, but doesn't seem to suggest that it's the norm:
13 deals can Liverpool benefit from without transfer talks
How do sell-on clauses work and who has them?www.thisisanfield.com
GT49er
Well-known member
.....a possible alternative for you......
GT49er
Well-known member
It all depends what's written and signed for on that piece of paper that you and I will never, ever get to look at!
AZ Gull
@SeagullsAcademy Threads: @bhafcacademy
Completely untrue.
Exeter City's own website reported that the sell-on applied to the PROFIT that Brentford made:-
Back in the day we used to have an "Ask The Club" section here on NSC. When we signed Leon Knight from Chelsea it was reported that they had a sell-on clause. I "Asked The Club" the question as to whether the sell-on would apply to the gross sale price or the profit made; @Insider wouldn't answer the question directly but stated that it was conventional that sell-ons apply to the PROFIT.
When Bristol Rovers sold Bobby Zamora to us for £100,000 they also had a 30% sell-on clause. When we sold him to Tottenham for £1.5million our profit was £1.4million, and it was specifically reported that the 30% sell-on applied to the PROFIT (ie 30% of £1.4million = £420,000):-
Cash wrangle over Zamora
In short - I have seen plenty of evidence that sell-ons generally apply to the PROFIT on future sales. I'm not aware of instances where a sell-on applies to the gross future sale figure.But hey, believe what you want!
Sheebo
Well-known member
- Jul 13, 2003
- 29,318
Rarely is my take on it. I think it may be just another NSC myth on here. Like player swaps and release clauses.
Usually a sell on % is just that - a % of the next fee received.
AZ Gull
@SeagullsAcademy Threads: @bhafcacademy
Can you provide even one example of this?
Sheebo
Well-known member
- Jul 13, 2003
- 29,318
Well as there’s no public record of transfer documents I doubt I can for sure - but it’s usually a % of the overall transfer fee as the norm. Can you provide even one example of your version?
This article suggests it’s the overall fee usually. Of course, it can be anything the clubs agree but my take is the most common one is a % of the overall fee - Leon Knight deal may have just been different so you can’t be sure either!
What is the biggest fee earned from a football sell-on clause? | Football | The Guardian
Plus: the amazing Ljubomir Fejsa, Shamrock Rovers’ returning heroes of 2013 and goalscoring streakers
amp.theguardian.com
Last edited:
Sheebo
Well-known member
- Jul 13, 2003
- 29,318
More here (these were the only 2 articles I read which suggest it’s the overall fee)
www.thisisanfield.com
Here
13 deals can Liverpool benefit from without transfer talks
How do sell-on clauses work and who has them?
www.thisisanfield.com
Here
AZ Gull
@SeagullsAcademy Threads: @bhafcacademy
Yep, go back and read post #7705 (two concrete examples plus the opinion of Albion's press officer).
That thisisanfield article includes the paragraph:More here (these were the only 2 articles I read which suggest it’s the overall fee)
13 deals can Liverpool benefit from without transfer talks
How do sell-on clauses work and who has them?
Here
View attachment 165026View attachment 165027
"Clubs can also negotiate a sell-on clause for a percentage of the profit made by a player’s next move; in the above scenario, then, the Reds would be owed £1.74 million, as 20 percent of Basel’s £8.7 million profit."
AZ Gull's previous post includes a few examples of it being based on the profit.
Of course a Sell on % is only on profit. Otherwise the buying club would very frequently make a loss on the players next sale even if higher (but lower than the kick back %) or the same as the original purchase price.
No one in their right mind would agree to anything else. I know there are some stupid clubs out there but none are that stupid.
No one in their right mind would agree to anything else. I know there are some stupid clubs out there but none are that stupid.
It's just obvious.
If Chelsea were to sell Cuckoo for a £10m loss, they wouldn't also have to pay us a percentage of that sale, that would be ridiculous.
I learnt something here, I had thought that sell on clauses were strictly based on profit. @Sheebo is actually correct, they can be in any form agreed by the two original clubs.
Gleaned from an obscure legal case I’d never heard of Brighton v Malaga that went all the way to CAS. Brighton won
https://www.lewissilkin.com/en/insi...he purpose of a sell,new club to another club.
“The Panel concluded that the sell-on clause was undoubtedly a type of clause which is typically used in professional football to allow the club which transfers a player to share in the benefits or profits of a future transfer of said player.”
Against the nsc tide of opinion, @Sheebo
Gleaned from an obscure legal case I’d never heard of Brighton v Malaga that went all the way to CAS. Brighton won
https://www.lewissilkin.com/en/insi...he purpose of a sell,new club to another club.
“The Panel concluded that the sell-on clause was undoubtedly a type of clause which is typically used in professional football to allow the club which transfers a player to share in the benefits or profits of a future transfer of said player.”
Against the nsc tide of opinion, @Sheebo
Algernon
Well-known member
Let's just say it's a percentage of the overall transfer fee.
Hypothetically, If we bought him back would we benefit financially from the sell on clause?
Hypothetically, If we bought him back would we benefit financially from the sell on clause?
While I don't doubt that clubs can sign up to pretty much whatever terms they like, I get the impression that the fee Malaga originally paid us would have been pretty minimal, and they don't seem to have the best handle on the finer points of the legal detail.I learnt something here, I had thought that sell on clauses were strictly based on profit. @Sheebo is actually correct, they can be in any form agreed by the two original clubs.
Gleaned from an obscure legal case I’d never heard of Brighton v Malaga that went all the way to CAS. Brighton won
https://www.lewissilkin.com/en/insights/whats-the-meaning-of-a-football-transfer#:~:text=The purpose of a sell,new club to another club.
“The Panel concluded that the sell-on clause was undoubtedly a type of clause which is typically used in professional football to allow the club which transfers a player to share in the benefits or profits of a future transfer of said player.”
Against the nsc tide of opinion, @Sheebo
AZ Gull
@SeagullsAcademy Threads: @bhafcacademy
I learnt something here, I had thought that sell on clauses were strictly based on profit. @Sheebo is actually correct, they can be in any form agreed by the two original clubs.
Gleaned from an obscure legal case I’d never heard of Brighton v Malaga that went all the way to CAS. Brighton won
https://www.lewissilkin.com/en/insights/whats-the-meaning-of-a-football-transfer#:~:text=The purpose of a sell,new club to another club.
“The Panel concluded that the sell-on clause was undoubtedly a type of clause which is typically used in professional football to allow the club which transfers a player to share in the benefits or profits of a future transfer of said player.”
Against the nsc tide of opinion, @Sheebo
The CAS case number is CAS 2021/A/8099 and if you google it a PDF copy is available for download.
The PDF file confirms (as @Sid and the Sharknados suspected) that there was NO upfront fee paid by Malaga to Albion:-
Therefore the sell-on clause that Albion negotiated with Malaga IS, effectively, based upon the profit that Malaga make on any future sale (because in this case the gross sale price and the profit are one-and-the-same). So, another example of the sell-on being based upon subsequent profits.
@Weststander - thanks for flagging this case up, I like to record details of all Albion transfer fees (paid or received) and I didn't know these details!
Well as there’s no public record of transfer documents I doubt I can for sure - but it’s usually a % of the overall transfer fee as the norm. Can you provide even one example of your version?
This article suggests it’s the overall fee usually. Of course, it can be anything the clubs agree but my take is the most common one is a % of the overall fee - Leon Knight deal may have just been different so you can’t be sure either!
What is the biggest fee earned from a football sell-on clause? | Football | The Guardian
Plus: the amazing Ljubomir Fejsa, Shamrock Rovers’ returning heroes of 2013 and goalscoring streakers
Birmingham had a 10% sell-on clause when they sold Bellingham for 25 million.
When Dortmund sold him for 88 million, it was reported that the Blues were set to receive over 6 mill.
That's calculated at 10% of the profit Dortmund made (63 million: 88 mill sale minus the 25 they sold Birmingham).
The Times
You'd have to imagine a sell-on based on profit is standard when a large initial fee is involved. Otherwise what's the point for the buying club?
Imagine Chelsea sell Moisés for 100 million in a couple of years and we had a 15% clause on the total fee. We'd end up with 130 mill profit (the initial 115 + the 15 sell on) while Chelsea would be 30 mill down. Even if they sold him for the price they bought for him they'd be making a loss of over 17 million. In fact, to make even a minimal profit they'd have to sell him for ~136 million.
I know we like to think Boehly is dumb but he ain't that dumb.
Poch prepared to well Cuckoo?
https://www.teamtalk.com/chelsea/ex...elsea-stars-pochettino-tells-talent-pack-bags
As the hopeless Chavs look to embark on yet another huge spend.
https://www.teamtalk.com/chelsea/ex...elsea-stars-pochettino-tells-talent-pack-bags
As the hopeless Chavs look to embark on yet another huge spend.
Mustafa II
Well-known member
I would totally have him back, for a discount price, despite everything.