The Gylfi thread.

[SCIAG]

If there's really that much interest in him why are they looking to sell him for a loss?

It wont be a loss though, as he hasn't played enough games for them to activate the add-ons in the deal.

There were no add ons in the deal. It was made quite clear by the club at the time that the money was all up front, unlike most of our dealings.

[TBM]

Think we were due another million or so

[Bumblebee]

114% of internet facts are made up

[TBM]

The other 75% are true

[pea]

If there's really that much interest in him why are they looking to sell him for a loss?

It wont be a loss though, as he hasn't played enough games for them to activate the add-ons in the deal.

There were no add ons in the deal. It was made quite clear by the club at the time that the money was all up front, unlike most of our dealings.

Except you're wrong, Mr McDermott will explain...

“Nick Hammond did a great deal when he left,” explained McDermott.

“We’ll get more money when he eventually goes to Real Madrid or wherever, because he will definitely end up with a top European side.”

[Arch]

We still believe, we still believe he's coming home
He's coming home, he's coming
Gylfi's coming home

[rfc2001]

Likewise I would love him to come back, but he's IMO a top four player now and our chances of getting him are slim! Arsenal IMO would be a dream move for him playing those passes for RVP.

He's too good for swansea!

[Ian Royal]

It wont be a loss though, as he hasn't played enough games for them to activate the add-ons in the deal.

There were no add ons in the deal. It was made quite clear by the club at the time that the money was all up front, unlike most of our dealings.

Except you're wrong, Mr McDermott will explain...

“Nick Hammond did a great deal when he left,” explained McDermott.

“We’ll get more money when he eventually goes to Real Madrid or wherever, because he will definitely end up with a top European side.”

Sell on clause, not add on payments.

[pea]

Except you're wrong, Mr McDermott will explain...

“Nick Hammond did a great deal when he left,” explained McDermott.

“We’ll get more money when he eventually goes to Real Madrid or wherever, because he will definitely end up with a top European side.”

Sell on clause, not add on payments.

Thats still an add-on... its not all the money up front is it

[Ian Royal]

Not really the same thing at all.

Add ons are fixed additional payments for appearances, goals, promotions, caps etc. They are set in the original transfer and a known monetary amount. A sell on clause is usually a percentage of the profit when the player is sold to another club. It's not quantifiable because there is no way of knowing if that player will ever be sold by club X, if it'll be for a profit and if so how much profit.

Therefore you can certainly have a transfer of £7m all upfront with a 15% sell on clause for example. Just because we may get more money when he's sold doesn't mean the transfer fee when we sold him wasn't all up front.

Should the sell on fee angle be correct, and should the all up front be correct. We'll be receiving money in addition to the £7m transfer fee he went for. Assuming that figure was accurately reported in the first place of course.

[Wycombe Royal]

Not really the same thing at all.

Add ons are fixed additional payments for appearances, goals, promotions, caps etc. They are set in the original transfer and a known monetary amount. A sell on clause is usually a percentage of the profit when the player is sold to another club. It's not quantifiable because there is no way of knowing if that player will ever be sold by club X, if it'll be for a profit and if so how much profit.

Therefore you can certainly have a transfer of £7m all upfront with a 15% sell on clause for example. Just because we may get more money when he's sold doesn't mean the transfer fee when we sold him wasn't all up front.

Should the sell on fee angle be correct, and should the all up front be correct. We'll be receiving money in addition to the £7m transfer fee he went for. Assuming that figure was accurately reported in the first place of course.

It's an add-on, stop being so pedantic. THere is a fee and there are "add on" clauses which could be in the form of additional fees and amounts when a player is sold on. An add on does NOT have to be a quantifiable amount.

[FiNeRaIn]

Yeah agreed ^

If its additional to the fee paid up front...its an add-on.

[The Rouge]

“We’ll get more money when he eventually goes to Real Madrid or wherever, because he will definitely end up with a top European side.”

Sell on clause, not add on payments.

[Ian Royal]

Not really the same thing at all.

Add ons are fixed additional payments for appearances, goals, promotions, caps etc. They are set in the original transfer and a known monetary amount. A sell on clause is usually a percentage of the profit when the player is sold to another club. It's not quantifiable because there is no way of knowing if that player will ever be sold by club X, if it'll be for a profit and if so how much profit.

Therefore you can certainly have a transfer of £7m all upfront with a 15% sell on clause for example. Just because we may get more money when he's sold doesn't mean the transfer fee when we sold him wasn't all up front.

Should the sell on fee angle be correct, and should the all up front be correct. We'll be receiving money in addition to the £7m transfer fee he went for. Assuming that figure was accurately reported in the first place of course.

It's an add-on, stop being so pedantic. THere is a fee and there are "add on" clauses which could be in the form of additional fees and amounts when a player is sold on. An add on does NOT have to be a quantifiable amount.

I'm not being pedantic. I'm explaining why you can correctly describe a fee as all upfront when there is a sell on clause in the transfer.

[Platypuss]

I'm with Ian here - if a transfer is said to be £500k plus add-ons, I certainly wouldn't include any sell-on clause as being part of it.
If a fee was quoted as being "up to £3M including add-ons" that would definitely not include any sell-on. How could it?

[Wycombe Royal]

It is a clause that is "added on" to the transfer fee agreed. The fact that is not quantifiable is irrelevant.

[melonhead]

defo wycombe.

[TBM]

We got about £6m up front but then were due another £1m once he had played around 30 games for Hoffenheim

[dogzbollox]

We got about £6m up front but then were due another £1m once he had played around 30 games for Hoffenheim

Well if that's correct, and if the font of all knowledge (Wiki) (sarcasm) is correct he's had 36 appearances for them........ so show me the money!!

[Ian Royal]

It is a clause that is "added on" to the transfer fee agreed. The fact that is not quantifiable is irrelevant.

In the argument about whether a sell on clause is technically an add on. Yes, you are correct.

However you've totally missed the context of the post and I suggest you go back a page or two to find it. The context was that the transfer fee couldn't be all up front because we would get more when Gylfi was sold on. Which is wrong. The fee can be all upfront with no installments or add ons to the agreed fee itself. The sell on clause is completely separate to the actual fee.

It is impossible to have the entire fee upfront if there's a sell on clause according to the other argument, which is clearly a nonsense.

This is all a bit tragic from just trying to explain something to someone though, so I can't be bothered to explain any further if you still don't get it.