What's the clause?

[147lothian]

What was the clause in the contract when we sold McGinn to Villa if they reach the Premiership? Any truth in the claim that we get 2M with a third of that going to St Mirren?

[Ringothedog]

What was the clause in the contract when we sold McGinn to Villa if they reach the Premiership? Any truth in the claim that we get 2M with a third of that going to St Mirren?

Surely St Mirren have had their cut

[Mibbes Aye]

Surely someone on here has a copy in a drawer?

Surely Petrie gets the full transfer fee plus an extra 50%. Any additional transfer fees go directly to Petrie and STF to hire a consultant (probably related to Petrie, but maybe Petrie impersonating his own relative) who spend it on designs for a fifth stand or a helipad but certainly no increase in the player budget. Or maybe a wee nine-hole on the spare land at East Mains.

If it’s anything less then I’ve been reading the wrong messageboard for years

[leither17]

It’ll all be going to the Ponzi scheme

[Peevemor]

Surely St Mirren have had their cutNot necessarily. IIRC Hibs were still pocketing dosh from Steven Fletcher's transfers long after he left.

[danhibees1875]

Surely St Mirren have had their cut

I would expect st mirren to get a cut of anything we get relating to McGinn indefinitely.

As for us. I don't think it's ever been reported that I've seen other than a few mentions on here. I don't know if it's just grown from someone posting "I hope we get something if they get promoted" to "we're getting something if they get promoted".

Either way, just in case and because I like McGinn I'll be hoping they get promoted. :aok:

[ShetlandHibby]

Teams who develop a player up to a certain age will receive a certain percentage of all transfers for the rest of a players career. Not a high percentage tho

[RobR27]

This is a nice fresh topic.

[Jones28]

I can't see Hibs agreeing to give st Mirren another third surely?

[Michael]

I can't see Hibs agreeing to give st Mirren another third surely?

The simplest and most logical assumption is that St. Mirren receive 1/3 of of all transfer fees received by us for McGinn.

[DarlingtonHibee]

No expert, but be surprised if this is the case.

[Alex Trager]

The simplest and most logical assumption is that St. Mirren receive 1/3 of of all transfer fees received by us for McGinn.

But surely they don’t get 1/3 of a promo clause as that is not a sell on

[SMAXXA]

Sure we have a 15% sell on clause didn’t LD confirm, no idea of promotion add ons

[Michael]

But surely they don’t get 1/3 of a promo clause as that is not a sell on

Doesn't really matter what the clause is. It's still compensation received for the transfer.

[Radium]

But surely they don’t get 1/3 of a promo clause as that is not a sell on

Unless St Mirren have been foolish they will have a share of any income from the transfer.

Scenario: McGinn bought for £100k with £2.9M due when named in his first squad.

If the clause only relates to the transfer fee then selling clubs would just find ways to have a low transfer fee with the income generated from add ons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[danhibees1875]

Unless St Mirren have been foolish they will have a share of any income from the transfer.

Scenario: McGinn bought for £100k with £2.9M due when named in his first squad.

If the clause only relates to the transfer fee then selling clubs would just find ways to have a low transfer fee with the income generated from add ons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:agree:

I can't see why the deal would be a % of the initial fee only - seems unlikely.

[HibeeMackenzie]

St Murn get nothing from now on. AFAIK it’s 2m for promotion and 15% sell on from profit, so sell 15% of sell on price minus 2.5m

[Brooster]

Let's all make it up as we go along.

[HoboHarry]

Let's all make it up as we go along.

Quite .....

[AlbertK86]

St Murn get nothing from now on. AFAIK it’s 2m for promotion and 15% sell on from profit, so sell 15% of sell on price minus 2.5m

Out of curiosity how do you know ?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[sixtwo]

St Murn get nothing from now on. AFAIK it’s 2m for promotion and 15% sell on from profit, so sell 15% of sell on price minus 2.5m

I doubt very much the validity of this comment.
I understand the developing club is entitled to a portion of all future sell on fees. I read when Victor Wanyamma moved to Tottenham from Southampton, celtic received a min 10% development fee (even though they only “developed” him for a couple of years). If he moves on again, they will get another 10%. If McGinn moves I reckon both Hibsand St Mirren will benefit financially.

[Ozyhibby]

St. Mirren will be due a percentage of any money we receive for McGinn.
We took a lower original fee in order for sell on clauses to be placed on the contract. The meant st. Mirren got less at the time of the sale so they are rightly entitled to collect when the sell on fees come in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Iain G]

What was the clause in the contract when we sold McGinn to Villa if they reach the Premiership? Any truth in the claim that we get 2M with a third of that going to St Mirren?

Is there a Sanity Clause?

[J-C]

St Mirren get 33% of anything made from the Villa deal, Leeann has stated that they get nothing else in any future transfers, which means any sell on we have is all ours.

[Diclonius]

St Mirren get 33% of anything made from the Villa deal, Leeann has stated that they get nothing else in any future transfers, which means any sell on we have is all ours.

I'm sure the St Mirren chairman will be on Twitter proclaiming otherwise soon enough.

[ancient hibee]

St Mirren get 33% of anything made from the Villa deal, Leeann has stated that they get nothing else in any future transfers, which means any sell on we have is all ours.
When did she state this?

[tamig]

What was the clause in the contract when we sold McGinn to Villa if they reach the Premiership? Any truth in the claim that we get 2M with a third of that going to St Mirren?

I suspect nobody on here will no the fine detail of what we agreed with Villa. The only clear thing is that St Mirren have had their dues. Anything else is speculation.

[Jack Hackett]

To begrudge Saints any further monies for SJM would be churlish. We got him for a very low fee considering the great service we got from him, and a decent price when he left. St Mirren are not a big club and need all the income they can get. Really don't understand why some would want to short change them while we continue to benefit

[tamig]

To begrudge Saints any further monies for SJM would be churlish. We got him for a very low fee considering the great service we got from him, and a decent price when he left. St Mirren are not a big club and need all the income they can get. Really don't understand why some would want to short change them while we continue to benefit

It depends on how the deal is structured though. If St Mirren wanted a big cut from the original sale from Hibs rather than negotiating a deal involving smaller percentages on a number of future transfers then that was their choice. I don’t think anybody is suggesting we are short changing them or begrudging them what they’re due. We’ve done our bit under the terms agreed.

[A Hi-Bee]

Is there a Sanity Clause?

More like Santa Clause, FFS this is private confidential company business does anyone really think Hibs or any other club would let this kind of information out to the general nosey supporter.

Looking forward to next season and the changes that Hecky will bring.

[J-C]

When did she state this?

Cant exactly remember but is was reported either AGM or an interview somewhere, I'm sure someone will give exact reference.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Nobody seems to know for sure what the contract conditions are. We will certainly have a sell on clause, and, if there's a promotion clause, so much the better.

[HoboHarry]

[QUOTE=Hibernia&Alba;5789993]Nobody has the faintest idea and are throwing out wild and cockeyed guesses and ideas......

Fixed that for you....

[Hibee Mac]

Anyone who says they know is either privy to the contracts between the relevant clubs or they are talking nonsense.

People are also oversimplifying the situation with St Mirren, no one knows exactly what the deal was with them and there are many possibilities and potential intricacies in the contract signed.

[PatHead]

Cant exactly remember but is was reported either AGM or an interview somewhere, I'm sure someone will give exact reference.

Can't remember that being said at the AGM. If she has said it, it must have been during an interview.

[Hibernia&Alba]

[QUOTE=Hibernia&Alba;5789993]Nobody has the faintest idea and are throwing out wild and cockeyed guesses and ideas......

Fixed that for you....

:tee hee:

[Glory Lurker]

I've heard he's ours for £150k

[ekhibee]

As a side issue, I'm wondering just how far back some of these transfer deals go. Somebody mentioned Wanyama in an earlier post, and how Celtic could potentially have got a development fee for him. Would that also have applied to the Belgian club they signed him from, or the Kenyan club he started out with? It's a tricky one, but I very much doubt anybody on here actually knows the actual terms of McGinns contract in this respect, and unless he comes out and says 'by the way, St Mirren are getting **** all', we're all just guessing whether they'd get anything.

[Onceinawhile]

As a side issue, I'm wondering just how far back some of these transfer deals go. Somebody mentioned Wanyama in an earlier post, and how Celtic could potentially have got a development fee for him. Would that also have applied to the Belgian club they signed him from, or the Kenyan club he started out with? It's a tricky one, but I very much doubt anybody on here actually knows the actual terms of McGinns contract in this respect, and unless he comes out and says 'by the way, St Mirren are getting **** all', we're all just guessing whether they'd get anything.

Yes, and any registered boys clubs he played at as well.

[MWHIBBIES]

To begrudge Saints any further monies for SJM would be churlish. We got him for a very low fee considering the great service we got from him, and a decent price when he left. St Mirren are not a big club and need all the income they can get. Really don't understand why some would want to short change them while we continue to benefit
It's nothing to do with that though. You are implying it's subjective and we can chose to give them money or not. The clauses are written down and are legality binding, neither club chooses what to do. They aren't entitled to anything unless they have a clause saying so.

[DetroitHibs]

I wonder what exactly our sell on fees are then. Say he moves to Everton for 30 million and we get 15% (4.5 million) Say in 2-3 years he moves to Arsenal for 60 million, are we due another 15% (9 million) Just can’t see it myself.

[MWHIBBIES]

I wonder what exactly our sell on fees are then. Say he moves to Everton for 30 million and we get 15% (4.5 million) Say in 2-3 years he moves to Arsenal for 60 million, are we due another 15% (9 million) Just can’t see it myself.

All depends. I doubt we get anything more than the initial fee and a nominal fee in future.

[duffers]

I wonder what exactly our sell on fees are then. Say he moves to Everton for 30 million and we get 15% (4.5 million) Say in 2-3 years he moves to Arsenal for 60 million, are we due another 15% (9 million) Just can’t see it myself.

I think it would be 15% of whatever Villa got. So in simplistic terms, if Villa had a 15% sell on clause, they would get 9 million, and we would get 1.35 million on the back of that. We would possibly then have to give St Mirren 33% of that figure.

Edit: I think sell on clauses only take into account any profit from sales, so it would be half the amount of the figures above.

[DetroitHibs]

All depends. I doubt we get anything more than the initial fee and a nominal fee in future.

I think we probably get a one time sell on fee, just like St Mirren will. Can’t see them getting any more from us.

[danhibees1875]

I wonder what exactly our sell on fees are then. Say he moves to Everton for 30 million and we get 15% (4.5 million) Say in 2-3 years he moves to Arsenal for 60 million, are we due another 15% (9 million) Just can’t see it myself.

No, or else st mirren would be getting their £20m. :greengrin

Obviously it's hypothetical as no one knows the agreement we have either, but assuming we do have a sell on clause, it would depend on the agreement Villa got when selling to Everton.

If they didn't add a sell on clause then we would get nothing.
If they had 10% then the money would trickle down;Villa would get £6m, we'd get our % of that, and st mirren their % of our %.

[hibbyfraelibby]

None of our transfer dealing contracts are in the public domain and are covered by strict commercial confidentiality. All the speculation on here about this particular contract is based on fantasy.

Does the club insist on personal contract obligations on the player as well as the other club that outlive the initial transaction? Who knows but you can bet your bottom dollar that a former merchant banker loved by one and all will have extracted maximum benefit for the club even though said individual gets pelters for and about everything.

[147lothian]

St. Mirren will be due a percentage of any money we receive for McGinn.
We took a lower original fee in order for sell on clauses to be placed on the contract. The meant st. Mirren got less at the time of the sale so they are rightly entitled to collect when the sell on fees come in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a good point your making regarding the original fee, it could actually be better for us if Villa don't get promoted and a premiership club offer Villa the kind of money they can't turn down, this presents another question of what the sell on fee is

[Caversham Green]

None of our transfer dealing contracts are in the public domain and are covered by strict commercial confidentiality. All the speculation on here about this particular contract is based on fantasy.

Does the club insist on personal contract obligations on the player as well as the other club that outlive the initial transaction? Who knows but you can bet your bottom dollar that a former merchant banker loved by one and all will have extracted maximum benefit for the club even though said individual gets pelters for and about everything.

From the post balance sheet events note in St Mirren's 2018 accounts:


Following John McGinn's transfer from Hibernian to Aston Villa, the Club became entitled to compensation in respect of his sell on clause. The terms of the contract are covered by a confidentiality agreement.