RUMOUR - Harper to Middlesborough

[Row Z Royal]

40%!

Deos this still apply if Harper has signed a new contract since then...?

Yes, wasnt that the argument we tried to use when we didnt want to pay York more money for Murts?

I'm sure I heard somewhere that we claimed that we released Murty during one of the times he was out injured for a while then signed him on a free transfer the same day, thus voiding any agreement we had with York. That may be (and probably is to be fair) complete bollox, however it would explain why we thought we didn't owe York anything.

Sounds like nonsense to me.

However, it would be interesting to test the scenario of sell-ons under a new contract in the courts.

[BR2]

Arsenal seem to have got this sell-on situation sorted because today's paper says that they will cop quite a bit of money when Bentley leaves Blackburn.

[The whole year inn]

Arsenal seem to have got this sell-on situation sorted because today's paper says that they will cop quite a bit of money when Bentley leaves Blackburn.

Can't argue with it really.

They let Harper go for relatively cheap and just want to possibly get back some of the money they invested in his education should he come good.

Sure Sidwell would have had a similar clause.

[brendywendy]

Arsenal seem to have got this sell-on situation sorted because today's paper says that they will cop quite a bit of money when Bentley leaves Blackburn.

Can't argue with it really.

They let Harper go for relatively cheap and just want to possibly get back some of the money they invested in his education should he come good.

Sure Sidwell would have had a similar clause.

that was one of the reasons we let him run out the contract

[Sarah Star]

Harper's talking about being happy to stay in the EP, so Steve Coppell says anyway.

http://www.getreading.co.uk/sport/footb ... py_to_stay

[gazzer, loyal royal]

it is a well known fact that arsenal always put in sell-on clauses into players that never quite make the first team because with their education, they will always go for a transfee fee

Harpers isn't as high as 40%, think it is more 25%, where as Sidwell's was 30%, hence why we never took 2.5m for him as well would have lost 750,000 back to arsenal

[Roger the Rabbit]

it is a well known fact that arsenal always put in sell-on clauses into players that never quite make the first team because with their education, they will always go for a transfee fee

Harpers isn't as high as 40%, think it is more 25%, where as Sidwell's was 30%, hence why we never took 2.5m for him as well would have lost 750,000 back to arsenal

So to save 750k we threw away 1.75 million ? Is there a logic there ?

[BR2]

Harper's talking about being happy to stay in the EP, so Steve Coppell says anyway.

http://www.getreading.co.uk/sport/footb ... py_to_stay

Don't believe everything you read in the papers.

[Elm Park]

it is a well known fact that arsenal always put in sell-on clauses into players that never quite make the first team because with their education, they will always go for a transfee fee

Harpers isn't as high as 40%, think it is more 25%, where as Sidwell's was 30%, hence why we never took 2.5m for him as well would have lost 750,000 back to arsenal

So to save 750k we threw away 1.75 million ? Is there a logic there ?

Well if you believe half those on here that he is the reason we stayed up, then yes.

[West Stand Man]

it is a well known fact that arsenal always put in sell-on clauses into players that never quite make the first team because with their education, they will always go for a transfee fee

Harpers isn't as high as 40%, think it is more 25%, where as Sidwell's was 30%, hence why we never took 2.5m for him as well would have lost 750,000 back to arsenal

So to save 750k we threw away 1.75 million ? Is there a logic there ?

It wasn't 'throwing away' £1.75M. The investment appraisal that was involved would have looked at the cash gain of £1.75M v the benefits of keeping him for a season. The result was that it was more lucrative to keep him and accept that it was a season of football from him and then he'd go. If you are going to get invovled in an argument about finances just do the sums.

1 more season from Sidwell at £1.75M + his pay, or sign a replacement now at a higher transfer fee and more pay. I suspect that the answer was sought and given.

[Southbank Old Boy]

You can't discount the impact on that decision of the (probably) fact that Sidwell wanted to run down his contract so as to maximise his options (and £££'s) at the end of the season when he became a free agent.

The club may not have had much of a choice in the matter, but you can see why losing a hefty chunk of a potential transfer fee would've made quite a difference to the outcome of the decision, if the club had to make it.

[Roger the Rabbit]

. If you are going to get invovled in an argument about finances just do the sums.

.

Sorry, you may want to reread the posts and try and join in with the point being made !

The statement was made that we didn't accept an offer for £2.5 million for Sidwell on the basis that we would have had to pay Arsenal a chunk of that. I don't think that makes financial sense, even allowing for your added explanation. The value of staying up was more than £2.5 million, so that would suggest we turned down this offer for a reason other than the fact that we would have had to pay Arsenal 750k.

Whilst not throwing in terms like 'investment appraisal' and 'cash gain' I think i can see what the sums involved are, and I think that they indicate that the reason for not selling Sidwell earlier were not simply down to any sell on clause !

On a related matter, I can;t actually remmeber anyone bidding £2.5 million for Sidwell - but that's probably poor memory !

[Dirk Gently]

But the value of staying in the PL was far more than the money saved from any transfer fee - and that was much more likely with Sidwell in the team, so that gamble came off.

Also, let's not forget that for all of that season Sidwell was actually our lowest paid first-team player - as he didn't sign the new contract that was offered he played the whole season on Championship level wages.

[Southbank Old Boy]

But the value of staying in the PL was far more than the money saved from any transfer fee - and that was much more likely with Sidwell in the team, so that gamble came off.

Also, let's not forget that for all of that season Sidwell was actually our lowest paid first-team player - as he didn't sign the new contract that was offered he played the whole season on Championship level wages.

Although Championship wages that probably included some significant pay rise for going up a division!

JM was quoted as saying the wage bill effectively doubled the moment we were promoted. He may have been referring just to those players who were about to be renegotiated but I'm sure all the players had some provision for a promotion related wage increase because they didn't all get a new improved deal when we went up.

[Rawlie19]

But the value of staying in the PL was far more than the money saved from any transfer fee - and that was much more likely with Sidwell in the team, so that gamble came off.

Also, let's not forget that for all of that season Sidwell was actually our lowest paid first-team player - as he didn't sign the new contract that was offered he played the whole season on Championship level wages.

Not quite. He would have got a pay bump due to the clause in his already active contract for promotion. But I get your point.

[Wycombe Royal]

But the value of staying in the PL was far more than the money saved from any transfer fee - and that was much more likely with Sidwell in the team, so that gamble came off.

Also, let's not forget that for all of that season Sidwell was actually our lowest paid first-team player - as he didn't sign the new contract that was offered he played the whole season on Championship level wages.

Not quite. He would have got a pay bump due to the clause in his already active contract for promotion. But I get your point.

Not necessarily, as I have heard that Little did not get a pay rise on promotion (that comes from a source with links to club).

[Uke]

You can't discount the impact on that decision of the (probably) fact that Sidwell wanted to run down his contract so as to maximise his options (and £££'s) at the end of the season when he became a free agent.

The club may not have had much of a choice in the matter, but you can see why losing a hefty chunk of a potential transfer fee would've made quite a difference to the outcome of the decision, if the club had to make it.

You are spot on here.

The transfer to Villa was delayed because Sidwell wanted his hefty compensation from Chelsea, so its clear what motivates him. I will expect to see him having a string of clubs as long as Marcus Bent's soon.

After all he does have a family to feed

[IMAMATEOFJOVSKY]

Lee Cattermore moving to Wigan for £3.5m - Southgate suggested last week that a move for Harper was subject to another transfer out taking place ...this could be the one..

[Row Z Royal]

One less CM at 'boro if Cattermole goes to Wigwam

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528, ... 62,00.html

[rfcjoe]

Yeah, can see the deal taking place soonish tbh now.........