PDA

View Full Version : NHC NHC .........Yams sell Adam King to Swansea £200k



ALF TUPPER
10-01-2014, 01:39 PM
Apologies if this has been posted netters.

It appears the Jambos have sold the boy for £200K. Now then, as he is to be owned by Swansea and as they arent out of Administration I'm wondering how they can register a player on loan from another Club.

I'm not trying to make things difficult for the Jambos (okay okay . I am ...........:agree: , coz I hope they go under ). There are rules:rules:
Not allowed surely :cb

stokesmessiah
10-01-2014, 01:40 PM
They could just set the transfer date for the summer??

Reaper
10-01-2014, 01:42 PM
Dont know much about the lad but decent move from him. No doubt he'll learn alot at that club. Good money for Hearts as well.........Dont know the rules about the loan thing......dont really care. They're gone, either way.

Keith_M
10-01-2014, 01:48 PM
Sorry for being a bit thick but, where does the Registration Embargo come into this?


If he was a Hearts player, they can just sell him. Why do they have to register him first?

tamig
10-01-2014, 01:52 PM
Apologies if this has been posted netters.

It appears the Jambos have sold the boy for £200K. Now then, as he is to be owned by Swansea and as they arent out of Administration I'm wondering how they can register a player on loan from another Club.

I'm not trying to make things difficult for the Jambos (okay okay . I am ...........:agree: , coz I hope they go under ). There are rules:rules:
Not allowed surely :cb

Are you saying he's been loaned straight back? If so, his registration would never have been transferred. That's how they got to "sign" Scott Wilson - it wasn't a new registration

bingo70
10-01-2014, 01:58 PM
That'll not help there promotion charge next season

Oscar T Grouch
10-01-2014, 02:08 PM
Sorry for being a bit thick but, where does the Registration Embargo come into this?


If he was a Hearts player, they can just sell him. Why do they have to register him first?

If they have sold him and the swans are loaning him back he'd have to be re-registered to play for the yams, but they have a registration embargo, at least that my take on it.


Are you saying he's been loaned straight back? If so, his registration would never have been transferred. That's how they got to "sign" Scott Wilson - it wasn't a new registration

Scott? Maybe Danny no? :wink:

tamig
10-01-2014, 03:03 PM
If they have sold him and the swans are loaning him back he'd have to be re-registered to play for the yams, but they have a registration embargo, at least that my take on it.



Scott? Maybe Danny no? :wink:

Doh. Of course :aok:

ALF TUPPER
10-01-2014, 03:07 PM
Are you saying he's been loaned straight back? If so, his registration would never have been transferred. That's how they got to "sign" Scott Wilson - it wasn't a new registration

Yes , that's the impression I'm getting . They buy him and loan him back . Seems dodgy to me. It's a jambo-thing , I don't get it . :)

GloryGlory
10-01-2014, 03:09 PM
Dont know much about the lad but decent move from him. No doubt he'll learn alot at that club. Good money for Hearts as well.........Dont know the rules about the loan thing......dont really care. They're gone, either way.

Hope Swansea string them along and leave payment until the last possible moment! :greengrin

Keith_M
10-01-2014, 03:12 PM
If they have sold him and the swans are loaning him back he'd have to be re-registered to play for the yams, but they have a registration embargo, at least that my take on it.




Cheers



:thumbsup:

Inch Hibs
10-01-2014, 03:14 PM
Best prospect at the club departs for pennies. :thumbsup:

matty_f
10-01-2014, 03:17 PM
They did the similar with Wilson, his registration was with Hearts but he was with Liverpool. They were able to sign him because he was registered to them already. Swansea won't register him with the English FA so he'll be able to stay with the yams regardless of the embargo. That's my understanding of the situation. Would be hilarious if they thought that would be the case but it turned out otherwise though.

tamig
10-01-2014, 03:19 PM
Yes , that's the impression I'm getting . They buy him and loan him back . Seems dodgy to me. It's a jambo-thing , I don't get it . :)

It's not uncommon with young players. Think Man U last season with the Zaha boy from Palace. Same set up.

tamig
10-01-2014, 03:22 PM
They did the similar with Wilson, his registration was with Hearts but he was with Liverpool. They were able to sign him because he was registered to them already. Swansea won't register him with the English FA so he'll be able to stay with the yams regardless of the embargo. That's my understanding of the situation. Would be hilarious if they thought that would be the case but it turned out otherwise though.

That's my take on it too. 200k and they get to keep the player for the rest of the season.

green.and.white
10-01-2014, 03:24 PM
Surely there's a better place to send him on loan than back to Hearts!?

Jonnyboy
10-01-2014, 03:28 PM
Seen £250,000 quoted on here and have seen £200,000 quoted on here but BBC quoting £150,000

Odd

Oscar T Grouch
10-01-2014, 03:38 PM
Not sure how this will work.

If it is a pre-contract and the swans have agreed to pay the yams £x for the development fee, then all is fine. He will still be a yam til the contract runs down in the summer.

If they have bought him, then if he's to go onto their insurance and become a swans player, they need to register him, so if they loan him to the yams, it would be a no go:confused:
Do the swans trust the yams enough to ensure sufficient insurance is paid so if any injuries happen it won't fem up the deal :confused:

It all seems a bit murky to me, but I am sure it will all come out, the yams I would assume, would have done their homework to ensure he can come back and play for them, because you know they can't even put a full bench of sub out so losing a player would mean only 4 on the bench :wink:

Edit: Oh aye the point of this post was to see if anyone actually knows how it works in these situations :doh:

Beefster
10-01-2014, 03:38 PM
Surely there's a better place to send him on loan than back to Hearts!?

He won't be on loan at Hearts. Hearts will have agreed a deal to transfer his registration in the summer for the agreed fee now, whether in whole or installments.

green.and.white
10-01-2014, 03:40 PM
He won't be on loan at Hearts. Hearts will have agreed a deal to transfer his registration in the summer for the agreed fee now, whether in whole or installments.

Apologies, my mistake :aok:

jacomo
10-01-2014, 03:43 PM
That's my take on it too. 200k and they get to keep the player for the rest of the season.

Stroke of luck for the Yams eh? How did they pull this off?

I would imagine the SFA would give them special dispensation if needed to register him as a loan player for the rest of the season, as they have given themselves room to do this on a case by case basis.

matty_f
10-01-2014, 04:02 PM
He won't be on loan at Hearts. Hearts will have agreed a deal to transfer his registration in the summer for the agreed fee now, whether in whole or installments.

Would Swansea not be easier just getting him on a pre-contract in that case?

Gordy M
10-01-2014, 04:05 PM
Would Swansea not be easier just getting him on a pre-contract in that case?
That was my thinking, why pay money upfront, whatever the amount and then have 'no control' over the player until summer?

itchy07
10-01-2014, 04:12 PM
Are Swansea aware of the extra pressures being placed on that crop of youngsters and the potential damage, to their new acquisition, of being forced to play every week against big boys?(according to those in charge at that club)

BarneyK
10-01-2014, 04:31 PM
Are Swansea aware of the extra pressures being placed on that crop of youngsters and the potential damage, to their new acquisition, of being forced to play every week against big boys?(according to those in charge at that club)

:agree: It's a health and safety minefield...

HibbiesandtheBaddies
10-01-2014, 04:39 PM
Best prospect at the club departs for pennies. :thumbsup:

:agree: Great player.

Bishop Hibee
10-01-2014, 04:43 PM
Are Swansea aware of the extra pressures being placed on that crop of youngsters and the potential damage, to their new acquisition, of being forced to play every week against big boys?(according to those in charge at that club)

They will be. All the top coaches and managers such as Guardiola, Pelegrini, Wenger etc. hang on every utterance of Locke and Brown.

Good move for the young man. Meanwhile this drop in the ocean may help Hertz make it to the end of the season but will be long gone even if they make it to the start of season 2014/15.

Beefster
10-01-2014, 05:00 PM
Would Swansea not be easier just getting him on a pre-contract in that case?

Not necessarily. A development fee might be higher than the transfer fee. That would lead most clubs to reject as low a bid but, as we know, Hearts are rooked for cash.

tamig
10-01-2014, 05:08 PM
Stroke of luck for the Yams eh? How did they pull this off?

I would imagine the SFA would give them special dispensation if needed to register him as a loan player for the rest of the season, as they have given themselves room to do this on a case by case basis.

Point is that his registration is currently with Hertz, so if he hasn't been re-registered by Swansea (which I reckon is likely the case here), the registration embargo hasn't been breached.

PatHead
10-01-2014, 06:26 PM
So a £250k sale this morning soon became £200k, which then became £150k, which has now become a "six figure sum" offer according to STV. If it gets much lower Hear7s will soon be paying them.

This is all a ploy to get the signing embargo lifted by saying "we need to sell to see out the season but don't have enough players." Hearts should not have been allowed to start the season if there was a danger of not completing it. Teach other clubs a lesson and get rid of them now. Basically call their bluff.

Mikey
11-01-2014, 07:42 PM
A wee birdie tells me that........

.......... it's not done yet and it'll be nowhere near the figures mentioned if it does go through. And it'll be everything up front so no sell on fee.

.......... King is being "encouraged" to donate his signing on fee to the cause.

WindyMiller
11-01-2014, 07:45 PM
A wee birdie tells me that........

.......... it's not done yet and it'll be nowhere near the figures mentioned if it does go through. And it'll be everything up front so no sell on fee.

.......... King is being "encouraged" to donate his signing on fee to the cause.



copyright R. Petrie.

Mikey
15-01-2014, 10:00 AM
This is no further on and the lad is now desperate to get away.

Can't blame him really :agree:

hibseleven
15-01-2014, 10:13 AM
was told on Saturday it was a pre-contact. From Brian McLaughlin. AKA "scoop"

Golden Bear
15-01-2014, 10:22 AM
was told on Saturday it was a pre-contact. From Brian McLaughlin. AKA "scoop"

Ah - that will only serve to complicate the one out, one in scenario.

The yams will argue that he's no longer "their" player therefore they should be allowed to sign a world cup superstar as a replacement.

Gmack7
15-01-2014, 10:25 AM
And if he hasn't been offered a new contract by the cheats they won't be entitled to any development fee IMO

GreenLake
15-01-2014, 11:25 AM
was told on Saturday it was a pre-contact. From Brian McLaughlin. AKA "scoop"

Shouldn't it be "poop scoop"

Twa Cairpets
15-01-2014, 12:41 PM
Hang on.

So the team who are allegedly being forced to drag children away from their classrooms in tears in order to fulfil fixtures against the nasty grown ups appear to have a £200K player in their squad who has played only a handful of games, despite the gallant heroes playing through severed limbs and full mental breakdowns?

Erm.

Anyone else think this is a bit, well, odd?

Andy74
15-01-2014, 12:58 PM
Hang on.

So the team who are allegedly being forced to drag children away from their classrooms in tears in order to fulfil fixtures against the nasty grown ups appear to have a £200K player in their squad who has played only a handful of games, despite the gallant heroes playing through severed limbs and full mental breakdowns?

Erm.

Anyone else think this is a bit, well, odd?

Yes, I've mentiuoned this a few times - doesn't quite add up that Swansea would be so keen to have him now but Hearts haven't bothered playing him despite being barely able to put a team out, according to them, or at least to give others a rest.

Suburban Hibby
15-01-2014, 01:15 PM
Yes, I've mentiuoned this a few times - doesn't quite add up that Swansea would be so keen to have him now but Hearts haven't bothered playing him despite being barely able to put a team out, according to them, or at least to give others a rest.

probably 'protecting their asset ' - can you imagine they give him a run out and does himself a bit damage- 200K down the swanny!

Keith_M
15-01-2014, 01:16 PM
You do all realise that this is a cunning ploy by the yams to get an 18 y/o out, to be replaced by Super Rudi, who will then single-handedly win the Diddy Cup for them?


It's called Hearts cunning, I read it in the Scotsman comments section :wink:


Oh and they're still referring to US as The Beggars. Quite an amusing bunch, really

scott7_0(Prague)
15-01-2014, 01:22 PM
You do all realise that this is a cunning ploy by the yams to get an 18 y/o out, to be replaced by Super Rudi, who will then single-handedly win the Diddy Cup for them?


It's called Hearts cunning, I read it in the Scotsman comments section :wink:


Oh and they're still referring to US as The Beggars. Quite an amusing bunch, really

The Czech fhanny hasnt kicked a ball in 8 or 9months, in fact since he left Dundee United in Jan 2013 he played 5 whole games. Good Luck Hearts.

Ozyhibby
15-01-2014, 01:36 PM
I'm struggling to see what's in this for Swansea? He is out of contract in the summer anyway. Why not just sign him on a pre contract?

hibseleven
15-01-2014, 01:45 PM
Shouldn't it be "poop scoop"

Brian is a good guy. He is often a wee bit late with his info hence the nickname. Worked beside him a few years ago and often see him out and about.

Deansy
15-01-2014, 01:48 PM
The Czech fhanny hasnt kicked a ball in 8 or 9months, in fact since he left Dundee United in Jan 2013 he played 5 whole games. Good Luck Hearts.

Did he even 'kick a ball' when he was with Dundee Utd ?? - seemed too busy getting his photo in the papers flashing his squad-number !!. ****** him anyway, if George Best couldn't save us from relegation, I doubt the 'the Conk' will make the slightest bit difference to that shower - apart from EVERY single interview (be it TV/Radio/Press etc) will contain a snide-insult about us.

Andy74
15-01-2014, 01:57 PM
You do all realise that this is a cunning ploy by the yams to get an 18 y/o out, to be replaced by Super Rudi, who will then single-handedly win the Diddy Cup for them?


It's called Hearts cunning, I read it in the Scotsman comments section :wink:


Oh and they're still referring to US as The Beggars. Quite an amusing bunch, really

I don't think the review of the one out and one in will be as easy for them as that either.

I'd think the 'panel' would look at an 18 year old who has hardly played against an international player who is a club legend and could have a big impact for them both on the pitch and commercially.

Can't see them going for that.

inglisavhibs
15-01-2014, 02:05 PM
I'm struggling to see what's in this for Swansea? He is out of contract in the summer anyway. Why not just sign him on a pre contract?
Reading between the lines I think that is really what's happening. Swansea would be liable to pay Hearts compensation and I think Hearts are just trying to bring that forward if Swansea agree. Not sure what compensation will be but probably around £150k. That would help Hearts in two ways, much needed cash and possibility of bringing in a new player to try and boost attendances.Like others on here, not convinced that they would be allowed the player they want to bring in.

Mikey09
15-01-2014, 02:09 PM
I don't think the review of the one out and one in will be as easy for them as that either.

I'd think the 'panel' would look at an 18 year old who has hardly played against an international player who is a club legend and could have a big impact for them both on the pitch and commercially.

Can't see them going for that.
The word commercially you use is the exact reason they want to bring this mercenary in. But I for one hope they do. Out goes a very good prospect, and in comes a lazy, unfit has been for a few months. As I said, I hope it happens :flag:

GreenPJ
15-01-2014, 02:17 PM
I don't think the review of the one out and one in will be as easy for them as that either.

I'd think the 'panel' would look at an 18 year old who has hardly played against an international player who is a club legend and could have a big impact for them both on the pitch and commercially.

Can't see them going for that.

Why would the panel care or what jurisdiction do they have about whether its an international player and could be commercially beneficial to them off the pitch? I thought there remit was to determine that the monies the club would pay to a new player would be no more than the money paid to the exiting player (i.e. cost neutral on the outgoings and no further burden to the cost base).

StevieC
15-01-2014, 02:20 PM
I'm struggling to see what's in this for Swansea? He is out of contract in the summer anyway. Why not just sign him on a pre contract?

Because of his age I think that there's a development fee that needs to be agreed, which possibly prevents a pre-contract? By agreeing a transfer fee now (effectively the development fee) it benefits both parties.
I'm guessing what Swansea get out of this is the opportunity to get the jump on signing a player before he's out of contract and free to sign for whoever he wants.

Hibernia Na Eir
15-01-2014, 02:23 PM
As it stands though, Hertz WILL lose out long term as their fans would have expected to realise more for their top talent. All this cash does is line BDO's (deep) pockets.

kaimendhibs
15-01-2014, 02:25 PM
Why would the panel care or what jurisdiction do they have about whether its an international player and could be commercially beneficial to them off the pitch? I thought there remit was to determine that the monies the club would pay to a new player would be no more than the money paid to the exiting player (i.e. cost neutral on the outgoings and no further burden to the cost base).

Can you see gonzo playing for same salary as a 16 year old kid? Shenanigans afoot I fear, erm backhanded payments!


Sent from my iphone

GreenPJ
15-01-2014, 02:28 PM
Can you see gonzo playing for same salary as a 16 year old kid? Shenanigans afoot I fear, erm backhanded payments!


Sent from my iphone

I don't doubt it but the panel can only go on what they aer told as fact by the administrators - BDO are taking a big gamble on their reputation and potentially their license by lying about the salary they would pay. I have no doubt that he would get monies from other channels to make up the difference though but the panel can't do anything about that.

Onion
15-01-2014, 02:54 PM
I don't doubt it but the panel can only go on what they aer told as fact by the administrators - BDO are taking a big gamble on their reputation and potentially their license by lying about the salary they would pay. I have no doubt that he would get monies from other channels to make up the difference though but the panel can't do anything about that.

If it's contractual, think they can. After the HunGate Double Contracts affair, the SFA should be all over the Yams and their dodgy dealings. Even the SFA must realise that they are dealing with a lying, cheating bunch of charlatans that will stop at nothing to leg over anyone they can. Failing that, any payments - back-handers or otherwise - will be of interest to HMRC who the Yams have already stiffed for £ms. Can only hope the accountants, authorities and tax man are over these guys like a rash.

Onion
15-01-2014, 02:59 PM
Why is there are general assumption in the press etc that Yams will be able to replace Adam King with Scratchel, when the rules on one-in, one-out do not include players that are SOLD by the club - only those who's contracts have EXPIRED or been terminated by mut consent ?

The rules look quite clear to me... or am I mistaken ?

GreenPJ
15-01-2014, 03:26 PM
If it's contractual, think they can. After the HunGate Double Contracts affair, the SFA should be all over the Yams and their dodgy dealings. Even the SFA must realise that they are dealing with a lying, cheating bunch of charlatans that will stop at nothing to leg over anyone they can. Failing that, any payments - back-handers or otherwise - will be of interest to HMRC who the Yams have already stiffed for £ms. Can only hope the accountants, authorities and tax man are over these guys like a rash.

If its contractual BDO will have to disclose it or risk severely tarnishing their reputation. I agree back-handers (or some rich Yam paying him a consultancy fee) is subject to HMRC but its ultimately not the remit of the SFA panel.

Jack
15-01-2014, 03:50 PM
Hang on.

So the team who are allegedly being forced to drag children away from their classrooms in tears in order to fulfil fixtures against the nasty grown ups appear to have a £200K player in their squad who has played only a handful of games, despite the gallant heroes playing through severed limbs and full mental breakdowns?

Erm.

Anyone else think this is a bit, well, odd?

TBH I would trust the Swansea managers assessment ahead of unLockie.

Jack
15-01-2014, 03:54 PM
... and another thing.

If the yams hit the big L am I right in thinking registrations go to the SFA? Or is that contracts, or both?

Swans pay yams money, yams go into the liquidiser, do Swans lose their money and or player?

CropleyWasGod
15-01-2014, 04:04 PM
... and another thing.

If the yams hit the big L am I right in thinking registrations go to the SFA? Or is that contracts, or both?

Swans pay yams money, yams go into the liquidiser, do Swans lose their money and or player?

Registrations revert to the SFA, IIRC.

If the registration is transferred before L, Swansea are legally obliged to pay the cash, to the liquidator if necessary.

Oscar T Grouch
15-01-2014, 06:12 PM
Why is there are general assumption in the press etc that Yams will be able to replace Adam King with Scratchel, when the rules on one-in, one-out do not include players that are SOLD by the club - only those who's contracts have EXPIRED or been terminated by mut consent ?

The rules look quite clear to me... or am I mistaken ?

This is what I thought, if he's sold he doesnae get replaced

Andy74
15-01-2014, 06:31 PM
Why would the panel care or what jurisdiction do they have about whether its an international player and could be commercially beneficial to them off the pitch? I thought there remit was to determine that the monies the club would pay to a new player would be no more than the money paid to the exiting player (i.e. cost neutral on the outgoings and no further burden to the cost base).

I'm sure they can take the entire merits of each case into account and not just limited to cost. I'm sure one or two would play for free but I don't think they should be able to profit unduly from it by bringing in some legend if theirs. The intention I am sure is to make any in and out like for like.