McGinn sell-on clause

[Irish_Steve]

Will St. Mirren benefit if McGinn goes - did they have a sell-on clause? Given the way that John left them, I would be surprised if they did!

[SRHibs]

Will St. Mirren benefit if McGinn goes - did they have a sell-on clause? Given the way that John left them, I would be surprised if they did!

Nope, not heard anything about any sell on clause.

[AgentDaleCooper]

The figure widely quoted in the media is 30%, or a third - somewhere thereabouts. I thought he left on good terms?

[bodhibs]

Nope, not heard anything about any sell on clause.

😂

[danhibees1875]

Noone really knows, but general consensus is they have a sell on clause which may be up to the 33% mark.

[Unseen work]

I just can’t see it being as high as 33%

Was part of the reason he left on the cheap not because Thompson launched a pole into his leg?!

[Greenfly]

Plenty reports suggesting they're due about a third. I hope we look for similar if we sell him on because his value could well soar.

[GreenNWhiteArmy]

The clause, imo has to be something like 33% of any fee above x"

When we signed him, he was worth maybe a couple of hundred k? Why would we agree to a deal where we would potentially be paying 7 figures for at that time, a 19/20 year old from St Mirren? Doesn't add up for me

[Irish_Steve]

I thought John was going to take St. Mirren to court over the whole javelin in my leg situation but I may have that wrong. And 33%, that seems unduly excessive

[CropleyWasGod]

Plenty reports suggesting they're due about a third. I hope we look for similar if we sell him on because his value could well soar.Those "plenty reports" all quote the same source, though. A source that has been discredited by RP.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Iggy Pope]

The 33% has become such urban myth that Sportsound report it as fact after today's game when confirming that Hibs are waiting for a £3m bid.

[brog]

Those "plenty reports" all quote the same source, though. A source that has been discredited by RP.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Stewart Gilmour, ex St M Chairman has gone into print (on twitter) saying it is 33% of any profit over £100,000. The Tache, IIRC, made a throwaway remark, nothing in print, that it was nothing like that. In this case, forensically Crops :wink:, I think the evidence is on the side of St M.

[Jim44]

Since it’s with the Saints, I think we should call it the ‘Santa Claus’. Could be a cracker for them or maybe cold turkey. :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

Stewart Gilmour, ex St M Chairman has gone into print (on twitter) saying it is 33% of any profit over £100,000. The Tache, IIRC, made a throwaway remark, nothing in print, that it was nothing like that. In this case, forensically Crops :wink:, I think the evidence is on the side of St M.I was there when Rod said it, at the AGM, along with a few hundred others. I don't think the media were there, hence why it wasn't picked up.

His actual words were "It's nowhere near 30%".

As I have said ad nauseam on here, 50 is nowhere near 30. [emoji6]

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[hibee-boys]

Stewart Gilmour, ex St M Chairman has gone into print (on twitter) saying it is 33% of any profit over £100,000. The Tache, IIRC, made a throwaway remark, nothing in print, that it was nothing like that. In this case, forensically Crops :wink:, I think the evidence is on the side of St M.

I think the tache is trying to save face, if it wasn't 33% I'm sure we'd here otherwise. Fair play to St Mirren for securing such a high sell on %, pretty bad deal for Hibs. Lesson learnt, pay them their %, if a deal ever happens,and move on.

[brog]

Stewart Gilmour, ex St M Chairman has gone into print (on twitter) saying it is 33% of any profit over £100,000. The Tache, IIRC, made a throwaway remark, nothing in print, that it was nothing like that. In this case, forensically Crops :wink:, I think the evidence is on the side of St M.

I meant to add that Alan Stubbs, who of course signed SJM for us, has also recently quoted the 33% sell on fee. Knowing RP, it's quite possible he's engaging in semantics in that it's usually quoted as 33% of the transfer fee whereas it should state 33% of the profit on the transfer fee.

[WhileTheChief..]

It was great deal for us at the time.

We might never have had him if we didn’t agree to the 30% or whatever the actual figure is.

[Chip shop Joe]

I think the tache is trying to save face, if it wasn't 33% I'm sure we'd here otherwise. Fair play to St Mirren for securing such a high sell on %, pretty bad deal for Hibs. Lesson learnt, pay them their %, if a deal ever happens,and move on.

Not sure how this was a bad deal for Hibs we got one of the best young players in Scotland for £100,000 ish when we were playing in the Championship. Even if the sell on clause is 33% we have made a hell of a profit and had both the joy of watching SJM play and the success that he has helped deliver.

[Eaststandee]

I thought John was going to take St. Mirren to court over the whole javelin in my leg situation but I may have that wrong. And 33%, that seems unduly excessive

He did take them to court, not 100% on what eventually happened but I think the high sell on fee is connected.

[Jim44]

Never mind, if McGlinn stays for one more fantastic season, the ‘clause’ is in the ether and St Mirren can have 100% of sod all. :greengrin

[hibbyfraelibby]

I meant to add that Alan Stubbs, who of course signed SJM for us, has also recently quoted the 33% sell on fee. Knowing RP, it's quite possible he's engaging in semantics in that it's usually quoted as 33% of the transfer fee whereas it should state 33% of the profit on the transfer fee.

I am with Rodders. The profit on the transfer fee would exclude all wages and bonuses paid to SJM over the period with Hibs not just the difference betwee what we bought him for and what we sold him for. Rodders knows how to construct an agreement. I think St Mirren and their ubber fan wee Chic Not So Young are in for a shock

[CropleyWasGod]

I am with Rodders. The profit on the transfer fee would exclude all wages and bonuses paid to SJM over the period with Hibs not just the difference betwee what we bought him for and what we sold him for. Rodders knows how to construct an agreement. I think St Mirren and their ubber fan wee Chic Not So Young are in for a shock

Don't forget charges for boots, training facilities, travel etc etc [emoji16]

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[EricStoner]

I can't get my head around the idea of sell-on clauses.
There are a lot of aspects of football finances I struggle to come to terms with if I'm honest.
Sell-on fees seem to be almost ubiquitous these days when a smallish club sells a player to a medium-sized club.
From the small club's perspective, I obviously get it. It's a chance of a free drink somewhere down the line. But why would a medium-sized club, such as us, agree to that?
I understand it's now convention and football tends to be a very conservative field. When it comes to innovation or any practice that goes against the consensus.
Medium-sized football clubs are not normally run on a sound fiscal footing. They encounter financial problems regularly. Signing contracts that contain a clause that sets-up the club to suffer somewhat arbitrary expense a few years later isn't sound business practice. Especially when that future expense brings no benefit to the club. Aye, weasel agents allowing😨, the medium-sized club will receive a much bigger fee for the player than the amount they'll have to pass-on to the smaller club. Sadly, they might be needing to sell him to get themselves out of financial difficulty. Having that sell-on clause might see them attempt to hold-out for a transfer fee above market value. That, in turn, can mean they can't or won't sell the player. That means an unhappy player.
Clearly none of that seems to apply in the SJM case, but it has often applied elsewhere.
As for add-ons for international caps, words fail me. At least a club has control over a transfer. It has no control over which players a national manager selects.
Promotion add-ons are scarcely any more sensible.
Nor are appearance-based add-ons.
Three or four years ago, I bumped into a player I used to know. It was almost 30 years since I'd seen him. I approached him hesitantly, as I was far from sure it was him. He was a long way from the pro club he'd played for and not exactly close to home either. When I'd known him, he was a young semi-pro. Scouts were after him. He made a huge leap to sign for a big club. They were in financial trouble at the time. Their situation got worse. His transfer contract contained a sell-on clause and an appearance clause. He didn't nail down a 1st team place, but he was in and out of the team and, as a young fish in a big pond, he was satisfied with his progress. One game before the appearance-based add-on was due to kick-in, he mysteriously dropped down the pecking order. He didn't play another game. Lawyers eventually became involved.
He was stuck in the wilderness for a while. Never played full-time pro again. He did alright though. Went back semi-pro at a club that paid a weekly wage that many unskilled workers wouldn't get. Got a reasonable sales job. Did OK for himself.
Just saying though.
Sell-ons don't make much overall business sense.

[Jim44]

I can't get my head around the idea of sell-on clauses.
There are a lot of aspects of football finances I struggle to come to terms with if I'm honest.
Sell-on fees seem to be almost ubiquitous these days when a smallish club sells a player to a medium-sized club.
From the small club's perspective, I obviously get it. It's a chance of a free drink somewhere down the line. But why would a medium-sized club, such as us, agree to that?
I understand it's now convention and football tends to be a very conservative field. When it comes to innovation or any practice that goes against the consensus.
Medium-sized football clubs are not normally run on a sound fiscal footing. They encounter financial problems regularly. Signing contracts that contain a clause that sets-up the club to suffer somewhat arbitrary expense a few years later isn't sound business practice. Especially when that future expense brings no benefit to the club. Aye, weasel agents allowing😨, the medium-sized club will receive a much bigger fee for the player than the amount they'll have to pass-on to the smaller club. Sadly, they might be needing to sell him to get themselves out of financial difficulty. Having that sell-on clause might see them attempt to hold-out for a transfer fee above market value. That, in turn, can mean they can't or won't sell the player. That means an unhappy player.
Clearly none of that seems to apply in the SJM case, but it has often applied elsewhere.
As for add-ons for international caps, words fail me. At least a club has control over a transfer. It has no control over which players a national manager selects.
Promotion add-ons are scarcely any more sensible.
Nor are appearance-based add-ons.
Three or four years ago, I bumped into a player I used to know. It was almost 30 years since I'd seen him. I approached him hesitantly, as I was far from sure it was him. He was a long way from the pro club he'd played for and not exactly close to home either. When I'd known him, he was a young semi-pro. Scouts were after him. He made a huge leap to sign for a big club. They were in financial trouble at the time. Their situation got worse. His transfer contract contained a sell-on clause and an appearance clause. He didn't nail down a 1st team place, but he was in and out of the team and, as a young fish in a big pond, he was satisfied with his progress. One game before the appearance-based add-on was due to kick-in, he mysteriously dropped down the pecking order. He didn't play another game. Lawyers eventually became involved.
He was stuck in the wilderness for a while. Never played full-time pro again. He did alright though. Went back semi-pro at a club that paid a weekly wage that many unskilled workers wouldn't get. Got a reasonable sales job. Did OK for himself.
Just saying though.
Sell-ons don't make much overall business sense.

Very interesting points. Food for thought. :agree:

[Smartie]

There is almost nothing that can happen from now on to take away from the fact that whatever the deal was to get McGinn from St Mirren, it was one of the best deals in our history.

[CockneyRebel]

There is almost nothing that can happen from now on to take away from the fact that whatever the deal was to get McGinn from St Mirren, it was one of the best deals in our history.

Exactly! We could not afford what St Mirren wanted up front so agreed the sell on clause and paid a nominal fee. Without this clause we could not have signed him so whether the clause was our idea or theirs doesn't really matter. Would we be where we are now if we hadn't got the deal over the line?

[wookie70]

Whether we get a fortune or he see out his contract and leaves for free SJM has been one of the best signings made in the time I have been watching Hibs. 100% effort, improvement every season, success, temperament. We have had great value on our investment and all that can happen now is it was a decent win or a big win. In many ways I hop he sees out his contract as it could be a great season and he is the fulcrum to our team.

[PercyHibs]

The part I don't understand is why do St Mirren get a development fee and a large sell on clause? Surely the development fee would suffice?

[CockneyRebel]

The part I don't understand is why do St Mirren get a development fee and a large sell on clause? Surely the development fee would suffice?


Please read earlier posts - this was a way for us to avoid a big development/asking price, so his fee from St Mirren to us will really be paid by whoever buys SJM from us (if anybody does that is).