Whitey Grandad

I’m happy to have a chat but I don’t do Twitter.

Why wouldn’t they get it all upfront? It’s all down to the Terms and Conditions of the agreement and none of us is privy to those. The contract when we bought VVD could easily have stipulated full payment to Celtic of their cut when he was sold. Or then again it may not. There are no rules or regulations for this sort of thing.

I was there with my daughter. Upper East Stand centre. Finest view of any football ground anywhere. I had to rush away afterwards and drive to Harwich for a school reunion for the 50-year olds. I can still see everything in my mind exactly as it happened.

For the source see post #25 and the full text in #32. How much truth there is in this we don’t know. Full sell-on fee upfront might be a condition of the deal when we bought him. Who knows? https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/football-notebook-virgil-van-dijk-fee-will-not-lead-southampton-to-spend-big-ph85g7bln

What made it a "wonder goal" was that it was a wonder that a player like Chris could have scored it.

What happened to him? Edit: To save anyone the trouble of looking him up, and to avoid accusations of being a lazy old git (even if they are true), he is playing for Ionikos FC at the age of 40 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Camara

Me too. Magical moments like that make up for all the hours of travelling and sitting through awful performances.

Then how much do you think will go in agents' fees for this transfer? Man Utd paid £89.3m for Paul Poga with the player's agent getting £23m up front possibly rising to a total of £41m http://uk.businessinsider.com/manchester-united-pay-paul-pogba-agent-2017-5 You don't seem to grasp the need to 'make up' figures for the purposes of illustration. This is done in an attempt to make the principle clearer for those who are hard of understanding. The actual numbers are not important but the ones I wrote are easy for the pedants to seize upon. If these are upsetting you then try changing the fees (transfer overheads) to 15% or 10% and see what happens. Whatever you choose you will find that a big lump comes out of the first transfer payment and dramatically reduces the net value of the sale and impacts on the cash flow and borrowing requirements. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/transfers/transfer-window-premier-league-revealed-how-a-transfer-deal-really-works-a7837031.html https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-football-agents-normal-commission-on-transfer-fees-and-player-salaries

I was as surprised as anybody but as you say, the ball was a long way away and it was a deliberate kick. Swansea have appealed the red. This will be an interesting hearing. Do the committee support the referee or are they going to give licence to everybody to go running round kicking other players just for the hell of it?

Somebody said recently that he had sold his house not too long ago. Shame.

Yeah, Liverpool have to shell out the first payment straight away. We could do the same but we’d have to borrow against future receipts. Unless we’re sitting on a pile of cash in the bank. There may be other reasons for the payment structure. If we take all our profit in one year then we may end up paying Corporation Tax on our profits. As I have said before, Premier League transfer accounting is devilishly complicated involving golden hellos, golden goodbyes, image rights paid through offshore limited companies, that sort of thing. What we won’t have at any time is £70m sitting in a deposit account.

They are just illustrative numbers. Basically, if 10% goes to another club and 20% (say) goes to agents then 30% of the fee goes missing in the first year. I wouldn’t be surprised at 20% for agents. 10% by selling club and 10% by player’s agent would easily make that and it could well be more. Remember Juan Pablo Angel? Villa wanted to pay £9.5m for him but his selling club would have received about £1.5m

You're right, thanks, it's probably more like three payments of £23m. The actual numbers are irrelevant to the process. Basically, Celtic's cut and the agent fees come out of the first tranche so that money is not available to us.

What point is that? Let's take a rough look at the figures. Liverpool 'give' us three payments of, say, £33m. Out of the first payment we have to pay Celtic £7m, agents at £20m (say) leaving £6m in the bank. So over 3 years we receive £7m, £33m, £33m We buy a new player (or payers) for £36m in three instalments. We have to pay out £12m, £12m, £12m So we're quids in for years two and three but we're out of pocket now. Now these are very rough figures and these transfers are much more complicated that this but the principle is the same. Basically, all our costs relating to the sale are paid out in the first year in one lump. (If any of this story is true)

Of course we can pay in instalments it's just that in VVD's case the first instalment from Liverpool is greatly reduced whereas if we but someone in three instalments we shall have to find the cash to pay the first one upfront.

That's net of tax too, isn't it? (not that any of these buggers pays that much tax anyway)

It wasn't a trip, he kicked his leg with no attempt to play the ball. At what stage does it change from a yellow to a red?

Go and take a refereeing course and learn the Laws before you call anybody a berk. I ask again: what was different about this incident from just kicking somebody who's standing in front of you? It cannot be considered 'serious foul play'. Beckham got sent of for less against Argentina.

Whatever, in terms of cash in the bank we won't have much from the first payment and yet we shall have to pay upfront for any incoming transfers.

Your answer is there. That payment and the settlement of agents' fees would take a big lump out of the first payment. If an incoming transfer is structured the same way then we would have to pay a third of the price up front.

Why was it not a red? It was a delibertate kick and a red card is awarded if a player 'kicks or attempts to kick an opponent'. Just because the other player was running away does not mean that it was not a red card.If both players had been standing still then that kick wold have been a red. There was no way that it was an attempt at an honest tackle or interception.

Wasn't Walcott's sell-on fee negotiated away when we were desperate for dosh?

Yes, that cheered me up too. There was some debate about whether it should have been a red card but there's no disputing that it was a straight kick, no attempt to play the ball whatsoever, and so comes under 'violent conduct' and not 'serious foul play'. It's in the same vein as an elbow to the ribs.

That's Willi, not Kat.

And Walcott is cuptied...