Garcia to be sold

[Sutekh]

May as well post this in here: https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/fabri ... re-garcia/

Is the line about not being able to get transfer fees for 16 year old’s accurate ? I can’t find any regulations to this effect, if a player has a pro contract then why, subject to safeguarding, should they be allowed to move without a fee but not with a fee ?
What I can see in FIFA regs is a clause that says u18’s can’t be transferred internationally unless they meet certain criteria , which Garcia doesn’t appear to.

It may be we can agree to sell him in advance and the transfer will happen at the start of the first window after he turns eighteen, but cannot answer that.

Cr@p article. Garcia is 17.

[Crusader Royal]

Is the line about not being able to get transfer fees for 16 year old’s accurate ? I can’t find any regulations to this effect, if a player has a pro contract then why, subject to safeguarding, should they be allowed to move without a fee but not with a fee ?
What I can see in FIFA regs is a clause that says u18’s can’t be transferred internationally unless they meet certain criteria , which Garcia doesn’t appear to.

It may be we can agree to sell him in advance and the transfer will happen at the start of the first window after he turns eighteen, but cannot answer that.

Cr@p article. Garcia is 17.

He had previously been 16 I believe.

[Broxroyal]

IIRC, a player can sign his first pro contract at 17, - prior to that he is on an academy contract. Unless Garcia signed a pro contract on his 17th birthday, and I think we would have heard if he had, he can just walk away when he gets a good offer. We would get some compensation for developing him but that doesn't usually amount to much.

[RG30]

PSG had him watched a number of times this season.

[Winston Biscuit]

IIRC, a player can sign his first pro contract at 17, - prior to that he is on an academy contract. Unless Garcia signed a pro contract on his 17th birthday, and I think we would have heard if he had, he can just walk away when he gets a good offer. We would get some compensation for developing him but that doesn't usually amount to much.

you are correct on the age thing. Until your 17th birthday you can only sign a scholarship contract, and the monthly wage is the same for all scholars at the club. Once you turn 17 you can sign a professional contract, but any contract signed before your 18th birthday can only be a maximum of 3 years.

A player on scholarship terms is still under contract and can't leave unless the club agrees.

clubs get 'training compensation & solidarity payments' when youngsters leave, but the amounts and timescales (up to 23 years old for some) can vary a bit depending on how many clubs have been involved, whether fee's have been paid and whether they are transferring within a country or if its an international transfer

[Sutekh]

IIRC, a player can sign his first pro contract at 17, - prior to that he is on an academy contract. Unless Garcia signed a pro contract on his 17th birthday, and I think we would have heard if he had, he can just walk away when he gets a good offer. We would get some compensation for developing him but that doesn't usually amount to much.

you are correct on the age thing. Until your 17th birthday you can only sign a scholarship contract, and the monthly wage is the same for all scholars at the club. Once you turn 17 you can sign a professional contract, but any contract signed before your 18th birthday can only be a maximum of 3 years.

A player on scholarship terms is still under contract and can't leave unless the club agrees.

clubs get 'training compensation & solidarity payments' when youngsters leave, but the amounts and timescales (up to 23 years old for some) can vary a bit depending on how many clubs have been involved, whether fee's have been paid and whether they are transferring within a country or if its an international transfer

So anyone able to hazard an intelligent guess on the sort of money Reading could get up front for Garcia if there's also a healthy sell on clause? Presume we'd be looking well below £1m

[Clyde1998]

IIRC, a player can sign his first pro contract at 17, - prior to that he is on an academy contract. Unless Garcia signed a pro contract on his 17th birthday, and I think we would have heard if he had, he can just walk away when he gets a good offer. We would get some compensation for developing him but that doesn't usually amount to much.

you are correct on the age thing. Until your 17th birthday you can only sign a scholarship contract, and the monthly wage is the same for all scholars at the club. Once you turn 17 you can sign a professional contract, but any contract signed before your 18th birthday can only be a maximum of 3 years.

A player on scholarship terms is still under contract and can't leave unless the club agrees.

clubs get 'training compensation & solidarity payments' when youngsters leave, but the amounts and timescales (up to 23 years old for some) can vary a bit depending on how many clubs have been involved, whether fee's have been paid and whether they are transferring within a country or if its an international transfer

So anyone able to hazard an intelligent guess on the sort of money Reading could get up front for Garcia if there's also a healthy sell on clause? Presume we'd be looking well below £1m

As long as there's a good sell on clause, I'm not sure the upfront fee matters too much for Garcia. Would rather have a long term benefit from him.

[Sutekh]

you are correct on the age thing. Until your 17th birthday you can only sign a scholarship contract, and the monthly wage is the same for all scholars at the club. Once you turn 17 you can sign a professional contract, but any contract signed before your 18th birthday can only be a maximum of 3 years.

A player on scholarship terms is still under contract and can't leave unless the club agrees.

clubs get 'training compensation & solidarity payments' when youngsters leave, but the amounts and timescales (up to 23 years old for some) can vary a bit depending on how many clubs have been involved, whether fee's have been paid and whether they are transferring within a country or if its an international transfer

So anyone able to hazard an intelligent guess on the sort of money Reading could get up front for Garcia if there's also a healthy sell on clause? Presume we'd be looking well below £1m

As long as there's a good sell on clause, I'm not sure the upfront fee matters too much for Garcia. Would rather have a long term benefit from him.

Just thinking a good up front fee would lessen the need to sell so many of the others.

[Stranded]

you are correct on the age thing. Until your 17th birthday you can only sign a scholarship contract, and the monthly wage is the same for all scholars at the club. Once you turn 17 you can sign a professional contract, but any contract signed before your 18th birthday can only be a maximum of 3 years.

A player on scholarship terms is still under contract and can't leave unless the club agrees.

clubs get 'training compensation & solidarity payments' when youngsters leave, but the amounts and timescales (up to 23 years old for some) can vary a bit depending on how many clubs have been involved, whether fee's have been paid and whether they are transferring within a country or if its an international transfer

So anyone able to hazard an intelligent guess on the sort of money Reading could get up front for Garcia if there's also a healthy sell on clause? Presume we'd be looking well below £1m

As long as there's a good sell on clause, I'm not sure the upfront fee matters too much for Garcia. Would rather have a long term benefit from him.

Sell-ons can be risky though - say Garcia goes for say 500k now with a 30% sell on. He signs for Club A on a 3 year deal (as under 18) - as Club A are bigger, he has more competition and doesn't get many minutes instead "developing" in the Academy - at the the end of 3 years, the club decide the now 20 yo Garcia is not going to make their first team, so decide to release him. He signs for club B and goes on to have a stellar career eventually being sold to a top club for a very large fee.

We get training costs and thats it.

[Winston Biscuit]

So anyone able to hazard an intelligent guess on the sort of money Reading could get up front for Garcia if there's also a healthy sell on clause? Presume we'd be looking well below £1m

As long as there's a good sell on clause, I'm not sure the upfront fee matters too much for Garcia. Would rather have a long term benefit from him.

Sell-ons can be risky though - say Garcia goes for say 500k now with a 30% sell on. He signs for Club A on a 3 year deal (as under 18) - as Club A are bigger, he has more competition and doesn't get many minutes instead "developing" in the Academy - at the the end of 3 years, the club decide the now 20 yo Garcia is not going to make their first team, so decide to release him. He signs for club B and goes on to have a stellar career eventually being sold to a top club for a very large fee.

We get training costs and thats it.

True, but the sell on fee will last for the lifetime of a players career, as long as he is being transferred for money, so you can still be receiving a sell on fee amount 10 years down the line when the player is 5 clubs further on. Can be more rewarding long term than people realise, so if you really think the player is going to have a great career then it may be worth gambling on that

[Stranded]

As long as there's a good sell on clause, I'm not sure the upfront fee matters too much for Garcia. Would rather have a long term benefit from him.

Sell-ons can be risky though - say Garcia goes for say 500k now with a 30% sell on. He signs for Club A on a 3 year deal (as under 18) - as Club A are bigger, he has more competition and doesn't get many minutes instead "developing" in the Academy - at the the end of 3 years, the club decide the now 20 yo Garcia is not going to make their first team, so decide to release him. He signs for club B and goes on to have a stellar career eventually being sold to a top club for a very large fee.

We get training costs and thats it.

True, but the sell on fee will last for the lifetime of a players career, as long as he is being transferred for money, so you can still be receiving a sell on fee amount 10 years down the line when the player is 5 clubs further on. Can be more rewarding long term than people realise, so if you really think the player is going to have a great career then it may be worth gambling on that

You wouldn't get anything based on the deal with Club A though - if he leaves on a free, we get 0 from them. We are due nothing from future transfers.

However, we will continue to get solidarity payments but we would get those regardless of if we sell him for a fiver or 5m.

[Winston Biscuit]

Sell-ons can be risky though - say Garcia goes for say 500k now with a 30% sell on. He signs for Club A on a 3 year deal (as under 18) - as Club A are bigger, he has more competition and doesn't get many minutes instead "developing" in the Academy - at the the end of 3 years, the club decide the now 20 yo Garcia is not going to make their first team, so decide to release him. He signs for club B and goes on to have a stellar career eventually being sold to a top club for a very large fee.

We get training costs and thats it.

True, but the sell on fee will last for the lifetime of a players career, as long as he is being transferred for money, so you can still be receiving a sell on fee amount 10 years down the line when the player is 5 clubs further on. Can be more rewarding long term than people realise, so if you really think the player is going to have a great career then it may be worth gambling on that

You wouldn't get anything based on the deal with Club A though - if he leaves on a free, we get 0 from them. We are due nothing from future transfers.

I know, hence the 'as long as he is being transferred for money'.

It's just a short term Vs long term gamble decision that clubs have to make. I would imagine with RFC everything is based on short term at the moment.

[Crusader Royal]

True, but the sell on fee will last for the lifetime of a players career, as long as he is being transferred for money, so you can still be receiving a sell on fee amount 10 years down the line when the player is 5 clubs further on. Can be more rewarding long term than people realise, so if you really think the player is going to have a great career then it may be worth gambling on that

You wouldn't get anything based on the deal with Club A though - if he leaves on a free, we get 0 from them. We are due nothing from future transfers.

I know, hence the 'as long as he is being transferred for money'.

It's just a short term Vs long term gamble decision that clubs have to make. I would imagine with RFC everything is based on short term at the moment.

Really not sure sell on fees carry on beyond the immediate deal. How would that even work ? Could you put a clause in a contract of which you were not part ? Are you not getting confused with training / solidarity payments ?

[Snowflake Royal]

You wouldn't get anything based on the deal with Club A though - if he leaves on a free, we get 0 from them. We are due nothing from future transfers.

I know, hence the 'as long as he is being transferred for money'.

It's just a short term Vs long term gamble decision that clubs have to make. I would imagine with RFC everything is based on short term at the moment.

Really not sure sell on fees carry on beyond the immediate deal. How would that even work ? Could you put a clause in a contract of which you were not part ? Are you not getting confused with training / solidarity payments ?

Any time the club we sell to gets fees.

Club 1 - sells £100k - 10% sell on.
Club 2 - sells £1m, 10% sell on, Club 1 gets £100k
Club 3 - sells £10m, 10% sell on. Club 2 gets £900k, club 1 gets £100k
Club 4 etc.

[Winston Biscuit]

You wouldn't get anything based on the deal with Club A though - if he leaves on a free, we get 0 from them. We are due nothing from future transfers.

I know, hence the 'as long as he is being transferred for money'.

It's just a short term Vs long term gamble decision that clubs have to make. I would imagine with RFC everything is based on short term at the moment.

Really not sure sell on fees carry on beyond the immediate deal. How would that even work ? Could you put a clause in a contract of which you were not part ? Are you not getting confused with training / solidarity payments ?

my understanding is that sell on clauses changed more than a decade ago so that now its pretty standard that the wording says they take a % of 'all future earnings'. It means that anytime that player gets sold, as long as the future club also puts in a sell on clause, then sell on clauses trickle down to all parties that also have that clause.

Ivan Toney is the example I used on this one before in another conversation. Toney went to Saudi for £40M. Peterborough confirmed they had a sell on clause when they sold him to Brentford, but said they were not allowed to say how much that was. Due to Barry Fry having a big mouth it became clear their sell on clause was around 10-15%. Peterborough also publicly confirmed that Newcastle had put a 30% sell on fee in the deal when they sold him to Peterborough, so of their sell on amount (£4M-£6M) they would be passing 30% (£1.2M - £1.8M) onto Newcastle. The Peterborough chairman also said that Northampton have a sell on fee from when they sold to Newcastle, and while he wouldn't say how much percentage wise it was, he said he knows once Toney went to Saudi, Northampton had made more than £1M in total from selling Ivan Toney

[Crusader Royal]

I know, hence the 'as long as he is being transferred for money'.

It's just a short term Vs long term gamble decision that clubs have to make. I would imagine with RFC everything is based on short term at the moment.

Really not sure sell on fees carry on beyond the immediate deal. How would that even work ? Could you put a clause in a contract of which you were not part ? Are you not getting confused with training / solidarity payments ?

my understanding is that sell on clauses changed more than a decade ago so that now its pretty standard that the wording says they take a % of 'all future earnings'. It means that anytime that player gets sold, as long as the future club also puts in a sell on clause, then sell on clauses trickle down to all parties that also have that clause.

Ivan Toney is the example I used on this one before in another conversation. Toney went to Saudi for £40M. Peterborough confirmed they had a sell on clause when they sold him to Brentford, but said they were not allowed to say how much that was. Due to Barry Fry having a big mouth it became clear their sell on clause was around 10-15%. Peterborough also publicly confirmed that Newcastle had put a 30% sell on fee in the deal when they sold him to Peterborough, so of their sell on amount (£4M-£6M) they would be passing 30% (£1.2M - £1.8M) onto Newcastle. The Peterborough chairman also said that Northampton have a sell on fee from when they sold to Newcastle, and while he wouldn't say how much percentage wise it was, he said he knows once Toney went to Saudi, Northampton had made more than £1M in total from selling Ivan Toney

That makes sense, the ‘future earnings’ wording would be good although obviously it has to be there by agreement and in a situation where the buying club has the power they might just not agree to it.
The bit about it only lasting as long as clubs further down the line add in sell on clauses is pretty important ! You are right that earnings CAN continue beyond the initial couple of sales but it’s not guaranteed at all.

[Greatwesternline]

Really not sure sell on fees carry on beyond the immediate deal. How would that even work ? Could you put a clause in a contract of which you were not part ? Are you not getting confused with training / solidarity payments ?

my understanding is that sell on clauses changed more than a decade ago so that now its pretty standard that the wording says they take a % of 'all future earnings'. It means that anytime that player gets sold, as long as the future club also puts in a sell on clause, then sell on clauses trickle down to all parties that also have that clause.

Ivan Toney is the example I used on this one before in another conversation. Toney went to Saudi for £40M. Peterborough confirmed they had a sell on clause when they sold him to Brentford, but said they were not allowed to say how much that was. Due to Barry Fry having a big mouth it became clear their sell on clause was around 10-15%. Peterborough also publicly confirmed that Newcastle had put a 30% sell on fee in the deal when they sold him to Peterborough, so of their sell on amount (£4M-£6M) they would be passing 30% (£1.2M - £1.8M) onto Newcastle. The Peterborough chairman also said that Northampton have a sell on fee from when they sold to Newcastle, and while he wouldn't say how much percentage wise it was, he said he knows once Toney went to Saudi, Northampton had made more than £1M in total from selling Ivan Toney

That makes sense, the ‘future earnings’ wording would be good although obviously it has to be there by agreement and in a situation where the buying club has the power they might just not agree to it.
The bit about it only lasting as long as clubs further down the line add in sell on clauses is pretty important ! You are right that earnings CAN continue beyond the initial couple of sales but it’s not guaranteed at all.

You would only be able to daisy chain these things with the club you sold to.

If you sell to Club A, and they sell to club B, sure you get some money. But if Club A doesn't include a sell on clause when selling to Club B the game is up, should club B sell to Club C. There would be no gain for Club A for Reading to be the beneficiary of.

[Sutekh]

Southampton have now offered a package that would be worth £2m for Garcia. Guess it’ll depend how much the club gets up front.

[Hendo]

£1m + £1m over the next 3 years with a 15-20% sell-on fee and I think that'll be that.

[Hound]

£1m + £1m over the next 3 years with a 15-20% sell-on fee and I think that'll be that.

Yes

Sell ons are so impt nowadays. Seems that you can sell anyone who gets any sort of 1st team look in in a prem squad for 10m+

Even if Soton get back up to the prem as they prob will next year he’ll be worth an awful lot more than a mid table div1 side player