Wesley Fofana - He is no more - finished - forgotten.

[Foxxed]

40 million is nearly two Yannick Vestergaards in Brendan’s money.

[South Shire Fox]

2 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

40 million is nearly two Yannick Vestergaards in Brendan’s money.

Vestergaard and enough change for Jack Stephens

[HankMarvin]

8 minutes ago, chuck'em said:

It's standard with sell on fees that it's profit not total fee 

Why is it assumed it standard?

 

Here is a recent article on Michael Edwards

Liverpool have negotiated sell-on clauses into a number of deals in recent years – including two already this summer. But how do they work and who has them?

The Reds have completed the sale of Liam Millar to FC Basel in a move worth a fee of £1.3 million, but in reality, it could earn the club significantly more than that.

 

Millar’s switch to Switzerland saw a 20 percent sell-on clause negotiated in the contract between the two clubs, with this becoming an almost prerequisite for sporting director Michael Edwards in the sale of young talent.

 

In basic terms, if a sell-on clause is inserted into a deal for a player, the selling club would then be owed the agreed percentage of any transfer fee if the player moves again.

The clause could be agreed to expire after a certain period of time – for example, the length of the player’s first contract with his new club – after which it will no longer be in effect.

So if Basel sell Millar to another club in the coming years, Liverpool would then take 20 percent of the fee brought in.

Therefore, for example, were the striker to join Southampton in two years’ time for £10 million, Basel would then be required to pay Liverpool £2 million.
 

“Clubs can also negotiate a sell-on clause for a percentage of the profit made by a player’s next move; in the above scenario, then, the Reds would be owed £1.74 million, as 20 percent of Basel’s £8.7 million profit.”

Coincidently this was also in the article.

• Danny Ward (Leicester) – 20% sell-on clause

an example of a percentage of future profit

Man City in line for huge windfall as Newcastle pursue Jack Harrison transfer

Premier League champions Manchester City included a clause entitling them to a percentage of future profit when selling Newcastle transfer target Jack Harrison to Leeds

 

City sold the 25-year-old to Leeds in an £11million deal last summer after allowing him to move to Elland Road in a loan deal in 2018. The Premier League champions also included a clause in the deal which would see them net 20 per cent of any profit if Harrison was sold on.

 

 

 

 

Additionally.

If it was standard, as an indicator Football Manager which updates annually and is probably far more in the know with what clauses and terms go into contracts due to their background research than any of us,

as farcical as that may initially sound.

Would only have an 1 option of a sell on clause.

If sell on fee, generally means sell on fee of future profit.

As opposed to giving the 2 options of a sell on fee and percentage of future profit.

 

 

 

[moore_94]

8 minutes ago, HankMarvin said:

Why is it assumed it standard?

 

Here is a recent article on Michael Edwards

Liverpool have negotiated sell-on clauses into a number of deals in recent years – including two already this summer. But how do they work and who has them?

The Reds have completed the sale of Liam Millar to FC Basel in a move worth a fee of £1.3 million, but in reality, it could earn the club significantly more than that.

 

Millar’s switch to Switzerland saw a 20 percent sell-on clause negotiated in the contract between the two clubs, with this becoming an almost prerequisite for sporting director Michael Edwards in the sale of young talent.

 

In basic terms, if a sell-on clause is inserted into a deal for a player, the selling club would then be owed the agreed percentage of any transfer fee if the player moves again.

The clause could be agreed to expire after a certain period of time – for example, the length of the player’s first contract with his new club – after which it will no longer be in effect.

So if Basel sell Millar to another club in the coming years, Liverpool would then take 20 percent of the fee brought in.

Therefore, for example, were the striker to join Southampton in two years’ time for £10 million, Basel would then be required to pay Liverpool £2 million.
 

“Clubs can also negotiate a sell-on clause for a percentage of the profit made by a player’s next move; in the above scenario, then, the Reds would be owed £1.74 million, as 20 percent of Basel’s £8.7 million profit.”

Coincidently this was also in the article.

• Danny Ward (Leicester) – 20% sell-on clause

an example of a percentage of future profit

Man City in line for huge windfall as Newcastle pursue Jack Harrison transfer

Premier League champions Manchester City included a clause entitling them to a percentage of future profit when selling Newcastle transfer target Jack Harrison to Leeds

 

City sold the 25-year-old to Leeds in an £11million deal last summer after allowing him to move to Elland Road in a loan deal in 2018. The Premier League champions also included a clause in the deal which would see them net 20 per cent of any profit if Harrison was sold on.

 

 

 

 

Additionally.

If it was standard, as an indicator Football Manager which updates annually and is probably far more in the know with what clauses and terms go into contracts due to their background research than any of us,

as farcical as that may initially sound.

Would only have an 1 option of a sell on clause.

If sell on fee, generally means sell on fee of future profit.

As opposed to giving the 2 options of a sell on fee and percentage of future profit.

 

 

 

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/liverpool-could-bank-transfer-windfall-23519705

 

When selling Millar to Basel, Liverpool received roughly £800,000 upfront with the rest payable in performance-related add-ons. Meanwhile, Michael Edwards negotiated a 20 percent sell-on clause as part of the deal, ensuring the Reds would receive a significant proportion of any profit the Swiss club made if they ever sell Millar.

 

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/liverpool-luis-alberto-danny-ings-21233102

 

Joining in a £30m deal, there was some confusion when initial suggestions that Liverpool would receive roughly £6m proved wide of the mark, with it turning out the Reds’ 20% sell-on clause only applied to any profit Southampton made on their own deal to sign the striker.

 

https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/sport/leeds-united/harrison-newcastle-leeds-manchester-city-24517161

 

The 25-year-old signed on a permanent deal at Elland Road last summer after three seasons on-loan, with the Whites paying £11million and signing the winger on a three-year contract. But City inserted a sell-on clause within the deal, entitling them to 20% of the profits made from any future sale.

Edited 5 August 2022 by moore_94

[Lambert09]

2 hours ago, CrispinLA in Texas said:

So let's add another 20m on and tell Chelsea you've given us no time to find a replacement.... 120m plz 🤣

i’ll put it another way… would you rather have a chelsea reject now or a southampton one for 20m? 

[Lambert09]

2 hours ago, Sly said:

Virgil Van Dyke would debate that. 

for a team that’s complete everywhere else yes. But a team like ours would do better with a mahrez than a vvd imo 

[HankMarvin]

20 minutes ago, moore_94 said:

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/liverpool-could-bank-transfer-windfall-23519705

 

When selling Millar to Basel, Liverpool received roughly £800,000 upfront with the rest payable in performance-related add-ons. Meanwhile, Michael Edwards negotiated a 20 percent sell-on clause as part of the deal, ensuring the Reds would receive a significant proportion of any profit the Swiss club made if they ever sell Millar.

 

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/liverpool-luis-alberto-danny-ings-21233102

 

Joining in a £30m deal, there was some confusion when initial suggestions that Liverpool would receive roughly £6m proved wide of the mark, with it turning out the Reds’ 20% sell-on clause only applied to any profit Southampton made on their own deal to sign the striker.

 

https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/sport/leeds-united/harrison-newcastle-leeds-manchester-city-24517161

 

The 25-year-old signed on a permanent deal at Elland Road last summer after three seasons on-loan, with the Whites paying £11million and signing the winger on a three-year contract. But City inserted a sell-on clause within the deal, entitling them to 20% of the profits made from any future sale.

Yeah if it was standard it wouldn’t be stipulated as percentage of future profits.

 

that’s why I highlighted those deals that explicitly detail a percentage of profit, as opposed to what is generally written a sell on fee.

 

[moore_94]

2 minutes ago, HankMarvin said:

Yeah if it was standard it wouldn’t be stipulated as percentage of future profits.

 

that’s why I highlighted those deals that explicitly detail a percentage of profit, as opposed to what is generally written a sell on fee.

 

Interestingly that one Fofana article you quoted (GFFN) is pretty much the only place I have been able to find a mention about any possible sell on clause

 

But just as another example, when we signed Maddison his was reported initially as just 10% of any future fee, but it has come out more recently that it is of the profit

 

It is just that it is a lot more common for it to be a % of the profit as you very rarely, if ever, see it being a % of the whole transfer fee

 

In any case, we probably wont find out what it actually is until any deal for Wes is close or done

[Ric Flair]

25 minutes ago, moore_94 said:

Interestingly that one Fofana article you quoted (GFFN) is pretty much the only place I have been able to find a mention about any possible sell on clause

 

But just as another example, when we signed Maddison his was reported initially as just 10% of any future fee, but it has come out more recently that it is of the profit

 

It is just that it is a lot more common for it to be a % of the profit as you very rarely, if ever, see it being a % of the whole transfer fee

 

In any case, we probably wont find out what it actually is until any deal for Wes is close or done

I've seldom seen it be a % of the future fee because if you sold the player for the same or less than you bought them then you're getting even less back which is nonsense. 

 

A % of the next fee is essentially meaning you only own a certain % of the player which I don't think is allowed in this country is it? That's what they do in Italy.

[Dylster]

1 hour ago, Simoken said:

40mil is tempting for probably one of the most promising cb def in football today....

Who's offered 40 mil for Dan Amartey?

[dannythefox]

85m comes in he’s gone. Everyone has a price. I think he’d probably be worth more next season though. 

[Jakemoore]

2 minutes ago, dannythefox said:

85m comes in he’s gone. Everyone has a price. I think he’d probably be worth more next season though. 

Which is why I think we HAVE to say no. He’ll go for more next season!

[Fox1norfolk]

2 minutes ago, dannythefox said:

85m comes in he’s gone. Everyone has a price. I think he’d probably be worth more next season though. 

Probably 50% more

[StonyFox]

Chelsea seem to be very determined to get him, and considering they paid out over 60m for Cucrella and let them have Colwill on loan for nothing makes me think we can hold out for even more for Fofana. He's younger, a better player, and Chelsea need centre backs. He could easily be their best centre back until 2035!, unless Madrid come knocking, so I don't think 85m+ is being unreasonable. 

 

This is probably going to happen, and rumble on for a couple of weeks unfortunately, so if we do have price we'd sell for we need to get there sooner rather than later. 

 

Team selection on Sunday is going to be telling!

[trugerkem]

112 pages later and nothing has changed 

[ROB-THE-BLUE]

7 minutes ago, trugerkem said:

112 pages later and nothing has changed 

Welcome to FoxesTalk, you must be new here?

[Weller 7]

26 minutes ago, StonyFox said:

Chelsea seem to be very determined to get him, and considering they paid out over 60m for Cucrella and let them have Colwill on loan for nothing makes me think we can hold out for even more for Fofana. He's younger, a better player, and Chelsea need centre backs. He could easily be their best centre back until 2035!, unless Madrid come knocking, so I don't think 85m+ is being unreasonable. 

 

This is probably going to happen, and rumble on for a couple of weeks unfortunately, so if we do have price we'd sell for we need to get there sooner rather than later. 

 

Team selection on Sunday is going to be telling!

Chelsea may seem determined to get him but that’s after they were determined to get a couple of other centre half’s before Fofana this window!  It’s so nice to be wanted Wes. 

[foxfanazer]

29 minutes ago, trugerkem said:

112 pages later and nothing has changed 

Not even my underpants 

[weller54]

32 minutes ago, trugerkem said:

112 pages later and nothing has changed 

Yeah, and?

[foxfanazer]

1 minute ago, pmcla26 said:

If they’ve spent that much on Cucurella then surely he is going to start on the left side of the back 3 whilst Chilwell is fit for the time being? Can’t imagine that you put a player, that you’ve spent that much money on, on the bench. 

This is Chelsea, they quite easily could!

[CrispinLA in Texas]

If Fofana does go to Chelsea....we should go for the next big thing to come from St Etienne, in 20 year old defender Saidou Sow.

What do you think of him @Ric Flair.

Apparently Liverpool are also scouting him.

Edited 5 August 2022 by CrispinLA in Texas

[Fergus2222]

28 minutes ago, pmcla26 said:

If they’ve spent that much on Cucurella then surely he is going to start on the left side of the back 3 whilst Chilwell is fit for the time being? Can’t imagine that you put a player, that you’ve spent that much money on, on the bench. 

koulibally is lcb. Cucurella will start lwb prob not this weekend but from next. Chillwells coming off acl and will needed to be eased back in. He's only played 90 minutes of football/pre season since returning

[kingfox]

4 minutes ago, Fergus2222 said:

koulibally is lcb. Cucurella will start lwb prob not this weekend but from next. Chillwells coming off acl and will needed to be eased back in. He's only played 90 minutes of football/pre season since returning

How’s the action going Fergus?

[MadsEmil]

  

[hackneyfox]

There’s an embargoed part that someone can then report??????