by Top Flight » 04 Sep 2007 09:19
by Coppelled Streets » 04 Sep 2007 11:10
SpaceCruiser At last, it's about time. This should shut the doubters up.
by Ascension » 04 Sep 2007 11:14
Coppelled StreetsSpaceCruiser At last, it's about time. This should shut the doubters up.
by SpaceCruiser » 04 Sep 2007 11:15
Coppelled StreetsSpaceCruiser At last, it's about time. This should shut the doubters up.
by southbank1871 » 04 Sep 2007 11:55
Sebastiansouthbank1871 Just spoke to my Wolves supporting boss about him. He says that he started off very well, has an excellent touch and can cross the ball well. However, last season he was apparently really bad, as the way Wolves were playing shattered his confidence. He reckons it is a gamble and could be very good business from Wolves, but that if he plays with confidence, he could do pretty well for us.
Southbank, I salute you - you should be some kind of fortune teller!
by Binfield Royal » 04 Sep 2007 12:33
by RoyalBlue » 04 Sep 2007 13:07
Binfield Royal OS article mentions a sell on clause for Wolves.
Presumably, because we swapped him rather than selling him, Wolves don't get anything else.
Squeaky really is very astute - Hats off to Hammo.
by Forbury Lion » 04 Sep 2007 13:10
The fees in question being very low I presume.RoyalBlueBinfield Royal OS article mentions a sell on clause for Wolves.
Presumably, because we swapped him rather than selling him, Wolves don't get anything else.
Squeaky really is very astute - Hats off to Hammo.
I think you will find that it wasn't actually a swap but a two way transfer involving fees.
Also, I'm sure we're not the only ones who employ some smart people. Even if it was a swap, Wolves might have managed to cover that in the contract (e.g. notional value to be agreed by independent tribunal), particularly as we have a record for working the small print/technicalities in our favour.
by RoyalBlue » 04 Sep 2007 13:22
Forbury LionThe fees in question being very low I presume.RoyalBlueBinfield Royal OS article mentions a sell on clause for Wolves.
Presumably, because we swapped him rather than selling him, Wolves don't get anything else.
Squeaky really is very astute - Hats off to Hammo.
I think you will find that it wasn't actually a swap but a two way transfer involving fees.
Also, I'm sure we're not the only ones who employ some smart people. Even if it was a swap, Wolves might have managed to cover that in the contract (e.g. notional value to be agreed by independent tribunal), particularly as we have a record for working the small print/technicalities in our favour.
I would have thought that any transfer sell on fee would be based on the amount above a specified level, , So if we sell a player for less we pay no sell on fee.
Users browsing this forum: BarryWhiteRFC, bcubed, Google Adsense [Bot], Polonia and 272 guests