West Ham linked with McGinn

[GoalsMcGinley]

According to today’s Sun on Sunday


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pete]

Tell the Tory loving *******s to GTF.

[I'm_cabbaged]

That would bring in the money we’re looking for I’d imagine. Got to face facts that he’s likely to move this window so let the bidding commence!!

[Diclonius]

If they're offering 4+, take it and immediately reinvest.

[houstonhibbee]

If they're offering 4+, take it and immediately reinvest.
By bringing Leigh back

[Hibeewilly]

I remember seeing Moyes up at Tannadice last season to keep tabs on him when he was at Sunderland so no surprise really. If West Ham come up with the right money sell him to them in this window on the condition that they loan him back to us until the end of the season. That way we can bring in some more quality to add to what we have and mount a really good challenge. I don't want to see him going in this window when we have so much to play for in the league and hopefully have another good crack at the Scottish Cup

[MWHIBBIES]

By bringing Leigh back
If McGinn is worth 4 million Griffiths is 10 million. He isn't coming back here for a long long time.

[1van Sprou7e]

That would bring in the money we’re looking for I’d imagine. Got to face facts that he’s likely to move this window so let the bidding commence!!

Disagree tbh, think he'll stay till the summer

[cabbageandribs1875]

If McGinn is worth 4 million Griffiths is 10 million. He isn't coming back here for a long long time.



:agree: 4m/10m players are entitled to 4m/10m players salaries

[NAE NOOKIE]

Got beat again yesterday, Moyes will definitely be looking for players, but I would have thought he would be looking for EPL or 'big league' experience if they are going to be in a relegation dogfight.

[Hibernia&Alba]

By bringing Leigh back

:hyper


:dizzy

[Wilson]

Got beat again yesterday, Moyes will definitely be looking for players, but I would have thought he would be looking for EPL or 'big league' experience if they are going to be in a relegation dogfight.

At the same time Moyes is also known for building for the longer term. A player like McGinn would be the right age in that regard.

[bingo70]

Got beat again yesterday, Moyes will definitely be looking for players, but I would have thought he would be looking for EPL or 'big league' experience if they are going to be in a relegation dogfight.

Very average premiership players cost £25-£30m. Especially in this window.

I think the energy and drive Mcginn would give them would make him an excellent signing and probably just what they need.

Remember they paid around £10m for Robert Snodgrass. He’s not a bad man later but twice as good as Mcginn? No chance.

[K.Marx]

but I would have thought he would be looking for EPL or 'big league' experience if they are going to be in a relegation dogfight.

Agree with this. Think their January recruitment will be all about proven top level players to keep them up

[Ozyhibby]

I remember seeing Moyes up at Tannadice last season to keep tabs on him when he was at Sunderland so no surprise really. If West Ham come up with the right money sell him to them in this window on the condition that they loan him back to us until the end of the season. That way we can bring in some more quality to add to what we have and mount a really good challenge. I don't want to see him going in this window when we have so much to play for in the league and hopefully have another good crack at the Scottish Cup

If West Ham want him they will want him now. They won’t loan him back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Phil MaGlass]

they are also after another midfielder

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/5201832/west-ham-8million-bid-harry-arter-rejected-bournemouth/

[Hibeewilly]

If West Ham want him they will want him now. They won’t loan him back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I would think that Moyes will be interested in signing him for the medium to long term not to become part of a relegation dogfight so I wouldn't rule out a loan. Plus McGinn is nowhere near ready for the EPL just now anyway. He is also contracted to us until the end of next season so we hold some ace cards here. Hibs are also talking to him about extending his contract so I don't think we are going to be rolled over by any of his suitors

[Colr]

If they're offering 4+, take it and immediately reinvest.

For that he can go with our best wishes.

[OxoHibby]

At the same time Moyes is also known for building for the longer term. A player like McGinn would be the right age in that regard.

Moyes only has a 7 month contract a pretty much said he will be off if they don't stay up

[Phil MaGlass]

If true then he will go for more than 5 mill as the bidding will have just started, hopefully for 5 plus, then ah´ll be on again to say told yi so to all the folk that said they would bite Notts Forest hands off if they had bought him for 2 mill at the beginning of the season.
First ah´ll need tae find the links of course.

[guthrie01]

If true then he will go for more than 5 mill as the bidding will have just started, hopefully for 5 plus, then ah´ll be on again to say told yi so to all the folk that said they would bite Notts Forest hands off if they had bought him for 2 mill at the beginning of the season.
First ah´ll need tae find the links of course.

No chance, West Ham if they are interested will offer around 3 or 4 million and John will be off. He won’t let Hibs risk a move to the Premier League just to potentially get some more money for the club.

[Michael]

West Ham would be a pretty decent move to be fair. Very good wage and a great city.

[renato]

Sell on clause for us is probably as important (maybe more so) than the initial fee. If it happens and he gets a move to the EPL then good luck to the lad and thanks for the wonderful memories.

[Firestarter]

At the same time Moyes is also known for building for the longer term. A player like McGinn would be the right age in that regard.

Apart from the last 3 jobs he's had and a short term deal this time until the end of the season? I can't see how he would justify signing McGinn when they need experience.

Show me the money though.

[Firestarter]

Sell on clause for us is probably as important (maybe more so) than the initial fee. If it happens and he gets a move to the EPL then good luck to the lad and thanks for the wonderful memories.

I wouldn't mind a Lower fee and a higher sell in. Means we give st Mirren less.

[Billy Whizz]

I wouldn't mind a Lower fee and a higher sell in. Means we give st Mirren less.

Depends on what he’ll go after his next move, could be a gamble

[danhibees1875]

I wouldn't mind a Lower fee and a higher sell in. Means we give st Mirren less.

Does it? Or would the sell on clause be "valued" and we have to give a % of that to st Mirren?

[Iain G]

West Ham would be a pretty decent move to be fair. Very good wage and a great city.

Have they moved out of London 😉

[Ozyhibby]

I would think that Moyes will be interested in signing him for the medium to long term not to become part of a relegation dogfight so I wouldn't rule out a loan. Plus McGinn is nowhere near ready for the EPL just now anyway. He is also contracted to us until the end of next season so we hold some ace cards here. Hibs are also talking to him about extending his contract so I don't think we are going to be rolled over by any of his suitors

Moyes only has a contract till the end of this season. If he wants him, he wants him now. And Hibs won’t stand in McGinns way. We won’t be rolled over but if they want him they will get him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wilson]

Apart from the last 3 jobs he's had and a short term deal this time until the end of the season? I can't see how he would justify signing McGinn when they need experience.

Show me the money though.

The jobs proved short term not Moyes' thinking ;)

Besides I was thinking specifically of his time at Everton.

Moyes will be looking beyond his short contract. I think West Ham's efforts under his tenure would justify that. McGinn will be one to bring on gradually.

Signing McGinn wouldn't prevent him from also going out and adding experience...

[MSK]

I wouldn't mind a Lower fee and a higher sell in. Means we give st Mirren less.I dont agree with giving St Mirren less, we negotiated a deal to take a fantastic talent from them, fairs fair in my opinion, I hope both clubs benefit greatly from this.

[JohnMcM]

If SJM goes in this window, I like to think there will be sell on clause that will benefit us and St Mirren. Just as importantly, I hope if he moves, it's down south. I don't like the thought of him running at our defence when he's a bit more mature in thought and skill.

[Hibrandenburg]

Have they moved out of London 😉

:greengrin

[J-C]

Got beat again yesterday, Moyes will definitely be looking for players, but I would have thought he would be looking for EPL or 'big league' experience if they are going to be in a relegation dogfight.


McGinn could thrive down there, he'll get more space to play his natural game unlike up here where the game is still played at 100mph at times, plus he won't be seen as the best player in the team so won't have to think he has to do it all by himself.

[Firestarter]

Depends on what he’ll go after his next move, could be a gamble

If he went to an EPL team and we got even £500k out of the next move but orovably more at least it would totally go to us instead of almost halting with them.

[Firestarter]

I dont agree with giving St Mirren less, we negotiated a deal to take a fantastic talent from them, fairs fair in my opinion, I hope both clubs benefit greatly from this.

They will get something out of him moving, something they wouldn't if he went to America. We need to look after number 1 ultimately though.

[Firestarter]

The jobs proved short term not Moyes' thinking ;)

Besides I was thinking specifically of his time at Everton.

Moyes will be looking beyond his short contract. I think West Ham's efforts under his tenure would justify that. McGinn will be one to bring on gradually.

Signing McGinn wouldn't prevent him from also going out and adding experience...


Fair enough, built a side at Preston too. I see what you're saying.

[Firestarter]

Does it? Or would the sell on clause be "valued" and we have to give a % of that to st Mirren?

I wouldn't expect after we sell on there would be future add ins either.

[FitbaFolkKen]

I wouldn't expect after we sell on there would be future add ins either.

I would expect that the sell on clause would be structured in such a fashion as to prevent underhand tactics to avoid paying. It will be of the total value of the transfer so if we get a % of future fee from West Ham then St Mirren would be entitled to a % of our % as it was part of the transfer from Hibs to West Ham.

[Firestarter]

I would expect that the sell on clause would be structured in such a fashion as to prevent underhand tactics to avoid paying. It will be of the total value of the transfer so if we get a % of future fee from West Ham then St Mirren would be entitled to a % of our % as it was part of the transfer from Hibs to West Ham.

I disagree. It was all sorted to avoid a tribunal. They would have no right to know how much we get in the future.

[FitbaFolkKen]

I disagree. It was all sorted to avoid a tribunal. They would have no right to know how much we get in the future.

That makes no sense, if they are entitled to a percentage of the next fee then why wouldn't clauses and add-ons have a monetary value?

Up front fee
Fee over 12 months
Fee if West Ham stay up
Fee if he makes 50 appearances
Fee if he gets 10 Scotland caps
% of next fee
% of profit on next fee

They are all examples of different types of clauses that could be inserted, all of which would add value to the transfer. If St Mirren are entitled to a percentage of the next fee then they would quite rightly be due a percentage of any of the above.

[WhileTheChief..]

I would expect that the sell on clause would be structured in such a fashion as to prevent underhand tactics to avoid paying. It will be of the total value of the transfer so if we get a % of future fee from West Ham then St Mirren would be entitled to a % of our % as it was part of the transfer from Hibs to West Ham.

St Mirren’s interest will end once they receive their sell-on from us.

They will get nowt if we do a deal that involves West Ham selling him on in the future.

[danhibees1875]

I disagree. It was all sorted to avoid a tribunal. They would have no right to know how much we get in the future.

But what we'll get in the future is part of the "value" of the deal and we'd have to pay st Mirren a % of that, I would imagine.

Same if we get a player, permanent or loan, that would have a value and would make up what we had to give to st Mirren.

E.g.
If we get £1m plus a player.
Someone somewhere will have to work out the value of that player to us.
If it is £2m, then the value of the deal is £3m and if the 33% figure is true, we'd be due saints £1m (all the upfront cash).

I'm pretty sure that's how it would work, and so non-cash elements to a Mcginn deal could end up being a gamble for us.

[FitbaFolkKen]

St Mirren’s interest will end once they receive their sell-on from us.

They will get nowt if we do a deal that involves West Ham selling him on in the future.

So if we let him go there for nothing and just take a deal that entitles us to 50% of any future fee then the value of the transfer is zero and St Mirren get nothing.

There must be a safeguard in place for St Mirren to get some kind of compensation for those type of clauses. If there isn't then whoever negotiated the deal hasn't done their job.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jacomo]

Moyes only has a 7 month contract a pretty much said he will be off if they don't stay up


:agree:

Can't see him making 'signings for the future' in this window.

SJM is good but not at the level where he can drop straight into West Ham's midfield.

[WhileTheChief..]

If Forest sell Cummings to Leeds we might get a sell on.

If Leeds then sell him on we will be entitled to zilch. Can’t see the confusion here?

Think back to when we sold Fletcher. We got a sell on from Burnley when he moved on to Wolves but nothing when he moved to Sunderland. It’s always been this way no?

[FitbaFolkKen]

If Forest sell Cummings to Leeds we might get a sell on.

If Leeds then sell him on we will be entitled to zilch. Can’t see the confusion here?

Think back to when we sold Fletcher. We got a sell on from Burnley when he moved on to Wolves but nothing when he moved to Sunderland. It’s always been this way no?

I similarly can't see the confusion, I am not discussing successive moves as you seem to be we are looking at how the St Mirren % would relate should there be a sell on involved in Hibs deal.

For example we sell McGinn for £2million and 33% of a future fee.

The team then sell him on for £3million meaning Hibs are entitled to £1 million.

This would mean Hibs have sold McGinn for £3 million and St Mirren would due to their 33% sell on clause have been entitled to £1million of this.

The only way they would not be entitled to a % of that is if the clause was assigned a monetary value and the time of the initial transfer and the % was paid on that value.

[Pretty Boy]

It would be life changing financially for McGinn and would also afford him the oppprtunity to test hinself at close to the highest level. I don't think we can stand in his way.

I would also say if we are going to get big money for him then it has to be January. No one is going to pay over the odds in the summer when they can do a deal with him for nothing next January.

[Scouse Hibee]

£4.5M for McGinn 😂
Have I logged onto the fantasy island message board.

[Mr White]

£4.5M for McGinn 😂
Have I logged onto the fantasy island message board.

Is that you Keith Jackson :greengrin

[Billy Whizz]

£4.5M for McGinn 😂
Have I logged onto the fantasy island message board.

Lennon says he’s worth £5million, hope we don’t sell him on the cheap

[nonshinyfinish]

I similarly can't see the confusion, I am not discussing successive moves as you seem to be we are looking at how the St Mirren % would relate should there be a sell on involved in Hibs deal.

For example we sell McGinn for £2million and 33% of a future fee.

The team then sell him on for £3million meaning Hibs are entitled to £1 million.

This would mean Hibs have sold McGinn for £3 million and St Mirren would due to their 33% sell on clause have been entitled to £1million of this.

This is how it works in Football Manager. That ought to put the debate to bed.

[Scouse Hibee]

Is that you Keith Jackson :greengrin

If you had just said is that you Keith, you would be correct.😁

[Firestarter]

Is that you Keith Jackson :greengrin

👍😂

[Arch Stanton]

McGinn could thrive down there, he'll get more space to play his natural game unlike up here where the game is still played at 100mph at times, plus he won't be seen as the best player in the team so won't have to think he has to do it all by himself.

:agree: He absolutely looked the part playing for Scotland and they don't do gang-tackling like a bunch of hyenas in the EPL.

Anyone else think he isn't having to arse-tackle as much these days. Either the loud-mouthed critics in the crowd have put him off or Hibs are playing more fluently as a team making it more difficult to gang-tackle.

[Firestarter]

This is how it works in Football Manager. That ought to put the debate to bed.

Yep.

There's also no way Rod would let them have 30% of the sell on fee with further payments due when it could have went to a tribunal regardless and St Mirren where desperate to deal with us so he didn't go to Houston and they get aid all.

[Firestarter]

:agree: He absolutely looked the part playing for Scotland and they don't do gang-tackling like a bunch of hyenas in the EPL.

Anyone else think he isn't having to arse-tackle as much these days. Either the loud-mouthed critics in the crowd have put him off or Hibs are playing more fluently as a team making it more difficult to gang-tackle.

Have to agree, he's class when surrounded by players around them doing their jobs. He tries too much at times here.

With his family history I still expect him to be future Celtic captain mind.

[WhileTheChief..]

I similarly can't see the confusion, I am not discussing successive moves as you seem to be we are looking at how the St Mirren % would relate should there be a sell on involved in Hibs deal.

For example we sell McGinn for £2million and 33% of a future fee.

The team then sell him on for £3million meaning Hibs are entitled to £1 million.

This would mean Hibs have sold McGinn for £3 million and St Mirren would due to their 33% sell on clause have been entitled to £1million of this.

The only way they would not be entitled to a % of that is if the clause was assigned a monetary value and the time of the initial transfer and the % was paid on that value.


I’d be surprised if that’s the case but fair do’s if you know that’s how it works.

I wonder if if we have ever benefited from such a deal?

[FitbaFolkKen]

This is how it works in Football Manager. That ought to put the debate to bed.

So you agree with me then, excellent!


Yep.

There's also no way Rod would let them have 30% of the sell on fee with further payments due when it could have went to a tribunal regardless and St Mirren where desperate to deal with us so he didn't go to Houston and they get aid all.

The tribunal has nothing to do with it, I would suggest that if they were that desperate to negotiate the percentage would have been much lower than 30%. That's a pretty large sell on and would more suggest that we wanted him really badly but didn't want to shell out a substantial fee.

St Mirren are entitled to a percentage of the next fee. All these clauses are part of the next fee whichever way you phrase it.

I refuse to believe that the lawyers St Mirren employed when negotiating the deal left a loophole that size for Hibs to exploit.

[CropleyWasGod]

I’d be surprised if that’s the case but fair do’s if you know that’s how it works.

I wonder if if we have ever benefited from such a deal?

We got sell-on fees for Fletch at least twice, and, I think, Bamba.

I'm thinking that the wording in the deals is likely to be "profit" rather than "fee".

[Firestarter]

So you agree with me then, excellent!



The tribunal has nothing to do with it, I would suggest that if they were that desperate to negotiate the percentage would have been much lower than 30%. That's a pretty large sell on and would more suggest that we wanted him really badly but didn't want to shell out a substantial fee.

St Mirren are entitled to a percentage of the next fee. All these clauses are part of the next fee whichever way you phrase it.

I refuse to believe that the lawyers St Mirren employed when negotiating the deal left a loophole that size for Hibs to exploit.

It's everything to do with the tribunal. What would they have decided for a lower league player to a lower league side? £200k max.

There's again, no way Petrie would agree to give them almost half the transfer fee in the future then a further add on. When's that ever happened before? I certainly can't remember us getting a fee 2 transfers down the line. Once his contract ends with us, which includes a percentage of the transfer fee to Super John and St Mirren the next contract will hopefully involve another sell of fee for us. St Mirren will have nothing to do with that and doesn't make sense to be honest. They almost got nothing for him, they got money from us, plus a massive add on percentage no danger they will get further cash.

[FitbaFolkKen]

I’d be surprised if that’s the case but fair do’s if you know that’s how it works.

I wonder if if we have ever benefited from such a deal?

I'm not 100% but it would make sense, I just can't see a scenario where we would have a work around from paying fees to St Mirren.

[Firestarter]

I'm not 100% but it would make sense, I just can't see a scenario where we would have a work around from paying fees to St Mirren.

We are paying fees to st Mirren for a player out of contract to them as well as a nominal fee to begin with. They will have no right to further sales especially with a 30%er.

[FitbaFolkKen]

It's everything to do with the tribunal. What would they have decided for a lower league player to a lower league side? £200k max.

There's again, no way Petrie would agree to give them almost half the transfer fee in the future then a further add on. When's that ever happened before? I certainly can't remember us getting a fee 2 transfers down the line. Once his contract ends with us, which includes a percentage of the transfer fee to Super John and St Mirren the next contract will hopefully involve another sell of fee for us. St Mirren will have nothing to do with that and doesn't make sense to be honest. They almost got nothing for him, they got money from us, plus a massive add on percentage no danger they will get further cash.

It's not a further add on though is it? It would be part of the fee just because it isn't paid at the time of the transfer doesn't mean anything. We got money when Fletch moved from Burnley to Wolves for £7.5 million.

[Firestarter]

It's not a further add on though is it? It would be part of the fee just because it isn't paid at the time of the transfer doesn't mean anything. We got money when Fletch moved from Burnley to Wolves for £7.5 million.

Yes because that was his first move from us. McGinn leaving West Ham ifor another would be his second move from st Mirren

[FitbaFolkKen]

We got sell-on fees for Fletch at least twice, and, I think, Bamba.

Glad I'm not going mental!

[CropleyWasGod]

We are paying fees to st Mirren for a player out of contract to them as well as a nominal fee to begin with. They will have no right to further sales especially with a 30%er.

....unless the deal between us and St Mirren stipulates it.

That's the key here. Every deal is different, and none of us know what is in that deal, even the fabled "30%".

[Firestarter]

....unless the deal between us and St Mirren stipulates it.

That's the key here. Every deal is different, and none of us know what is in that deal, even the fabled "30%".

Why would it though if we gave them cash plus a massive sell on percentages for a player out of contract that they almost got nothing for?

[CropleyWasGod]

Why would it though if we gave them cash plus a massive sell on percentages for a player out of contract that they almost got nothing for?

Did we give them " a massive sell-on", though?

That's my point. We don't know.

[Firestarter]

Did we give them " a massive sell-on", though?

That's my point. We don't know.

Didn't the old St Mirren chairman confirm it and that sell on is a mental percentage never mind a further yin.

[CropleyWasGod]

Didn't the old St Mirren chairman confirm it and that sell on is a mental percentage never mind a further yin.

And Rod said the it was "nowhere near" the amount quoted.

:cb

[Pinkie]

We got sell-on fees for Fletch at least twice, and, I think, Bamba.

I'm thinking that the wording in the deals is likely to be "profit" rather than "fee".

I once found myself in the company of a lawyer who had done work with a number of EPL clubs. We got onto the subject of player transfers. My memory is slightly hazy on the detail but my recollection from the conversation is that when a player is transferred between any two clubs for a fee, the club that first developed that player is due a small slice of the fee. He said it could be quite a problem with african players in particular, as it was sometimes almost impossible to trace the club that had developed them.

Like I say, my memory of it is a bit hazy (I think there was maybe an age limit involved but can't remember the detail) but assuming this to be at least partly accurate would maybe explain why Hibs got a windfall each time Fletcher was trasferred in England. And if this is indeed the case, then St Mirren would expect a wee bonus payment every time McGinn gets transferred for a fee in future, irrespective of any specific sell-on clause that they negotiated with Hibs.

[WhileTheChief..]

Going back to Fletcher for a minute...

We sold him to Burnley for around £4.5m.

They sold him to Wolves and at that point we got a few hundred k as part of our deal with Burnley right?

Are we also saying that when Wolves sold him to Sunderland we got another wedge?

If so, from who? Burnley, Wolves or Southampton?

That just seems crazy. If he moved clubs every year for 10 years would we still be expecting a cut from the first club we sold him to?!!!

Makes no sense to me. I’m gonna go drink some whisky.

[Ozyhibby]

Going back to Fletcher for a minute...

We sold him to Burnley for around £4.5m.

They sold him to Wolves and at that point we got a few hundred k as part of our deal with Burnley right?

Are we also saying that when Wolves sold him to Sunderland we got another wedge?

If so, from who? Burnley, Wolves or Southampton?

That just seems crazy. If he moved clubs every year for 10 years would we still be expecting a cut from the first club we sold him to?!!!

Makes no sense to me. I’m gonna go drink some whisky.

If Burnley had a sell on fee agreement with Wolves then we would be entitled to a percentage of any money Burnley receive as per our original agreement with them. It’s not hard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pinkie]

That just seems crazy. If he moved clubs every year for 10 years would we still be expecting a cut from the first club we sold him to?!!![/QUOTE]

That was my understanding from the lawyer, except that the money would come from whichever club was purchasing him at that time, not the club we had initially sold him to.

[CropleyWasGod]

Going back to Fletcher for a minute...

We sold him to Burnley for around £4.5m.

They sold him to Wolves and at that point we got a few hundred k as part of our deal with Burnley right?

Are we also saying that when Wolves sold him to Sunderland we got another wedge?

If so, from who? Burnley, Wolves or Southampton?

That just seems crazy. If he moved clubs every year for 10 years would we still be expecting a cut from the first club we sold him to?!!!

Makes no sense to me. I’m gonna go drink some whisky.We got 1m when he went to Wolves.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[theonlywayisup]

Think of it that St. Mirren will get x% of whatever money we make from selling McGinn.

If we sell him, they get x%.

If the team we sell him to (say) West Ham sell him for (say) £10 million, we would only get y% of that if we get a sell on clause inserted into the deal.

If the team West Ham sell him to (say) Everton sell him to Man United for (say) £20 million we would only get a % if West Ham inserted a sell on clause into their deal with Everton.

It will only happen if the sell on clause are inserted in subsequent contracts.

[brog]

St Mirren’s interest will end once they receive their sell-on from us.

They will get nowt if we do a deal that involves West Ham selling him on in the future.

You don't know that & neither do I. I do however know that the Fletch deal was structured so that we received a % of every penny profit that Burnley made. That was why we got a decent payment when Fletch moved from Wolves to Sunderland. Its perfectly feasible that the McGinn deal was similar.

[J-C]

I similarly can't see the confusion, I am not discussing successive moves as you seem to be we are looking at how the St Mirren % would relate should there be a sell on involved in Hibs deal.

For example we sell McGinn for £2million and 33% of a future fee.

The team then sell him on for £3million meaning Hibs are entitled to £1 million.

This would mean Hibs have sold McGinn for £3 million and St Mirren would due to their 33% sell on clause have been entitled to £1million of this.

The only way they would not be entitled to a % of that is if the clause was assigned a monetary value and the time of the initial transfer and the % was paid on that value.


St Mirren will only get whatever percentage Hibs sell initially, any further clauses Hibs put into any sale has nothing to do with St Mirren.

£4m @ 30% is £1.2m, this will be all St Mirren will get and nothing more.

[J-C]

You don't know that & neither do I. I do however know that the Fletch deal was structured so that we received a % of every penny profit that Burnley made. That was why we got a decent payment when Fletch moved from Wolves to Sunderland. Its perfectly feasible that the McGinn deal was similar.

It may be possible but I doubt it, if there is such a clause it will be a very small % and nowhere near the 33% possible quoted, nearer 2-3 %, like the small fee Hearts and Hutchison Vale got from the Cummings deal.

[greenlex]

St Mirren will only get whatever percentage Hibs sell initially, any further clauses Hibs put into any sale has nothing to do with St Mirren.

£4m @ 30% is £1.2m, this will be all St Mirren will get and nothing more.
Surely a sell on clause would effectively reduce the transfer fee. I would be surprised if there wasn’t a formula for working out a percentage of sell on clause against the value of a straight sale. Therefore clubs further down the chain with a clause inserted would be paid accordingly on subsequent deals. The minute the chain is broken the payments would cease.

[WhileTheChief..]

St Mirren will only get whatever percentage Hibs sell initially, any further clauses Hibs put into any sale has nothing to do with St Mirren.

£4m @ 30% is £1.2m, this will be all St Mirren will get and nothing more.

Thats what I thought too. Who knows?!:confused:

[J-C]

Surely a sell on clause would effectively reduce the transfer fee. I would be surprised if there wasn’t a formula for working out a percentage of sell on clause against the value of a straight sale. Therefore clubs further down the chain with a clause inserted would be paid accordingly on subsequent deals. The minute the chain is broken the payments would cease.


This is what makes it difficult to calculate because we don't know the structure of any clauses we have with St Mirren, it could be a one off simple 30% payment or it could be that plus smaller % for each sell on in the future.

[greenlex]

This is what makes it difficult to calculate because we don't know the structure of any clauses we have with St Mirren, it could be a one off simple 30% payment or it could be that plus smaller % for each sell on in the future.

30% of any payment we might get as a clause?
agreeing to a clause allows you to get a player cheaper than if you paid upfront. As long as there’s a clause in the next deal you are selling the player cheaper than you would in a straight deal. It’s a chain till its broken by a straight deal? St Mirren would be entitled to 39% of any future money we get from future clauses until such time it’s broken.

[Ozyhibby]

If st.mirren are due 25% (for example) of any fee for McGinn then if we sell him for £4m then st.mirren will get £1m.
If we then receive a further £1m from any future sale then st. Mirren are due a further £250k.
That’s the deal, I’m not sure what is so hard to understand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tyler Durden]

If st.mirren are due 25% (for example) of any fee for McGinn then if we sell him for £4m then st.mirren will get £1m.
If we then receive a further £1m from any future sale then st. Mirren are due a further £250k.
That’s the deal, I’m not sure what is so hard to understand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You don't know what the deal is.

Nobody on here does. I'm looking forward to McGinn leaving just so we can put these debates to bed! Everyone is speculating but some posters regularly patronise others when they have no idea what detail is included in a commercial contract.

[MWHIBBIES]

If st.mirren are due 25% (for example) of any fee for McGinn then if we sell him for £4m then st.mirren will get £1m.
If we then receive a further £1m from any future sale then st. Mirren are due a further £250k.
That’s the deal, I’m not sure what is so hard to understand.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkIs that actually the deal though? It isn't difficult to understand but how do you know that is the case??

[greenlex]

Is that actually the deal though? It isn't difficult to understand but how do you know that is the case??

You be daft to agree to one payment. Any subsequent deal with a sell on clause reduces the initial sale price a percentage of any future payments for the player is surely common practice. If it’s not it bloody well should be.

[Ozyhibby]

Is that actually the deal though? It isn't difficult to understand but how do you know that is the case??

I don’t know what the deal is at all, I’m just saying that if the deal is that they receive a percentage of what we get then it won’t matter if we receive it all now or some of it two years down the track then they will get their percentage.
Otherwise we could just structure the deal so they pay £1 now (and send st.mirren 33p) and £4m when he completes one training drill. Job done. Tough luck st. Mirren.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tyler Durden]

I don’t know what the deal is at all, I’m just saying that if the deal is that they receive a percentage of what we get then it won’t matter if we receive it all now or some of it two years down the track then they will get their percentage.
Otherwise we could just structure the deal so they pay £1 now (and send st.mirren 33p) and £4m when he completes one training drill. Job done. Tough luck st. Mirren.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You don't know that either though.

It's equally likely that the sell on relates to one move only. We don't know.

[FitbaFolkKen]

If st.mirren are due 25% (for example) of any fee for McGinn then if we sell him for £4m then st.mirren will get £1m.
If we then receive a further £1m from any future sale then st. Mirren are due a further £250k.
That’s the deal, I’m not sure what is so hard to understand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is exactly what I've tried to say.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[greenlex]

You don't know that either though.

It's equally likely that the sell on relates to one move only. We don't know.

It would technically be one move. They payments would however be watered down over subsequent moves should a sell on clause be part of them. Effectively that percentage of all income gained from the club you have the deal with for that player.

[Ozyhibby]

It would technically be one move. They payments would however be watered down over subsequent moves should a sell on clause be part of them. Effectively that percentage of all income gained from the club you have the deal with for that player.

Correct. If st mirren have a sell on clause with us for McGinn it will be for any money we receive now or in the future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Firestarter]

Is that actually the deal though? It isn't difficult to understand but how do you know that is the case??

There's no danger it will be.

[Baldy Foghorn]

How does anyone know the details of the clause?

[Thecat23]

Only clause I know tonight is Santa Claus!! I’ve heard he’s defo coming but it’s prob just a .net rumour.

[Tyler Durden]

It would technically be one move. They payments would however be watered down over subsequent moves should a sell on clause be part of them. Effectively that percentage of all income gained from the club you have the deal with for that player.

Right. That is one example of how a deal could be structured. There are multiple other ways it could be structured. We do not know.

[ancient hibee]

Exactly.There could be for example a clause that states Hibs will pay St.Mirren a percentage of a sell on fee but that’s it or will also pay a percentage of any other sell ons.It also may be that the percentage paid to St Mirren is on the profit made not the actual fee.

[Ringothedog]

How does anyone know the details of the clause?

I thought 33% was a fact😂

[Diclonius]

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/029/129/650.gif

[Billy Whizz]

Only clause I know tonight is Santa Claus!! I’ve heard he’s defo coming but it’s prob just a .net rumour.

Source

[ancient hibee]

Rudy the Red knows.

[jacomo]

How does anyone know the details of the clause?


We've all read it. Haven't you?

Problem is, we've all got different legal advisors, hence the many different opinions.

[brog]

Exactly.There could be for example a clause that states Hibs will pay St.Mirren a percentage of a sell on fee but that’s it or will also pay a percentage of any other sell ons.It also may be that the percentage paid to St Mirren is on the profit made not the actual fee.


That's exactly what the deal with Fletch was. We got a % of any profit Burnley made on subsequent deals. Therefore we got a % ( possibly 15/20 ) of the increase of about £3.5m when he joined Wolves & again when Wolves sold him on to Sunderland for about £5m more. I believe in total we brought in more for Fletch than the £4.4m we got for Scotty. I also believe, though it's much more 2nd hand info, that we used that good experience to help persuade both St M & SJM to do the deal. I suspect St M will now be doing the same with Celtc on Lewis Morgan. The profit based deals are becoming considerably more common, particularly where it's a younger player with prospects & certainly where Scottish teams are selling to England. Motherwell are still reeling from losing McCormick for sweeties & seeing him sold on for about £30m in total subsequently.

[Baldy Foghorn]

We've all read it. Haven't you?

Problem is, we've all got different legal advisors, hence the many different opinions.

Read conflicting stories, but nobody can claim to know the intricate details unless Hibs have made that public, which wouldn't happen

[stoneyburn hibs]

Only clause I know tonight is Santa Claus!! I’ve heard he’s defo coming but it’s prob just a .net rumour.

Best scoop from you ever!

[Phil MaGlass]

In Holland its seemingly common that evry time a player is sold, a percentage works its way down to all the clubs that have he has come through, including the amateur clubs he played for. It means they all get a piece of the pie and the money is reinvested in stadiums/ facilities etc,everyone benefits.
I for one hope St.Mirren get what is owed to them.

[Souter96Mac]

Hopefully, if SJM does leave, we get the business done as early as possible in the window. Leaving us plenty of time to bring in a replacement and other targets

[random sub]

Only just skim reading this thread but am I the only one on here that thinks McGinn is worth more than £4 million?

[Phil MaGlass]

Only just skim reading this thread but am I the only one on here that thinks McGinn is worth more than £4 million?

Aye me

[lord bunberry]

Was there not some talk of McGinn taking St Mirren to court before he left? I seem to remember there being a lot of uncertainty about what was happening with him, and then all of a sudden he signed for us. Most people were surprised when we managed to get him, and I’m wondering if it came about from McGinn agreeing to drop any legal threat if St Mirren agreed to sell him to us. I don’t know if that would have any impact on the deal, but I don’t think it was a standard transfer deal.

[Zazu62]

Was there not some talk of McGinn taking St Mirren to court before he left? I seem to remember there being a lot of uncertainty about what was happening with him, and then all of a sudden he signed for us. Most people were surprised when we managed to get him, and I’m wondering if it came about from McGinn agreeing to drop any legal threat if St Mirren agreed to sell him to us. I don’t know if that would have any impact on the deal, but I don’t think it was a standard transfer deal.

Wasn’t that something to do with that training ground incident?

[lord bunberry]

Wasn’t that something to do with that training ground incident?
It was. I’m sure he was trying make St Mirren release him without the need for a development fee.

[tomf]

I would honestly rate SJM at £10million. I appreciate that sounds absurd to many people but he is an international player, he is young, he has great skills and it is really difficult to get the ball off him without fouling him. He can make defence splitting passes and can score goals. I think that many EPL clubs would be grateful to get such a player and I would imagine it would be a five year contract, which makes my valuation more realistic. Please don't let's sell John cheap. The Scottish leagues shouldn't be seen as the bargain basement of world football. It was over ten years ago that Sunderland paid £9million for a Scottish goalkeeper and I would suggest that, if that was a fair price, then inflation and the international football transfer market would easily see JM valued around the same if not more. Just to update this post, from what I can gather, if you consider the price paid for the last fifteen midfielders bought by EPL clubs, the average price is over £25million per player. I simply don't believe that SJM is only worth less than £3million when he could easily be rated as good as many of them. I appreciate John may have ambitions beyond Hibernian but I hope he has an agent who can offer sensible advice. Sign another contract with Hibs and keep on impressing everyone with your performances and the big clubs will come looking and they will pay a more realistic price. I appreciate that Celtic are a big club but they have a very small minded approach to valuing players in our domestic league. If Armstrong was worth £7.16million isn't John worth the same at the very least? Apparently not to Celtic.

[gringojoe]

Steven Thomson injured SJM when he threw a corner flag at him

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Hopefully, if SJM does leave, we get the business done as early as possible in the window. Leaving us plenty of time to bring in a replacement and other targets

Or leave it late enough that he can play in the cup game?

[Ryan69]

You're in the right ballpark, except St Mirren didn't sell him to us as he was out of contract. It was the development fee that they were owed and they became easier to deal with when John dropped his legal case in which he was saying for loss of earnings.

If he was out of contract...why would there be a sell on fee?

[lord bunberry]

If he was out of contract...why would there be a sell on fee?
They agreed to a sell on fee because we didn’t go to a tribunal to decide McGinn’s fee. Had it gone to a tribunal we would’ve had to pay more than the £100k we paid.

[1875STEVE]

FWIW I heard it from the St Mirren chairman's mouth live on the radio driving to a game once, that there was a 33% sell on.

[truehibernian]

I wouldn't grudge Saints a penny of any clause. SJM has been an absolutely excellent addition and player for Hibernian, on and off the pitch. He is a credit to the profession and was part of the journey which saw the club reconnect with the fan base and win the cup that so eluded us for a century. A player who is not only a great player but wears his heart on his sleeve and never hides - still plays football without fear which you need in football and especially big games. St Mirren are entitled to some of the proceeds given he was also successful with them and they did nurture his obvious talent.

Still hasn't lost a derby :wink::aok: long may the continue while we have him.

Did tell you about West Ham though :cb:na na:

[Scott Allan Key]

I wouldn't grudge Saints a penny of any clause. SJM has been an absolutely excellent addition and player for Hibernian, on and off the pitch. He is a credit to the profession and was part of the journey which saw the club reconnect with the fan base and win the cup that so eluded us for a century. A player who is not only a great player but wears his heart on his sleeve and never hides - still plays football without fear which you need in football and especially big games. St Mirren are entitled to some of the proceeds given he was also successful with them and they did nurture his obvious talent.

Still hasn't lost a derby :wink::aok: long may the continue while we have him.

Did tell you about West Ham though :cb:na na:

McGinn has got to be in Hibs’ Hall of Fame in the future.

[danhibees1875]

McGinn has got to be in Hibs’ Hall of Fame in the future.

As part of the team that won the cup, yes.

As an individual who played an influential part in 2 of our seasons in the championship then 6/12 months in the premiership before, hopefully, commanding a reasonable fee.. I think there are more deserving additions.

Mcginn has great potential, but I think Hibs valuation of that (£5m) will mean he goes nowhere in January. I think with 1 year left and a gentleman's agreement to not stand in his way, he'll leave for a more modest fee in the summer - not dissimilar to the Cummings situation.

[Scott Allan Key]

As part of the team that won the cup, yes.

As an individual who played an influential part in 2 of our seasons in the championship then 6/12 months in the premiership before, hopefully, commanding a reasonable fee.. I think there are more deserving additions.

Mcginn has great potential, but I think Hibs valuation of that (£5m) will mean he goes nowhere in January. I think with 1 year left and a gentleman's agreement to not stand in his way, he'll leave for a more modest fee in the summer - not dissimilar to the Cummings situation.

Given the transient nature of the transfer market, Hanlon and Stevenson, aside, who has been here long enough in a successful team to be more deserving? It just isn’t the way to be an exceptional footballer and a loyal servant to Hibs. It’s not how we’re modelled anymore.

[0762]

Messaged tonight from a contact down south with another name who apparently has interest in SJM.Told Southampton are "monitoring" the situation.

[J-C]

Messaged tonight from a contact down south with another name who apparently has interest in SJM.Told Southampton are "monitoring" the situation.


There's a few clubs in the lower half of the EPL who need to strengthen, McGinn would be a good cheap option for some of them especially in the January window.

[weecounty hibby]

Messaged tonight from a contact down south with another name who apparently has interest in SJM.Told Southampton are "monitoring" the situation.

If he goes,hopefully not, it would be great to see two EPL clubs get involved in bidding. Push up the price and hopefully keep celtic out of the equation

[Greenworld]

As part of the team that won the cup, yes.

As an individual who played an influential part in 2 of our seasons in the championship then 6/12 months in the premiership before, hopefully, commanding a reasonable fee.. I think there are more deserving additions.

Mcginn has great potential, but I think Hibs valuation of that (£5m) will mean he goes nowhere in January. I think with 1 year left and a gentleman's agreement to not stand in his way, he'll leave for a more modest fee in the summer - not dissimilar to the Cummings situation.Could not disagree more he is a standout player worth every penny of Neil Lennons valuation.
I would imagine a few clubs will have had a chat with Neil of the record about him.
I fully expect him to move in January..not that I want him to but remember the money now goes to the manager to strengthen


Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk