PDA

View Full Version : Scott brown linked with an £11 million move to spurs



Www1875hfc
16-08-2009, 11:00 AM
Celtic want to hold out for £14 million..

What will hibs recieve if he goes for £14 million? :dunno:

http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/2009/08/16/celtic-star-scott-brown-is-11m-target-for-tottenham-boss-harry-redknapp-78057-21600396/

Petrie's Tache
16-08-2009, 11:02 AM
Debate surrounding if there was a sell on lcasue, hence the high fee received from Septic.

Ritchie
16-08-2009, 11:03 AM
did we have a sell on clause in the deal like??? :confused:

blaikie
16-08-2009, 11:20 AM
I recall something being mentioned before about the fee rising to £5.5m, Hopefully Petrie has some sort of deal in place :agree:

forthhibby
16-08-2009, 11:28 AM
no one knows if there's a sell on clause or not, but since there was similar clauses in gary o'connors and kenny millers transfers if memory serves me right, i would be surprised if rod didn't get one in browns transfer as well

Peevemor
16-08-2009, 11:45 AM
Celtic want to hold out for £14 million..

What will hibs recieve if he goes for £14 million? :dunno:

http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/2009/08/16/celtic-star-scott-brown-is-11m-target-for-tottenham-boss-harry-redknapp-78057-21600396/


Nothing.

snooky
16-08-2009, 11:55 AM
If Celtic want 14 million and wee got 4 million does that mean he is 3 and half times the player he was a year ago?
Also, why didn't we give Scott 1 million bonus last year to stay on for a year and WE could now sell him for 14m making 9m profit + getting an extra year of his services. (In Rod we trust?)
It irks me to death to thing that the Sud-sidesteppers are going to make all that profit in one year when, IMO, they actually stalled Broony's career.:grr:

Perspective
16-08-2009, 12:02 PM
As good as I think Scott Brown can be, he hasn't hit the heights at Celtic that he did in his last six months with us under John Collins.

I know he's played in the Champions League and become an established Scotland player, so that makes a big difference.

He'd be suited to the Premier League with his raw athleticism and enthusiasm but I wish he'd brush up on his passing.

I don't think we had a sell-on clause. Celtic play hard-ball in transfer negotiations. They had us over a barrel with Riordan - heavy sell-on clause, transfer fee etc.

BEEJ
16-08-2009, 01:09 PM
It was widely suggested at the time of the transfer that there were add-ons in the deal dependent upon first-team appearances etc.

One would expect those add-ons also to fall due if the player is sold on for such a significant multiple of the original fee.

CyberSauzee
16-08-2009, 01:21 PM
If Celtic want 14 million and wee got 4 million does that mean he is 3 and half times the player he was a year ago?
Also, why didn't we give Scott 1 million bonus last year to stay on for a year and WE could now sell him for 14m making 9m profit + getting an extra year of his services. (In Rod we trust?)
It irks me to death to thing that the Sud-sidesteppers are going to make all that profit in one year when, IMO, they actually stalled Broony's career.:grr:

He's been at Septic for two years now.

ScottB
16-08-2009, 01:30 PM
I'm torn here really.

If he stays at Celtic I have every confidence he will come on in leaps and bounds, since unlike Strachan, Mowbray knows where and how he should be played, thus being better for Scotland. Not sure playing at Tottenham under Rednapp is the best option for him.

But on the other hand, if he goes it weakens Celtic.

I'd think if (when) they crash out of the Champions League they will flog him to make up the shortfall in income.

PaulSmith
16-08-2009, 04:17 PM
If Celtic want 14 million and wee got 4 million does that mean he is 3 and half times the player he was a year ago?
Also, why didn't we give Scott 1 million bonus last year to stay on for a year and WE could now sell him for 14m making 9m profit + getting an extra year of his services. (In Rod we trust?)
It irks me to death to thing that the Sud-sidesteppers are going to make all that profit in one year when, IMO, they actually stalled Broony's career.:grr:

Because he wouldn't have had the exposure of playing well in the Champs league or proved that he can cut it at a larger club that Hibs.

Your seriously having a laugh if you think that any club will pay £14m for a Hibs player.

Winston Ingram
16-08-2009, 05:06 PM
This has been mooted on Spurs forum's all summer. From what I understand he will only be sold to Spurs if Celtic don't make the CL. However, he is apparently not Spurs 1st choice. They're 1st choice is Moussa Sissoko from Toulouse.

The reason they are looking for another midfielder is because they are trying to sell Jenas to Villa

Part/Time Supporter
16-08-2009, 05:14 PM
Because he wouldn't have had the exposure of playing well in the Champs league or proved that he can cut it at a larger club that Hibs.

Your seriously having a laugh if you think that any club will pay £14m for a Hibs player.

Brown would have been out of contract this summer if he had stayed at Hibs for whatever reason. As he had already handed in a transfer request, there's no way he would have signed another contract. They sold him when his value was at his peak as far as it would have gone at Hibs.

Hibs Class
16-08-2009, 07:25 PM
Because he wouldn't have had the exposure of playing well in the Champs league or proved that he can cut it at a larger club that Hibs.

Your seriously having a laugh if you think that any club will pay £14m for a Hibs player.

Simply having played for Celtic or Rangers needn't / shouldn't result in the value of a player doubling or trebling, yet that is the logic that those two clubs often seem to apply.

CABBAGE & RIBS
16-08-2009, 07:28 PM
Hearts got £9m for a goalie

bingo70
16-08-2009, 07:28 PM
Simply having played for Celtic or Rangers needn't / shouldn't result in the value of a player doubling or trebling, yet that is the logic that those two clubs often seem to apply.

It's all relative though, the same thing happens when we sign a player from a club smaller than us.

IMO a club like st mirren or falkirk would have probably got about half what we got for Brown.

Part/Time Supporter
16-08-2009, 09:20 PM
Hearts got £9m for a goalie

Hearts were paying him £16K per week on his last contract.

Mikeystewart
17-08-2009, 07:47 AM
If Celtic want 14 million and wee got 4 million does that mean he is 3 and half times the player he was a year ago?
Also, why didn't we give Scott 1 million bonus last year to stay on for a year and WE could now sell him for 14m making 9m profit + getting an extra year of his services. (In Rod we trust?)
It irks me to death to thing that the Sud-sidesteppers are going to make all that profit in one year when, IMO, they actually stalled Broony's career.:grr:

We wouldn't have got that much because we are a lower profile club. Also he wouldn't have played in the CL if he was at Hibs. Sorry if i am stating the obvious.:duck:

Mikeystewart
17-08-2009, 07:48 AM
We wouldn't have got that much because we are a lower profile club. Also he wouldn't have played in the CL if he was at Hibs. Sorry if i am stating the obvious.:duck:

I need to start reading the ful thread before i post

:blah:

Mikeystewart
17-08-2009, 10:12 AM
A think he'll go if Celtic don't get past Arsenal. If Celtic get in and around a 10 Million offer i could see them biting the hands off who ever comes in for him.

Littlest Hobo
17-08-2009, 10:17 AM
He'll have to learn how to pass the ball first surely? :greengrin

snooky
17-08-2009, 10:20 AM
He's been at Septic for two years now.
Oops!
It's amazing how time flies when you're having fun. :dizzy:

snooky
17-08-2009, 10:26 AM
Simply having played for Celtic or Rangers needn't / shouldn't result in the value of a player doubling or trebling, yet that is the logic that those two clubs often seem to apply.

This was the point I was trying to make earlier.
The minute a player signs for Rantic, immediately their transfer price is trebled and they become international class.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Part/Time Supporter
17-08-2009, 11:36 AM
Methinks that this story may have come from the Celtic end of things. They wouldn't be too unhappy to sell him for that sort of price to help rebuild their team and cover for the likelihood of their not qualifying for the CL group stage. They would also be aware that those teams have other targets. Put it in the papers and then there is some sort of public pressure on the English club(s) to back up those reports.

Jim44
17-08-2009, 11:57 AM
Simply having played for Celtic or Rangers needn't / shouldn't result in the value of a player doubling or trebling, yet that is the logic that those two clubs often seem to apply.

Agreed. And when you think that Rantic supporters were berating Hibs for asking £xmillions for Brown and Thomson yet not paying them salaries cosistent with this valuation. I bet Rantic are not paying Brown or Thomson the salaries of a £14M valued player.

brog
17-08-2009, 12:08 PM
I doubt Spurs would pay anything like £14mm for Brown. They've already been badly burned with Hutton. I think this is usual weegie OF/media conspiracy to make things happen.
I also agree with posters re the OF uplift, Kenny Miller's value increased by 50% in his first tenure at Huns despite being a benchwarmer for much of the time. not even OF uplift will make Scotty worth £14mm in eyes of English clubs though.

BEEJ
17-08-2009, 12:19 PM
Your seriously having a laugh if you think that any club will pay £14m for a Hibs player.
:agree:


Simply having played for Celtic or Rangers needn't / shouldn't result in the value of a player doubling or trebling, yet that is the logic that those two clubs often seem to apply.
But it does and that's why the OF will continue to plunder their SPL rivals for their most talented players.

On the rare occasion (eg Brown) the player will become a regular feature in the first team, play European football, win international caps and his value will rise significantly.

More commonly though the player will make only a handful of appearances for the OF in less important fixtures, and warm the bench or grace the reserves the rest of the time. Yet even these players get moved on by the OF at a multiple of their original value. So either way it's a win-win for the OF.

So how do the OF get away with the large transfer fees in the latter scenario? See below. :wink:


Hearts got £9m for a goalie
:agree:


Hearts were paying him £16K per week on his last contract.
Got it in one! :top marks

Ridiculous as it may seem, there does appear to be an element of transfer fees that is determined by the salary that the player is earning.

(This has been the subject of much debate on here before and may well be again. But I thought I'd make the point. :greengrin)

Sloppy
17-08-2009, 03:43 PM
when celtic bought broony of us for 4.5m in the same transfer window newcastle offered celtic 9m for him on the last day of the transfer window and they rejected it :confused:

JimBHibees
17-08-2009, 04:42 PM
Methinks that this story may have come from the Celtic end of things. They wouldn't be too unhappy to sell him for that sort of price to help rebuild their team and cover for the likelihood of their not qualifying for the CL group stage. They would also be aware that those teams have other targets. Put it in the papers and then there is some sort of public pressure on the English club(s) to back up those reports.

It also allows Celtc to look good when another less important player say Hinkel is sold.

Part/Time Supporter
17-08-2009, 05:13 PM
when celtic bought broony of us for 4.5m in the same transfer window newcastle offered celtic 9m for him on the last day of the transfer window and they rejected it :confused:

That was a classic nonsense Scottish tabloid story. Transfer window rules don't allow players to play for three top division clubs in the same year. eg Huns couldn't sell Cousin to Fulham in January 2008 because he had played in Intertoto for Lens in July 2007.