Seol Ki-Hyeon - FINALLY A SIGNING

211 posts
User avatar
AbovetheI
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 2017
Joined: 11 Mar 2005 22:13

by AbovetheI » 03 Sep 2007 23:28

LOLikewise! :lol:

Top Flight
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 3269
Joined: 02 Jun 2006 22:46

by Top Flight » 04 Sep 2007 09:19

Everyone's entitled to change their mind............

Coppelled Streets
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 1679
Joined: 20 Jun 2006 22:43

by Coppelled Streets » 04 Sep 2007 11:10

SpaceCruiser At last, it's about time. This should shut the doubters up.


:P

User avatar
Ascension
Member
Posts: 78
Joined: 10 Nov 2005 11:09
Location: Relocating

by Ascension » 04 Sep 2007 11:14

Coppelled Streets
SpaceCruiser At last, it's about time. This should shut the doubters up.


:P


Ah yes Jay, what was it you said about Halford? :lol:

User avatar
SpaceCruiser
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 5590
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 14:17
Location: Desperately seeking to return home

by SpaceCruiser » 04 Sep 2007 11:15

Coppelled Streets
SpaceCruiser At last, it's about time. This should shut the doubters up.


:P


I seem to remember that my point was that people were moaning that we were going to sign nobody and I was having a go at those people.


User avatar
southbank1871
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 3279
Joined: 02 Mar 2005 12:15
Location: And yeah I'd love to tell you all my problem, you're not from New York City you're from Rotherham

by southbank1871 » 04 Sep 2007 11:55

Sebastian
southbank1871 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!


:lol: He was pretty much spot on wasn't he?

I still stand by what I said on the first page. I was happy with the signing at the time, but in the end he just wasn't a Reading-type player and we couldn't accommodate someone who wasn't willing/able to work as hard as everyone else.

User avatar
Binfield Royal
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 354
Joined: 19 Apr 2004 12:08
Location: Ascended

by Binfield Royal » 04 Sep 2007 12:33

OS article mentions a sell on clause for Wolves.

Presumably, because we swapped him rather than selling him, Wolves don't get anything else.

:D

Squeaky really is very astute - Hats off to Hammo.

User avatar
RoyalBlue
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 11779
Joined: 13 Apr 2004 22:39
Location: Developed a pathological hatred of snakes on 14/10/19

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.

:D

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.

Forbury Lion
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 9169
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 08:37
Location: https://youtu.be/c4sX57ZUhzc

by Forbury Lion » 04 Sep 2007 13:10

RoyalBlue
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.

:D

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.
The fees in question being very low I presume.

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.


User avatar
RoyalBlue
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 11779
Joined: 13 Apr 2004 22:39
Location: Developed a pathological hatred of snakes on 14/10/19

by RoyalBlue » 04 Sep 2007 13:22

Forbury Lion
RoyalBlue
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.

:D

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.
The fees in question being very low I presume.

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.


Out of interest, why do you think the fees would have been very low?

Take your point that sell on may be a percentage of any fee above a certain level but that still doesn't preclude Wolves having covered this particular scenario in the initial deal for, by example, having a notional fee determined by an independent tribunal and a sell on percentage based on that fee.

User avatar
TFF
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5321
Joined: 20 Jan 2006 09:17
Location: Running to the hills

by TFF » 04 Sep 2007 13:42

Spotted a bargain in the megastore:



£1

211 posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Orion1871, Royals and Racers and 214 guests

It is currently 30 Nov 2024 12:06