comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by just me Bill (U13802)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by Chronic (U3423)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by jimbo dimmock 1921 (U19632)
posted 3 minutes ago
I cannot see Levy wanting to take a big loss on him after just 12 months, on the other hand, he may just accept it was not meant to be, and sell and move on.
-------
we have only paid about 13mill I believe. so I doubt it would be much of a hit if at all.
he could probably still command a fee of 12-15 mill
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, are you saying he didn't cost £26m, only £13m. Or that, if we sold him on, we would not have to pay the rest of the fee we still owe, if indeed you are right about the payments made?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It cant be right that if we sell him we need not pay anything more than the £13m down payment. If he fails to trigger add on payments by not scoring or playing etc then fair enough, they are bonus payments which the selling club cannot guarantee receiving. But there must be a clause which means if we sell him on they get some more payments...so say the fee was £13m up front. £3m a year for 3 years and then £5m of add ons if he hits certain targets....then youd expect us to have to pay the £27m less the add on, so £22m in this example, or maybe just an agreed % of the sell on price
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Along the right lines, but I doubt a selling club would accept a bid of X and then agree that only X-Y needs to be paid up front and would accept a percentage of the sell-on price. After all, if the sell-on price is very low they would not get very much and only a part of the £22m (in your example).
If I sold an article for £22m that is exactly what I would expect to get, and if the whole £22m was not paid up front, ie over a period of time, I would expect interest payments to be added to the outstanding balance until the whole was paid.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by THE ACE FACE (U18814)
posted 2 minutes ago
Irrelevant that we've only paid £13m. The price was and remains £26m as far as Valencia are concerned. Put simply, we still owe them 13 million quid. If we sold him to Atletico for £15m, Valencia would still expect their £13m. Whether we carried on paying instalments or used the money we got from Atletico for him to pay off in full, the fact is he cost us £26m and that's what we'll pay; what we recoup is a separate matter.
I buy a car on finance for £20k and decide to sell it for £10k, my creditor isn't gonna waive his money - he'll still expect the full £20k we agreed regardless of what ongoing arrangements I make with other parties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Precisely, thanks for that!
Bill, I think most people thought you were arguing the opposite when you said this:
"we have only paid about 13mill I believe. so I doubt it would be much of a hit if at all.
he could probably still command a fee of 12-15 mill"
It obviously wasn't what you meant, but you seemed to be saying that you wouldn't have to pay the outstanding 12/13M.
comment by itsonlyagame - Jose are you watching, are you watching Jose? (U6426)
posted 2 minutes ago
Bill, I think most people thought you were arguing the opposite when you said this:
"we have only paid about 13mill I believe. so I doubt it would be much of a hit if at all.
he could probably still command a fee of 12-15 mill"
It obviously wasn't what you meant, but you seemed to be saying that you wouldn't have to pay the outstanding 12/13M.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You might be right Itsonly, but I didn't originally say that.
Chronic made the original remark to that effect and I was trying to find out what he meant by that.
I was simply quoting it to ask the question and to cast doubt on its accuracy.
That is the trouble with all this quoting and copying, who said what and when does become a bit confusing after a while.
I thought we had to pay something like £6.5m every summer for 4 years
My understanding was that past the initial £13m, the rest was based on performance/goal targets. So surely if the targets aren't reached then we don't pay out?
Must admit Bill, I thought you were saying we would not have to pay the rest of the fee.
However a lot of deals contain clauses re performance, achievement etc. We are due a further £8-10m from Real for Bale with them winning the CL.
Hi Genius (note I haven't quoted your post above to save any confusion.
The problem is that it sometimes pays to be forthright rather than trying to be polite and friendly and asking for explanations.
One person says something that I do not think is right but rather than simply say so I ask for an explanation in case that person has information that I am not privy to.
But there is a lot said on these forums that is purely hearsay, rumour and myth. Very few, if any, have access to actual fact. Facts about contracts that are signed between two clubs for example, for the purchase/sale of a player.
Take, for example, you saying that we are owed £8-10m for Bale as a result of the champions league win. It was quoted on the media that we were owed something like £5m as an add on to the Modric sale, but nothing about Bale.. But I do remember a poster making this remark on here after the CL final, suggesting that the fee for Bale was actually £100m with a £15m add on.
You see, myth, not based on facts. But if you can provide a source for your information on your remark on the £8-10m it would make for interesting reading and ensure quality debate.
I'd take a £10m loss. If we get £15m we should take it.
comment by THE ACE FACE (U18814)
posted 2 hours, 42 minutes ago
Irrelevant that we've only paid £13m. The price was and remains £26m as far as Valencia are concerned. Put simply, we still owe them 13 million quid. If we sold him to Atletico for £15m, Valencia would still expect their £13m. Whether we carried on paying instalments or used the money we got from Atletico for him to pay off in full, the fact is he cost us £26m and that's what we'll pay; what we recoup is a separate matter.
I buy a car on finance for £20k and decide to sell it for £10k, my creditor isn't gonna waive his money - he'll still expect the full £20k we agreed regardless of what ongoing arrangements I make with other parties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Slightly different in football as add ons are not payable if not triggered.
If as someone suggested the fee was £13m + add ons then i would also suggest that the selling club would cover that with a % or fixed additional sum if we sold quickly, to cover the possibility of us buying, paying £13m attracting a few add ons and then selling at say £20m...we'd be in profit and they would have sold for £13m + a few add ons.
Never seen a football contract but do work on land deals so would expect a selling club to cover all bases to avoid losing value.
comment by Chicken - Mr Consistent✔ (U1043)
posted 5 minutes ago
I'd take a £10m loss. If we get £15m we should take it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So would I as long as it was someone else's money and not mine!!
I love the way posters on here talk about money as if it was a game of monopoly. £10m pound is a massive amount of money to any business.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 10 minutes ago
Slightly different in football as add ons are not payable if not triggered.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps add ons in football are more common than other types of sale agreements, expecially in the case of very young players increasing in value with increased ability and exposure over time.
But we are talking as if the Soldado deal did, in fact, consist mostly of add ons and that is not substantiated.
Even the BBC quoted the fee to be £26m.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23578515
Spurs allegedly had to pay half upfront (as Valencia needed the money) .
What the terms are for the remainder (period, add-ons etc) we know not.
if we sell soldado for 15 mill it is not a 10 mill loss. how many times do people have to be reminded that we have not paid 26 mill for soldado.
infact if we sell him for 15mill we have probably broken even on him, unless you feel that he has achieved all the add on targets to take him to a 26 mill price tag?
comment by Chronic (U3423)
posted 9 minutes ago
if we sell soldado for 15 mill it is not a 10 mill loss. how many times do people have to be reminded that we have not paid 26 mill for soldado.
infact if we sell him for 15mill we have probably broken even on him, unless you feel that he has achieved all the add on targets to take him to a 26 mill price tag?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic, how many times do you need asking to substantiate the fact that the £26m fee quoted consisted of £13m up front and paid and £13m as add-ons!!!
It was never reported as such so you must have access to information that you can share with the rest of us.
Just give us the information, not keep saying it until we all give up! That will not make it fact.
Reckon tis 22m 'normal' , 4m for add-ons.
So a 15m sale would mean a 7m loss.
I think we should keep him, he has not become a bad player after one season, maybe Poch can get the best out of him.
There are not a lot of (affordable) strikers out there to replace him.
"Significantly, the asking price will not be as high as expected as Spurs paid Valencia only £13m up front, with the rest of the fee depending on various targets. But such was Soldado’s minimal impact this term, he is available for around the £13m fee spent on his initial transfer."
------------------------------------------------------------
Just found this in the Evening Standard. Wonder how true it is, but perhaps this is the source of the previous posts.
"Just found this in the Evening Standard. Wonder how true it is, but perhaps this is the source of the previous posts."
If so, that is some impressive Levying done there last summer.
just me Bill
I love the way posters on here talk about money as if it was a game of monopoly. £10m pound is a massive amount of money to any business.
==============
Agreed. But £10m is still a lot better than wasting a whole £25m-ish, which we might be doing if we dont shift him for £15m.
Hmm it won't exactly turn out like that.
I don't have any inside info on his fee or added extras, but the £13m going up with conditions seems plausible.
However it's not true to say this means Spurs can "cash out" and sell him on with little negative.
Performance clauses will almost always contain a sub clause linked to length of time spent at the club. Selling inside of the agreed contract will trigger these.
It makes sense If you think about it, overwise any team could get a player by offering huge wages, then set a performance related price and sell on at huge profit in the next tranfser window.
As I said I don't know the exact clauses Solado may have had, but I am sure that should Spurs sell him now they will certainly have to pay some additional money to Valencia.
Sign in if you want to comment
Atlético in for Soldado
Page 2 of 2
posted on 29/5/14
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by just me Bill (U13802)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by Chronic (U3423)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by jimbo dimmock 1921 (U19632)
posted 3 minutes ago
I cannot see Levy wanting to take a big loss on him after just 12 months, on the other hand, he may just accept it was not meant to be, and sell and move on.
-------
we have only paid about 13mill I believe. so I doubt it would be much of a hit if at all.
he could probably still command a fee of 12-15 mill
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, are you saying he didn't cost £26m, only £13m. Or that, if we sold him on, we would not have to pay the rest of the fee we still owe, if indeed you are right about the payments made?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It cant be right that if we sell him we need not pay anything more than the £13m down payment. If he fails to trigger add on payments by not scoring or playing etc then fair enough, they are bonus payments which the selling club cannot guarantee receiving. But there must be a clause which means if we sell him on they get some more payments...so say the fee was £13m up front. £3m a year for 3 years and then £5m of add ons if he hits certain targets....then youd expect us to have to pay the £27m less the add on, so £22m in this example, or maybe just an agreed % of the sell on price
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Along the right lines, but I doubt a selling club would accept a bid of X and then agree that only X-Y needs to be paid up front and would accept a percentage of the sell-on price. After all, if the sell-on price is very low they would not get very much and only a part of the £22m (in your example).
If I sold an article for £22m that is exactly what I would expect to get, and if the whole £22m was not paid up front, ie over a period of time, I would expect interest payments to be added to the outstanding balance until the whole was paid.
posted on 29/5/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 29/5/14
comment by THE ACE FACE (U18814)
posted 2 minutes ago
Irrelevant that we've only paid £13m. The price was and remains £26m as far as Valencia are concerned. Put simply, we still owe them 13 million quid. If we sold him to Atletico for £15m, Valencia would still expect their £13m. Whether we carried on paying instalments or used the money we got from Atletico for him to pay off in full, the fact is he cost us £26m and that's what we'll pay; what we recoup is a separate matter.
I buy a car on finance for £20k and decide to sell it for £10k, my creditor isn't gonna waive his money - he'll still expect the full £20k we agreed regardless of what ongoing arrangements I make with other parties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Precisely, thanks for that!
posted on 29/5/14
Bill, I think most people thought you were arguing the opposite when you said this:
"we have only paid about 13mill I believe. so I doubt it would be much of a hit if at all.
he could probably still command a fee of 12-15 mill"
It obviously wasn't what you meant, but you seemed to be saying that you wouldn't have to pay the outstanding 12/13M.
posted on 29/5/14
comment by itsonlyagame - Jose are you watching, are you watching Jose? (U6426)
posted 2 minutes ago
Bill, I think most people thought you were arguing the opposite when you said this:
"we have only paid about 13mill I believe. so I doubt it would be much of a hit if at all.
he could probably still command a fee of 12-15 mill"
It obviously wasn't what you meant, but you seemed to be saying that you wouldn't have to pay the outstanding 12/13M.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You might be right Itsonly, but I didn't originally say that.
Chronic made the original remark to that effect and I was trying to find out what he meant by that.
I was simply quoting it to ask the question and to cast doubt on its accuracy.
That is the trouble with all this quoting and copying, who said what and when does become a bit confusing after a while.
posted on 29/5/14
I thought we had to pay something like £6.5m every summer for 4 years
posted on 29/5/14
My understanding was that past the initial £13m, the rest was based on performance/goal targets. So surely if the targets aren't reached then we don't pay out?
posted on 29/5/14
Must admit Bill, I thought you were saying we would not have to pay the rest of the fee.
However a lot of deals contain clauses re performance, achievement etc. We are due a further £8-10m from Real for Bale with them winning the CL.
posted on 29/5/14
Hi Genius (note I haven't quoted your post above to save any confusion.
The problem is that it sometimes pays to be forthright rather than trying to be polite and friendly and asking for explanations.
One person says something that I do not think is right but rather than simply say so I ask for an explanation in case that person has information that I am not privy to.
But there is a lot said on these forums that is purely hearsay, rumour and myth. Very few, if any, have access to actual fact. Facts about contracts that are signed between two clubs for example, for the purchase/sale of a player.
Take, for example, you saying that we are owed £8-10m for Bale as a result of the champions league win. It was quoted on the media that we were owed something like £5m as an add on to the Modric sale, but nothing about Bale.. But I do remember a poster making this remark on here after the CL final, suggesting that the fee for Bale was actually £100m with a £15m add on.
You see, myth, not based on facts. But if you can provide a source for your information on your remark on the £8-10m it would make for interesting reading and ensure quality debate.
posted on 29/5/14
My mistake Bill. Sorry.
posted on 29/5/14
I'd take a £10m loss. If we get £15m we should take it.
posted on 29/5/14
comment by THE ACE FACE (U18814)
posted 2 hours, 42 minutes ago
Irrelevant that we've only paid £13m. The price was and remains £26m as far as Valencia are concerned. Put simply, we still owe them 13 million quid. If we sold him to Atletico for £15m, Valencia would still expect their £13m. Whether we carried on paying instalments or used the money we got from Atletico for him to pay off in full, the fact is he cost us £26m and that's what we'll pay; what we recoup is a separate matter.
I buy a car on finance for £20k and decide to sell it for £10k, my creditor isn't gonna waive his money - he'll still expect the full £20k we agreed regardless of what ongoing arrangements I make with other parties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Slightly different in football as add ons are not payable if not triggered.
If as someone suggested the fee was £13m + add ons then i would also suggest that the selling club would cover that with a % or fixed additional sum if we sold quickly, to cover the possibility of us buying, paying £13m attracting a few add ons and then selling at say £20m...we'd be in profit and they would have sold for £13m + a few add ons.
Never seen a football contract but do work on land deals so would expect a selling club to cover all bases to avoid losing value.
posted on 29/5/14
comment by Chicken - Mr Consistent✔ (U1043)
posted 5 minutes ago
I'd take a £10m loss. If we get £15m we should take it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So would I as long as it was someone else's money and not mine!!
I love the way posters on here talk about money as if it was a game of monopoly. £10m pound is a massive amount of money to any business.
posted on 29/5/14
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 10 minutes ago
Slightly different in football as add ons are not payable if not triggered.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps add ons in football are more common than other types of sale agreements, expecially in the case of very young players increasing in value with increased ability and exposure over time.
But we are talking as if the Soldado deal did, in fact, consist mostly of add ons and that is not substantiated.
Even the BBC quoted the fee to be £26m.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23578515
posted on 29/5/14
Spurs allegedly had to pay half upfront (as Valencia needed the money) .
What the terms are for the remainder (period, add-ons etc) we know not.
posted on 29/5/14
if we sell soldado for 15 mill it is not a 10 mill loss. how many times do people have to be reminded that we have not paid 26 mill for soldado.
infact if we sell him for 15mill we have probably broken even on him, unless you feel that he has achieved all the add on targets to take him to a 26 mill price tag?
posted on 29/5/14
9m loss ?? 8m ?? 7m ??
posted on 29/5/14
comment by Chronic (U3423)
posted 9 minutes ago
if we sell soldado for 15 mill it is not a 10 mill loss. how many times do people have to be reminded that we have not paid 26 mill for soldado.
infact if we sell him for 15mill we have probably broken even on him, unless you feel that he has achieved all the add on targets to take him to a 26 mill price tag?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic, how many times do you need asking to substantiate the fact that the £26m fee quoted consisted of £13m up front and paid and £13m as add-ons!!!
It was never reported as such so you must have access to information that you can share with the rest of us.
Just give us the information, not keep saying it until we all give up! That will not make it fact.
posted on 29/5/14
Reckon tis 22m 'normal' , 4m for add-ons.
So a 15m sale would mean a 7m loss.
posted on 29/5/14
I think we should keep him, he has not become a bad player after one season, maybe Poch can get the best out of him.
There are not a lot of (affordable) strikers out there to replace him.
posted on 29/5/14
"Significantly, the asking price will not be as high as expected as Spurs paid Valencia only £13m up front, with the rest of the fee depending on various targets. But such was Soldado’s minimal impact this term, he is available for around the £13m fee spent on his initial transfer."
------------------------------------------------------------
Just found this in the Evening Standard. Wonder how true it is, but perhaps this is the source of the previous posts.
posted on 29/5/14
"Just found this in the Evening Standard. Wonder how true it is, but perhaps this is the source of the previous posts."
If so, that is some impressive Levying done there last summer.
posted on 30/5/14
just me Bill
I love the way posters on here talk about money as if it was a game of monopoly. £10m pound is a massive amount of money to any business.
==============
Agreed. But £10m is still a lot better than wasting a whole £25m-ish, which we might be doing if we dont shift him for £15m.
posted on 30/5/14
Hmm it won't exactly turn out like that.
I don't have any inside info on his fee or added extras, but the £13m going up with conditions seems plausible.
However it's not true to say this means Spurs can "cash out" and sell him on with little negative.
Performance clauses will almost always contain a sub clause linked to length of time spent at the club. Selling inside of the agreed contract will trigger these.
It makes sense If you think about it, overwise any team could get a player by offering huge wages, then set a performance related price and sell on at huge profit in the next tranfser window.
As I said I don't know the exact clauses Solado may have had, but I am sure that should Spurs sell him now they will certainly have to pay some additional money to Valencia.
Page 2 of 2