St Mirren Accounts - John McGinn

[04Sauzee]

St Mirren have published their accounts for year end and it would appear they have received £1m as part of the SJM transfer? Not realy any startling news, they also mention they received an extra 300k or so which isn't in the accounts as part of the Villa being promoted fee.

https://www.blackandwhitearmy.com/forums/index.php?/topic/50299-accounts-to-year-ended-may-31st-2019/

[Ozyhibby]

Means their percentage was at the higher end of what was speculated and Rod Petrie told a lie at the agm?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Just_Jimmy]

So we got 1.3 mill for our best player since Collins?

What a joke.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[Brightside]

This thread should be good.

[MWHIBBIES]

So we got 1.3 mill for our best player since Collins?

What a joke.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
No, it does not mean that. They got that. It was not 50%.


We're definitely not done receiving John Mcginn money anyway. We could easily see another 5 million for him.

[FilipinoHibs]

No, it does not mean that. They got that. It was not 50%.


We're definitely not done receiving John Mcginn money anyway. We could easily see another 5 million for him.

They got £1m or 30% of the fee which makes total fee £3.3m. We got £2.3 million. Similarly, for promotion we received £1 million which ST Mirren got £300,000 leaving us with £700,000.

[MWHIBBIES]

They got £1m or 30% of the fee which makes total fee £3.3m. We got £2.3 million. Similarly, for promotion we received £1 million which ST Mirren got £300,000 leaving us with £700,000.

Indeed. 3 million for a guy with a year left, which a big chunk of any future fee. Good deal.

[Hibbyradge]

They got £1m or 30% of the fee which makes total fee £3.3m. We got £2.3 million. Similarly, for promotion we received £1 million which ST Mirren got £300,000 leaving us with £700,000.

Indeed.

So, to date, Villa have paid out £4.3m for McGinn's services, £1.3m to St Mirren and £3m to us.

Hopefully, there's a lot more coming too.

[007]

They got £1m or 30% of the fee which makes total fee £3.3m. We got £2.3 million. Similarly, for promotion we received £1 million which ST Mirren got £300,000 leaving us with £700,000.

Small point, says they got £330k so 33% of £1m for Villa getting promoted.

[The 90+2]

This thread should be good.

Let’s not criticise the club. We all love the leader.

Have you admitted you got it spectacularly wrong about Hecky yet?

[wookie70]

The big question is what will our share of a future sell on be. It could easily dwarf what we have received so far and hopefully we have a similar sell on to what St Mirren had

[lord bunberry]

Let’s not criticise the club. We all love the leader.

Have you admitted you got it spectacularly wrong about Hecky yet?
What is there to criticise the club for? We got one of the best players in my lifetime for a tiny fee. He went on to be pivotal in us winning the cup and getting us promoted. He then left for a decent amount of money. None of this would have happened without St Mirren having a sell on clause. If villa sell him for £50 million will their fans be criticising their board for including a sell on clause? McGinn will make us more money than any player in our history and he did what practically no player in our history did. Everything about us singing McGinn has been positive, there are no negatives.

[Hibbyradge]

Let’s not criticise the club. We all love the leader.

Have you admitted you got it spectacularly wrong about Hecky yet?

What a strange, unprovoked, post.

[CMurdoch]

So we got 1.3 mill for our best player since Collins?

What a joke.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

No need to go all Old Firm on a wee team.
He was a St Mirren player before he was ours.
They need and deserve their cut of the transfer cash as much as we do.

[LeithSqualk]

I miss him

[Heisenberg]

If St Mirren got and continue to get 33% then fair enough. It worked out as a cracking deal for both clubs.

[sambajustice]

Thought St Mirren had a 105% sell on clause!

Good deal!

[MacGruber]

If we did indeed get £700,000 for their promotion it makes it even more strange we had that on top of near record season ticket sales, 7 figure investment and a saving of half a million in debt repayment for 5 or so years yet after letting 13/14 players go including high earners we were broke after bringing in 8 lower league replacements. It didn't add up at the time - less so now

[SquashedFrogg]

If we did indeed get £700,000 for their promotion it makes it even more strange we had that on top of near record season ticket sales, 7 figure investment and a saving of half a million in debt repayment for 5 or so years yet after letting 13/14 players go including high earners we were broke after bringing in 8 lower league replacements. It didn't add up at the time - less so now

It's way too early in the morning for me to read this.

[judas]

Let’s not criticise the club. We all love the leader.

Have you admitted you got it spectacularly wrong about Hecky yet?

Knob alert.

[Peevemor]

If we did indeed get £700,000 for their promotion it makes it even more strange we had that on top of near record season ticket sales, 7 figure investment and a saving of half a million in debt repayment for 5 or so years yet after letting 13/14 players go including high earners we were broke after bringing in 8 lower league replacements. It didn't add up at the time - less so now

Who says we were broke?

The player budget may have been used but that doesn't mean there aren't funds allocated for other things (covered pitch at East Mains?).

[Green Badger]

Who says we were broke?

The player budget may have been used but that doesn't mean there aren't funds allocated for other things (covered pitch at East Mains?).

Agreed, the player budget for summer 2019 was potentially all used, but the club have also stated there are funds for Jan 2020 if the manager wants. How any of this, along with money set aside for other investment in infrastructure, translates to being broke is beyond me.

[MWHIBBIES]

If we did indeed get £700,000 for their promotion it makes it even more strange we had that on top of near record season ticket sales, 7 figure investment and a saving of half a million in debt repayment for 5 or so years yet after letting 13/14 players go including high earners we were broke after bringing in 8 lower league replacements. It didn't add up at the time - less so now
What does them being from the lower leagues matter? That doesn't make then cheaper. We let many squad players go and got many out of targets in very early, that's why.

[mjhibby]

If we did indeed get £700,000 for their promotion it makes it even more strange we had that on top of near record season ticket sales, 7 figure investment and a saving of half a million in debt repayment for 5 or so years yet after letting 13/14 players go including high earners we were broke after bringing in 8 lower league replacements. It didn't add up at the time - less so now

It was never stated we were broke but had used up our player budget. Dodge cost £350,000 plus wages and the likes of Newell etc will be on good wages as they would have been earning more than our average wage at their previous clubs. We are in a very good place financial wise and I'm sure there will be a budget for January. Ross I'm sure will wheel and deal and two or three of heckys signings will return south and Marciano likely to move on. With record season ticket sales,the mcginn money,and the lack of debt repayment means going forward our manager can pay good wages to attract players and ross will know completely how much he will need to pay lower championship players.
I think hecky was more pointing to the squad size which is big enough. The spate of injuries made our squad look small but with just sdg and man mountain McGregor to come back we have one hell of a strong bench.
Ross knows he's landed a cracking gig at Hibs and although I'm sure he will only tweek the squad in January I'm sure he will look to next summer to get the Def mid,striker and defender the team needs.

[Hibernian Verse]

What does them being from the lower leagues matter? That doesn't make then cheaper. We let many squad players go and got many out of targets in very early, that's why.

Exactly, he says "lower leagues" as if we should be buying EPL & Championship players :rolleyes:

[Since452]

Good on St Mirren. They knew how good the lad was and it's suited all parties. Legend at both clubs

[Hibby Bairn]

We must be playing better. Winning games again.

Manufacturing a moaning session with no foundation whatsoever.

Win tomorrow and we’ll be back to seagulls, stands are too cold, sun was too low, pavements not gritted etc.

[Brightside]

Let’s not criticise the club. We all love the leader.

Have you admitted you got it spectacularly wrong about Hecky yet?

No. Have you admitted your are not happy unless you are complaining.

[Brightside]

Who says we were broke?

The player budget may have been used but that doesn't mean there aren't funds allocated for other things (covered pitch at East Mains?).

£1m investment in Hibs ladies.

[HFC93]

Let’s not criticise the club. We all love the leader.

Have you admitted you got it spectacularly wrong about Hecky yet?

Your posts regularly have me puzzled.

[danhibees1875]

Sounds like that confirms the idea that the sell on clause was for all money received and not just the initial transfer fee.

There's going to be quite a unique transfer moment if the big money rumours come to pass where Villa, Hibs, and St Mirren all break their transfer records in one deal.

[green day]

We must be playing better. Winning games again.

Manufacturing a moaning session with no foundation whatsoever.

Win tomorrow and we’ll be back to seagulls, stands are too cold, sun was too low, pavements not gritted etc.

I think its Hibs fault that the path behind Sainsburys Meadowbank was wet after the Motherwell match.

Simply not good enough.................

Oh, and the SJM deal? Excellent one for Scottish Football - Hibs and St Mirren getting a few quid is a good deal all round.

[Alfiembra]

Sounds like that confirms the idea that the sell on clause was for all money received and not just the initial transfer fee.

There's going to be quite a unique transfer moment if the big money rumours come to pass where Villa, Hibs, and St Mirren all break their transfer records in one deal.

Surely St. Mirrren have been paid up in full now and are out of the equation, they can't be due any more from any future sale otherwise where does it all stop? SJM moves to Man U for £50m then onto Real Madrid for £100m? has to be and end at some point as to how long you can hang onto the coat tails of a player.

[Pretty Boy]

I think there is an issue with English clubs undervaluing Scottish players, and Scottish clubs accepting that valuation. Has John McGinn improved by circa £47M in a season and a half? See also Van Dijk, £13M from Celtic to Southampton then a world record fee of £65M+ 3 seasons later. Even Andy Robertson was around £2.75M when going from United to Hull and Liverpool are widely regarded as having got a bargain by paying 3 times that amount.

Of course Hibs were in a difficult position with McGinn. It was obvious he wasn't going to sign a new contract, and rightly so from a personal and professional point of view, so we had to get a deal done before he could walk away for nothing. If no other offers were forthcoming then we couldn't risk losing him for nothing. However John McGinn should have been worth more than £3M and I haven't heard a single Villa fan argue otherwise, they know he was an absolute steal.

I'm interested to see how the McKenna situation plays out at Aberdeen as they have stuck to their guns with their valuation of him so far. I wonder if they will blink as his contract runs down.

[CapitalGreen]

Surely St. Mirrren have been paid up in full now and are out of the equation, they can't be due any more from any future sale otherwise where does it all stop? SJM moves to Man U for £50m then onto Real Madrid for £100m? has to be and end at some point as to how long you can hang onto the coat tails of a player.

It’s really simple.

St Mirren receive a % of any profit we make on the sale.

They got a % of the transfer fee we received from Aston Villa.
They got a % of the bonus we received for Villa’s promotion.
In the future they will get a % of any future sell-on fee we receive.

Also, it is probable we have a similar agreement in place with Villa so if McGinn did move from United to Madrid as in your example then we would receive a % of that too.

[danhibees1875]

It’s really simple.

St Mirren receive a % of any profit we make on the sale.

They got a % of the transfer fee we received from Aston Villa.
They got a % of the bonus we received for Villa’s promotion.
In the future they will get a % of any future sell-on fee we receive.

Also, it is probable we have a similar agreement in place with Villa so if McGinn did move from United to Madrid as in your example then we would receive a % of that too.

We would only receive a % in a theoretical United to Madrid transfer if Villa have a sell on clause in their deal with United.

That is how the chain breaks, to answer Alfiemba's question, when a club doesn't put in such a clause. At that point, all the previous clubs also stop receiving.

[Brightside]

I think there is an issue with English clubs undervaluing Scottish players, and Scottish clubs accepting that valuation. Has John McGinn improved by circa £47M in a season and a half? See also Van Dijk, £13M from Celtic to Southampton then a world record fee of £65M+ 3 seasons later. Even Andy Robertson was around £2.75M when going from United to Hull and Liverpool are widely regarded as having got a bargain by paying 3 times that amount.

Of course Hibs were in a difficult position with McGinn. It was obvious he wasn't going to sign a new contract, and rightly so from a personal and professional point of view, so we had to get a deal done before he could walk away for nothing. If no other offers were forthcoming then we couldn't risk losing him for nothing. However John McGinn should have been worth more than £3M and I haven't heard a single Villa fan argue otherwise, they know he was an absolute steal.

I'm interested to see how the McKenna situation plays out at Aberdeen as they have stuck to their guns with their valuation of him so far. I wonder if they will blink as his contract runs down.

If Aberdeen have really been offered 5m for him they should bite hands off.

[scooby]

I think there is an issue with English clubs undervaluing Scottish players, and Scottish clubs accepting that valuation. Has John McGinn improved by circa £47M in a season and a half? See also Van Dijk, £13M from Celtic to Southampton then a world record fee of £65M+ 3 seasons later. Even Andy Robertson was around £2.75M when going from United to Hull and Liverpool are widely regarded as having got a bargain by paying 3 times that amount.

Of course Hibs were in a difficult position with McGinn. It was obvious he wasn't going to sign a new contract, and rightly so from a personal and professional point of view, so we had to get a deal done before he could walk away for nothing. If no other offers were forthcoming then we couldn't risk losing him for nothing. However John McGinn should have been worth more than £3M and I haven't heard a single Villa fan argue otherwise, they know he was an absolute steal.

I'm interested to see how the McKenna situation plays out at Aberdeen as they have stuck to their guns with their valuation of him so far. I wonder if they will blink as his contract runs down.

Bang on the money PB 👍

[CapitalGreen]

We would only receive a % in a theoretical United to Madrid transfer if Villa have a sell on clause in their deal with United.

That is how the chain breaks, to answer Alfiemba's question, when a club doesn't put in such a clause. At that point, all the previous clubs also stop receiving.

Correct, maybe I over simplified the explanation.

[calumhibee1]

The fact that people still think we got ripped off for McGinn is brilliant. The club have played a blinder with the deal they’ve structured. I wouldn’t be surprised if we make £7 or 8 million in total from it and St Mirren will also get their fair share of £2-3m on top of that.

[FilipinoHibs]

Small point, says they got £330k so 33% of £1m for Villa getting promoted.

Yes sounds like ST Mirren's share is 33%. Applying that to the original fee then the total fee is £3 million of which we received £2 million.

Where has all the money gone? We have some new big earners - Allan, Vela, Hallberg, Newell and Doidge will be on reasonably big salaries. Also the money paid for Doidge and our contributions to loan players from last season and this. Money will be spread over two to three seasons to cover these salaries. The accounts may show a healthy cash balance but much will already spent on these salaries for the next three seasons

[CapitalGreen]

The fact that people still think we got ripped off for McGinn is brilliant. The club have played a blinder with the deal they’ve structured.

Exactly, people moaning about money being paid to St Mirren when without such a deal in the first place we may never have signed him.

[calumhibee1]

Exactly, people moaning about money being paid to St Mirren when without such a deal in the first place we may never have signed him.

:agree:

Everyone is getting rich like they’ve never before out of this deal, whether it’s SJM, Hibs, St Mirren or Villa.

[Gloucester Hibs]

The fact that people still think we got ripped off for McGinn is brilliant. The club have played a blinder with the deal they’ve structured.

Certainly looks that way. The St Mirren accounts would indicate we are already close to £3M to the good even accounting for St Mirren's cut. Add in any sell-on % once he leaves Villa and we could be looking at our first ever 8 figure transfer fee received. Rod's parting gift to the club?!

[SMAXXA]

Let’s not criticise the club. We all love the leader.

Have you admitted you got it spectacularly wrong about Hecky yet?

Well that went well 😂

[CapitalGreen]

Yes sounds like ST Mirren's share is 33%. Applying that to the original fee then the total fee is £3 million of which we received £2 million.

Where has all the money gone? We have some new big earners - Allan, Vela, Hallberg, Newell and Doidge will be on reasonably big salaries. Also the money paid for Doidge and our contributions to loan players from last season and this. Money will be spread over two to three seasons to cover these salaries. The accounts may show a healthy cash balance but much will already spent on these salaries for the next three seasons

If St Mirren have received £1.33m then the the total fee so far is £4m.

How can you say the money is all gone, you haven’t seen the accounts yet Rafa?

[FilipinoHibs]

If St Mirren have received £1.33m then the the total fee so far is £4m.

How can you say the money is all gone, you haven’t seen the accounts yet Rafa?

Yes that is made up of transfer fee of £3 million plus £1 million one year later for promotion.

So we initially got £2.333 million then one year later £666,667.

I have not seen the accounts but 5 players on average of £4,000 for three years takes you over £3 million. I don't how the money held in reserve for future salaries will be shown in the accounts. If cash balance is low and salaries high they will be accounting upfront. Otherwise they will need a footnote that says X% will be accounted for by future committed salaries. The proof will be in the pudding.

[CapitalGreen]

Yes that is made up of transfer fee of £3 million plus £1 million one year later for promotion.

So we initially got £2.333 million then one year later £666,667.

But you said we only received £2m not £3m


Yes sounds like ST Mirren's share is 33%. Applying that to the original fee then the total fee is £3 million of which we received £2 million.

What on earth are you on about with the below? You think our wage bill will have increased by £1m p.a. for the next 3 years because we signed 5 players during the summer?


I have not seen the accounts but 5 players on average of £4,000 for three years takes you over £3 million. I don't how the money held in reserve for future salaries will be shown in the accounts. If cash balance is low and salaries high they will be accounting upfront. Otherwise they will need a footnote that says X% will be accounted for by future committed salaries. The proof will be in the pudding.

The players we signed in the summer will be lucky to be earning anywhere near £4K pw max, let alone that being the average that they are earning.

[Fuzzywuzzy]

I think there is an issue with English clubs undervaluing Scottish players, and Scottish clubs accepting that valuation. Has John McGinn improved by circa £47M in a season and a half? See also Van Dijk, £13M from Celtic to Southampton then a world record fee of £65M+ 3 seasons later. Even Andy Robertson was around £2.75M when going from United to Hull and Liverpool are widely regarded as having got a bargain by paying 3 times that amount.

Of course Hibs were in a difficult position with McGinn. It was obvious he wasn't going to sign a new contract, and rightly so from a personal and professional point of view, so we had to get a deal done before he could walk away for nothing. If no other offers were forthcoming then we couldn't risk losing him for nothing. However John McGinn should have been worth more than £3M and I haven't heard a single Villa fan argue otherwise, they know he was an absolute steal.

I'm interested to see how the McKenna situation plays out at Aberdeen as they have stuck to their guns with their valuation of him so far. I wonder if they will blink as his contract runs down.

Then you have players like Morelos being touted at a vastly over inflated price. £50m???

[J-C]

All sales can be structured differently, as far as I'm aware St Mirren got 33% of the initial sale, that'll be 1st payment and then promotion payment which was part of the initial deal. We have our own sell on percentage which doesn't include any more going to St Mirren, that's my take on it.

If St Mirren do have any future add ons, it wont be for 33%, it'll be nearer 5%.

[Smartie]

I think there is an issue with English clubs undervaluing Scottish players, and Scottish clubs accepting that valuation. Has John McGinn improved by circa £47M in a season and a half? See also Van Dijk, £13M from Celtic to Southampton then a world record fee of £65M+ 3 seasons later. Even Andy Robertson was around £2.75M when going from United to Hull and Liverpool are widely regarded as having got a bargain by paying 3 times that amount.

Of course Hibs were in a difficult position with McGinn. It was obvious he wasn't going to sign a new contract, and rightly so from a personal and professional point of view, so we had to get a deal done before he could walk away for nothing. If no other offers were forthcoming then we couldn't risk losing him for nothing. However John McGinn should have been worth more than £3M and I haven't heard a single Villa fan argue otherwise, they know he was an absolute steal.

I'm interested to see how the McKenna situation plays out at Aberdeen as they have stuck to their guns with their valuation of him so far. I wonder if they will blink as his contract runs down.

The reason it is how it is is that we haven’t got a great track record of players going down there and making a positive enough impact.

The more players who do what McGinn did - go to a good club, make a significant positive impact and prove their transfer fee to be good business, the more English clubs will be prepared to pay for players who may well still turn out to be bargains for them.

John McGinn, his attitude and his success have been brilliant for Scottish football and any young player should be looking to follow in his footsteps.

That’s how it is done.

[Aim Here]

All sales can be structured differently, as far as I'm aware St Mirren got 33% of the initial sale, that'll be 1st payment and then promotion payment which was part of the initial deal. We have our own sell on percentage which doesn't include any more going to St Mirren, that's my take on it.

If St Mirren do have any future add ons, it wont be for 33%, it'll be nearer 5%.

What you're saying is almost certainly false. If true, it would be really remiss of St Mirren's lawyers, since it's surely standard practice to lower the initial transfer fee in exchange for a cut of any sell-on in future. It would be all too easy for clubs to sell players for £peanuts + 50% of the sell-on fee to get around any deal structured the way you suggest.

And the reported fact that St Mirren have received £300k after the sale for the promotion bonus suggests that they still get a significant cut of the money we receive for McGinn. Unless there's a time travelling accountant in Paisley, Aston Villa's promotion isn't going to be explicitly mentioned in any St Mirren/Hibs contract, so if they're getting money for it, it'll be from a 'we get a cut of all the profit from McGinn' type clause. Also, 5% of £6 million is £300,000. We'd know about it if Hibs are getting anywhere near £6 million from the deal - that wee promotion clause would more than double Hibs player budget.

[hibbyfraelibby]

The kind of deal Rod negociated is exactly the kind of deal all Scottish clubs need to model on. It trickles down benefits for developing players who move on to bigger and better things...a little bit like a patent or copyright revenue. Long term benefits for our domestic non ugly sister game.

Remember McGinn was on the point of moving to the MLS for nothing. Saints and Hibs pulled a rabbit out the bag and as a result Scottish football has so far gained £4.7m in cash it would not have otherwise received.

[Hibbyradge]

Sounds like that confirms the idea that the sell on clause was for all money received and not just the initial transfer fee.

There's going to be quite a unique transfer moment if the big money rumours come to pass where Villa, Hibs, and St Mirren all break their transfer records in one deal.

:greengrin

That's a great point.

[flash]

This will eventually become the greatest deal in scottish football ever.

[Iain G]

The kind of deal Rod negociated is exactly the kind of deal all Scottish clubs need to model on. It trickles down benefits for developing players who move on to bigger and better things...a little bit like a patent or copyright revenue. Long term benefits for our domestic non ugly sister game.

Remember McGinn was on the point of moving to the MLS for nothing. Saints and Hibs pulled a rabbit out the bag and as a result Scottish football has so far gained £4.7m in cash it would not have otherwise received.

And part 2 of that story is that if he had gone to Celtic we would have gotten peanuts and no legacy income from the promotion and sell on clauses. Think it's well done x2 here!

[J-C]

What you're saying is almost certainly false. If true, it would be really remiss of St Mirren's lawyers, since it's surely standard practice to lower the initial transfer fee in exchange for a cut of any sell-on in future. It would be all too easy for clubs to sell players for £peanuts + 50% of the sell-on fee to get around any deal structured the way you suggest.

And the reported fact that St Mirren have received £300k after the sale for the promotion bonus suggests that they still get a significant cut of the money we receive for McGinn. Unless there's a time travelling accountant in Paisley, Aston Villa's promotion isn't going to be explicitly mentioned in any St Mirren/Hibs contract, so if they're getting money for it, it'll be from a 'we get a cut of all the profit from McGinn' type clause. Also, 5% of £6 million is £300,000. We'd know about it if Hibs are getting anywhere near £6 million from the deal - that wee promotion clause would more than double Hibs player budget.

The promotion bonus IS part of the initial deal though. The deal would be initial down payment plus a further payment on promotion = total payment. We don't know the exact deal agreed with St Mirren, if it's just for initial 1st sale, they've had their money in full but if there's an added sell on clause I'd be surprised if Petrie allowed that to be 33% also.

[Captain Trips]

We was robbed unfortunately.

[Barman Stanton]

We was robbed unfortunately.

Our alternative was keeping him for a year and getting nothing. As it turns out it looks like he will eventually eclipse the Scott Brown fee so I don't think we have done too badly.

[The 90+2]

Well that went well 😂

I know, I’m a tit at times. Apologies to underscore, there was no need 😳😳

[B.H.F.C]

Our alternative was keeping him for a year and getting nothing. As it turns out it looks like he will eventually eclipse the Scott Brown fee so I don't think we have done too badly.

We also got to watch him for three years which is longer than we really should have. Chuck in a Scottish Cup win and European qualification, which he was a major part of, then I don’t think we did too badly.

If we did make a mistake, it was not getting him to extend his contract after a year or 18 months. For all I know, we maybe tried to and he didn’t want to though.

[brog]

I think there is an issue with English clubs undervaluing Scottish players, and Scottish clubs accepting that valuation. Has John McGinn improved by circa £47M in a season and a half? See also Van Dijk, £13M from Celtic to Southampton then a world record fee of £65M+ 3 seasons later. Even Andy Robertson was around £2.75M when going from United to Hull and Liverpool are widely regarded as having got a bargain by paying 3 times that amount.

Of course Hibs were in a difficult position with McGinn. It was obvious he wasn't going to sign a new contract, and rightly so from a personal and professional point of view, so we had to get a deal done before he could walk away for nothing. If no other offers were forthcoming then we couldn't risk losing him for nothing. However John McGinn should have been worth more than £3M and I haven't heard a single Villa fan argue otherwise, they know he was an absolute steal.

I'm interested to see how the McKenna situation plays out at Aberdeen as they have stuck to their guns with their valuation of him so far. I wonder if they will blink as his contract runs down.


You're correct but the Villa fans didn't think he was a steal before they saw him. Lots of ignorant comments about Villa lacking ambition & wasting money on a Jock etc. I have a 2nd hand connection to Palace & I told my conduit, who is a knowledgeable & respectful observer of our football, that SJM would be their best midfielder if they signed him. He scoffed, as did all his mates. We've had a few interesting conversations since then!!

[JimBHibees]

You're correct but the Villa fans didn't think he was a steal before they saw him. Lots of ignorant comments about Villa lacking ambition & wasting money on a Jock etc. I have a 2nd hand connection to Palace & I told my conduit, who is a knowledgeable & respectful observer of our football, that SJM would be their best midfielder if they signed him. He scoffed, as did all his mates. We've had a few interesting conversations since then!!

Wasn't just the fans. Jack Grealish admitted he had no idea who he was when they signed him.

[Captain Trips]

Our alternative was keeping him for a year and getting nothing. As it turns out it looks like he will eventually eclipse the Scott Brown fee so I don't think we have done too badly.

We was robbed.

[Hibbyradge]

We was robbed.

Ok.

How could we have received more?

[brog]

What you're saying is almost certainly false. If true, it would be really remiss of St Mirren's lawyers, since it's surely standard practice to lower the initial transfer fee in exchange for a cut of any sell-on in future. It would be all too easy for clubs to sell players for £peanuts + 50% of the sell-on fee to get around any deal structured the way you suggest.

And the reported fact that St Mirren have received £300k after the sale for the promotion bonus suggests that they still get a significant cut of the money we receive for McGinn. Unless there's a time travelling accountant in Paisley, Aston Villa's promotion isn't going to be explicitly mentioned in any St Mirren/Hibs contract, so if they're getting money for it, it'll be from a 'we get a cut of all the profit from McGinn' type clause. Also, 5% of £6 million is £300,000. We'd know about it if Hibs are getting anywhere near £6 million from the deal - that wee promotion clause would more than double Hibs player budget.

Correct, I posted recently that more & more deals are being structured much more simply, ie a fixed % of any future profit on the transfer fee. It makes the original deal much more straightforward but the downside is it can complicate future deals & may make a sell on more difficult/expensive if the selling club has to forego a significant portion of the selling price. However that's not really a major concern for the original sellers & it can be very fruitful, as we experienced with Fletch all those years ago.

[CapitalGreen]

We don't know the exact deal agreed with St Mirren

This is all you need to say, everything else is just guesswork at this stage.

[flash]

I know, I’m a tit at times. Apologies to underscore, there was no need 😳😳

Hats off for that.

[Captain Trips]

Ok.

How could we have received more?

That's irrelevant. Our situation and contract length dictated most of fee. That meant Villa got an excellent player cheaply.

So unfortunately we got what we got and IMO based on ability and not contract length we was robbed and Villa have a bargain.

[green day]

That's irrelevant. Our situation and contract length dictated most of fee. That meant Villa got an excellent player cheaply.

So unfortunately we got what we got and IMO based on ability and not contract length we was robbed and Villa have a bargain.

I guess we could also say that we got him for a bargain fee, so its swings and roundabouts?

[Barman Stanton]

We was robbed.

Dont see why. Players are only worth what other teams are willing to pay. Even other fans in Scotland thought we were over hyping McGinn. We got him for a bargain, won the Scottish Cup with him and he will be our record transfer in the end.

[007]

Yes sounds like ST Mirren's share is 33%. Applying that to the original fee then the total fee is £3 million of which we received £2 million.

Where has all the money gone? We have some new big earners - Allan, Vela, Hallberg, Newell and Doidge will be on reasonably big salaries. Also the money paid for Doidge and our contributions to loan players from last season and this. Money will be spread over two to three seasons to cover these salaries. The accounts may show a healthy cash balance but much will already spent on these salaries for the next three seasons

Plus some set aside for January.

[Brightside]

I know, I’m a tit at times. Apologies to underscore, there was no need 😳😳

:aok:

[basehibby]

Wasn't just the fans. Jack Grealish admitted he had no idea who he was when they signed him.

This shows what Scottish Clubs are up against when dealing with English Clubs.

Sell on clauses are probably the best way possible to deal with it.

[Hibbyradge]

That's irrelevant. Our situation and contract length dictated most of fee. That meant Villa got an excellent player cheaply.

So unfortunately we got what we got and IMO based on ability and not contract length we was robbed and Villa have a bargain.

Villa got a bargain, for sure, but we didn't get robbed.

Firstly, we got as much as we could for him at the time which, regardless of what his value is now, is exactly what he was worth at the time.

Add to that all the add-ons, and the deal looks better and better.

Had we sold him for say £6m, we may not have been able to negotiate such a lucrative sell on clause, if any at all.

We're going to do extremely well because of John McGinn.

[Captain Trips]

Dont see why. Players are only worth what other teams are willing to pay. Even other fans in Scotland thought we were over hyping McGinn. We got him for a bargain, won the Scottish Cup with him and he will be our record transfer in the end.

Willing to pay and willing to accept are they the same? So he isn't a bargain for Villa he is playing as a £3m player should be playing.

We was robbed.

[Barman Stanton]

Willing to pay and willing to accept are they the same? So he isn't a bargain for Villa he is playing as a £3m player should be playing.

We was robbed.

Dont agree at all. How can you be robbed when there was no bigger bids on the table.
We are a Scottish club and our players are priced accordingly unfortunately.

[overdrive]

Was it not rumoured at the time that we signed him that we were only able to afford to sign him in terms of the development fee due to St Mirren due to a combination of the sell on and McGinn using his legal action against St Mirren due to the spearing incident as a bargaining tool?

If that’s right, we were actually very lucky to be able to sell him in the first place.

[superfurryhibby]

That's irrelevant. Our situation and contract length dictated most of fee. That meant Villa got an excellent player cheaply.

So unfortunately we got what we got and IMO based on ability and not contract length we was robbed and Villa have a bargain.

You could have said that initially and saved the subsequent responses to your clearly unshiftable stance?

You answered your own question well enough though. Situation and contract length dictated the fee, as it did when we bought McGinn from St Mirren. That's football, no one was robbed and we are continuing to reap the benefits from the best deal we could get at the time.

Football isn't science. We all felt McGinn would go onto succeed, but as with every transfer, there is an element of uncertainty. Villa took a chance, it's worked out. Had it not, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Hibbyradge]

Willing to pay and willing to accept are they the same? So he isn't a bargain for Villa he is playing as a £3m player should be playing.

We was robbed.

There were plenty people on here who would have been happy to keep him for another year and let him walk away for nothing.

We weren't robbed. Being robbed implies something was taken from us either against our will or without our knowledge.

Repeated "we was robbed" won't make it any truer.

Or more grammatically correct! :wink:

[The 90+2]

:aok:

Thanks mate 💚

[hibsfan7]

The worse case scenario would have been john going for nothing at the end of his contract and along the m8 to that lot

[Captain Trips]

You could have said that initially and saved the subsequent responses to your clearly unshiftable stance?

You answered your own question well enough though. Situation and contract length dictated the fee, as it did when we bought McGinn from St Mirren. That's football, no one was robbed and we are continuing to reap the benefits from the best deal we could get at the time.

Football isn't science. We all felt McGinn would go onto succeed, but as with every transfer, there is an element of uncertainty. Villa took a chance, it's worked out. Had it not, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I remain with my stance of course I do. I fully understand our finances I fully understand his contract length and I fully understand the amount of offers all decide the fee.

I'm not talking about any of that my point is IMO regardless of his wage at Hibs, contract remain or amount of bids IMO players of lesser ability have went for more lots more and went for more because maybe playing at higher level already or on longer contracts etc etc.

I know why we took the offer but that for me doesn't represent his ability vs fee.

So yes I think we was robbed.

[Rocky]

If St Mirren managed to negotiate a third of all future profit is there any reason to suppose we wouldn't have managed to do a similar deal with Villa? So if he does go for, say, £40m then knock off original fee / promotion bonus and their profit is £36m. A third of that is £12m of which a third goes to St Mirren. Leaves us with a nice tidy £8m.

[danhibees1875]

If St Mirren managed to negotiate a third of all future profit is there any reason to suppose we wouldn't have managed to do a similar deal with Villa? So if he does go for, say, £40m then knock off original fee / promotion bonus and their profit is £36m. A third of that is £12m of which a third goes to St Mirren. Leaves us with a nice tidy £8m.

The general consensus is that our one is more like 15%.

It's not official or necessarily accurate, but it's as good a guess as any.

Still a good amount should Villa sell for anything like £40M.

[erin go bragh]

If St Mirren managed to negotiate a third of all future profit is there any reason to suppose we wouldn't have managed to do a similar deal with Villa? So if he does go for, say, £40m then knock off original fee / promotion bonus and their profit is £36m. A third of that is £12m of which a third goes to St Mirren. Leaves us with a nice tidy £8m.

Steve Bruce was on record ,saying the add on’s on the McGinn deal was the most generous ,he had ever encountered in his career ( or words to that effect) ching ,ching when he goes 😉😃

[inglisavhibs]

Ok.

How could we have received more?
As far as we are aware only Celtic and Villa were in for him and none of us wanted to accept the Celtic bid. We got the best deal possible.

[Gmack7]

Steve Bruce was on record ,saying the add on’s on the McGinn deal was the most generous ,he had ever encountered in his career ( or words to that effect) ching ,ching when he goes 😉😃

i keep hearing this about Bruce. but have never actually seen ir heard the quotes. is this a .net fact?

[DarlingtonHibee]

i keep hearing this about Bruce. but have never actually seen ir heard the quotes. is this a .net fact?

Yes

[Pete70]

Here’s my take on this.

The figures re how much SM received for John McGinn are Speculation. Nowhere in the SM accounts can I see mention of John McGinn's name or any other individual player transfer. The accounts only state a total figure which will include monies received for all player sales/loans.
Does anyone know if SM sold any other players or received loan fees during their financial year?

[hibbyfraelibby]

Here’s my take on this.

The figures re how much SM received for John McGinn are Speculation. Nowhere in the SM accounts can I see mention of John McGinn's name or any other individual player transfer. The accounts only state a total figure which will include monies received for all player sales/loans.
Does anyone know if SM sold any other players or received loan fees during their financial year?

How much did they get for Stevie Mallan?

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

Maybe we are forgetting what McGinn did for us amongst the speculation about what we got for him.

[GreenNWhiteArmy]

If St Mirren are getting a cut on all monies rec'd on super john then fair play, good on them. They developed a future great with potential to become a genuine world class player

His contribution to us is priceless so I'm cool with them getting a cut of anything we may receive in the future

[Rumble de Thump]

I guess we could also say that we got him for a bargain fee, so its swings and roundabouts?

We don't know what the fee was. He was out of contract so probably not too much.

[Jack Hackett]

Hibs Legend... now and forever. The money talk is just distraction

[matty_f]

We was robbed unfortunately.

I don't think we were.

Realistically, Villa were taking a bit of a punt on McGinn, and for a couple of million he was a good value risk. There's no doubt that other, bigger teams, would have been monitoring him but maybe wanted to see if her adapted to the English game before making a move.

The deal suited both parties, Villa got a good player at a great price knowing that if he blossomed in England then they'd need to weigh us in further down the line.

We got a decent initial fee knowing that we couldn't get the same price as Villa could, so sold low and trusted them to increase his value.

It was a very shrewd bit of business all round.

[B.H.F.C]

Realistically, Villa were taking a bit of a punt on McGinn

No at that kind of price they weren't. If they were in the Premier League at the time, it would have been a punt, not in the championship though.

He was an international, was scoring in Europe the week before they signed him an had been in the team of the year up here the season before. He was always going to do well there.

[CloudSquall]

I think with hindsight it's easy to think "oh FFS" at the deal but I don't think many of us expected him to be lighting it up in the Premiership so soon.

If we have a healthy sell on fee I'm happy with that.

[Captain Trips]

I don't think we were.

Realistically, Villa were taking a bit of a punt on McGinn, and for a couple of million he was a good value risk. There's no doubt that other, bigger teams, would have been monitoring him but maybe wanted to see if her adapted to the English game before making a move.

The deal suited both parties, Villa got a good player at a great price knowing that if he blossomed in England then they'd need to weigh us in further down the line.

We got a decent initial fee knowing that we couldn't get the same price as Villa could, so sold low and trusted them to increase his value.

It was a very shrewd bit of business all round.

If he had 3 yrs left on contract he would be still same player at time of Villa interest so how much you think they would offer? I bet we would never have got more than 4/5m if he had 3yrs left. On ability alone not contracts he was every bit £10m+ player. This league,our finances dictate a lot more on fee than ability at times on what clubs will accept up here. Lots of clubs down south can just keep saying no a lot easier than us.

Our circumstances dictate the fee massively and hence why I think it was a total bargain almost robbery.


Ok what would Zico be worth these days if he was say 25? You ever been asked what a player is worth in general? Or do you say hold on I will tell you what I think Messi is worth once I find out his contract length?

[matty_f]

If he had 3 yrs left on contract he would be still same player at time of Villa interest so how much you think they would offer? I bet we would never have got more than 4/5m if he had 3yrs left. On ability alone not contracts he was every bit £10m+ player. This league,our finances dictate a lot more on fee than ability at times on what clubs will accept up here. Lots of clubs down south can just keep saying no a lot easier than us.

Our circumstances dictate the fee massively and hence why I think it was a total bargain almost robbery.


Ok what would Zico be worth these days if he was say 25? You ever been asked what a player is worth in general? Or do you say hold on I will tell you what I think Messi is worth once I find out his contract length?

I never mentioned contract length, I'm not sure you understand my point again, chief.

[matty_f]

No at that kind of price they weren't. If they were in the Premier League at the time, it would have been a punt, not in the championship though.

He was an international, was scoring in Europe the week before they signed him an had been in the team of the year up here the season before. He was always going to do well there.

Of course he was a punt, he was completely unproven in England. He might have been an international but at that point his career at that level wasn't startling, and while he scored in Europe, it was in the qualifying rounds.

Villa were prepared to chuck a couple of million at him, they've got a cracking deal, but with the sell on, so have we.

[brog]

If he had 3 yrs left on contract he would be still same player at time of Villa interest so how much you think they would offer? I bet we would never have got more than 4/5m if he had 3yrs left. On ability alone not contracts he was every bit £10m+ player. This league,our finances dictate a lot more on fee than ability at times on what clubs will accept up here. Lots of clubs down south can just keep saying no a lot easier than us.

Our circumstances dictate the fee massively and hence why I think it was a total bargain almost robbery.


Ok what would Zico be worth these days if he was say 25? You ever been asked what a player is worth in general? Or do you say hold on I will tell you what I think Messi is worth once I find out his contract length?

5 months after we sold SJM he could sign a pre contract & move for free 5 to 6 months later. More likely the buying club would offer us a small sum, say £0.5m & we would bite their hand off. Its ok though, length of contract doesn't affect the price!

[Gloucester Hibs]

As far as we are aware only Celtic and Villa were in for him and none of us wanted to accept the Celtic bid. We got the best deal possible.

Oh there were a few on here up for accepting Celtic’s offer(s) before villa arrived on the scene.

[Ronniekirk]

Saints fans seem to think they will get a cut if the next Transfer fee as well Surely not
They are also saying they have spent a lot of that money and warning fans that they need to tighten the belt so thst would suggest they aren’t expecting another transfer wedge


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DetroitHibs]

Saints fans seem to think they will get a cut if the next Transfer fee as well Surely not
They are also saying they have spent a lot of that money and warning fans that they need to tighten the belt so thst would suggest they aren’t expecting another transfer wedge


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really shouldn’t be that big of a deal for Hibs to tell us what the script it. Obviously St Mirren are a bit more transparent.

[Rocky]

Really shouldn’t be that big of a deal for Hibs to tell us what the script it. Obviously St Mirren are a bit more transparent.

If you ever fancy a game of poker I'd be happy to play you.

[MWHIBBIES]

Steve Bruce was on record ,saying the add on’s on the McGinn deal was the most generous ,he had ever encountered in his career ( or words to that effect) ching ,ching when he goes 😉😃

Find me that record

[MWHIBBIES]

Really shouldn’t be that big of a deal for Hibs to tell us what the script it. Obviously St Mirren are a bit more transparent.

St Mirren are a tinpot club, why on earth would we do anything they do?

Do any big clubs give intimate transfer details out for everyone to know?

[B.H.F.C]

Of course he was a punt, he was completely unproven in England. He might have been an international but at that point his career at that level wasn't startling, and while he scored in Europe, it was in the qualifying rounds.

Villa were prepared to chuck a couple of million at him, they've got a cracking deal, but with the sell on, so have we.

Still not having that he was a punt. Villa were toiling financially on the back of losing the play off final and didn’t have money to gamble. Bruce, who was their manager at the time, wasn’t signing him as a punt. It was to improve their side because he knew he would.

His achievements at that point shouldn’t be talked down either. He’d won domestic trophies, got to in to the Scotland set up whilst not even playing in the top league and although it was the qualifying round, Asteras were experienced in Europe.

McGinn was an absolute certainty to do well in the league they were in then. Quality wise, it’s the most overrated league going.

[Captain Trips]

I don't think we were.

Realistically, Villa were taking a bit of a punt on McGinn, and for a couple of million he was a good value risk. There's no doubt that other, bigger teams, would have been monitoring him but maybe wanted to see if her adapted to the English game before making a move.

The deal suited both parties, Villa got a good player at a great price knowing that if he blossomed in England then they'd need to weigh us in further down the line.

We got a decent initial fee knowing that we couldn't get the same price as Villa could, so sold low and trusted them to increase his value.

It was a very shrewd bit of business all round.

I understand what you are saying im just stating that the fee as many others though (not you) have stated and probably correctly so that the fee was largely due to having 1 yr left.

If anyone has said before looking at a transfer "he isnt worth that" etc etc Then all I am doing is the same with SJM in saying irrespective of what was paid I think he was a £10m + player and I have seen nothing from him thus far to suggest that he isnt.

I have never accepted that a player is worth whatever the fee is just because thats what was paid.Take some tech down to cash generators and they will happily give you £100 for your 65" 4k tv. An agreed amount does not make it worth that it just means 2 parties accept the price. Sometimes it will be under sometimes just right sometimes over and thats how I see player values.

So I can say if 25yrs old now:

Zico today (no idea on contract or buying/selling club) IMO a £80m+
Maradona 120m+
Baresi 80m

I base the above on looking at what various players of similar ability IMO have been selling for exactly what I am doing with SJM and he is right at the bottom in fees.
so.........WE WAS ROBBED :greengrin

[JimBHibees]

St Mirren are a tinpot club, why on earth would we do anything they do?

Do any big clubs give intimate transfer details out for everyone to know?

No more a tinpot club than any other. Comparison wise Villa would consider us a tinpot club in relation to them.

[Hibbyradge]

Steve Bruce was on record ,saying the add on’s on the McGinn deal was the most generous ,he had ever encountered in his career ( or words to that effect) ching ,ching when he goes 😉😃

"Eye watering add-ons".

Unfortunately, there's no record of him saying that.

Hibs.net myth methinks.

[Hibbyradge]

Oh there were a few on here up for accepting Celtic’s offer(s) before villa arrived on the scene.

Only to avoid him leaving for nothing a few months later.

I'd rather have taken £2m for him in August than let him walk for nothing the next May.

[Hibbyradge]

I understand what you are saying im just stating that the fee as many others though (not you) have stated and probably correctly so that the fee was largely due to having 1 yr left.

If anyone has said before looking at a transfer "he isnt worth that" etc etc Then all I am doing is the same with SJM in saying irrespective of what was paid I think he was a £10m + player and I have seen nothing from him thus far to suggest that he isnt.

I have never accepted that a player is worth whatever the fee is just because thats what was paid.Take some tech down to cash generators and they will happily give you £100 for your 65" 4k tv. An agreed amount does not make it worth that it just means 2 parties accept the price. Sometimes it will be under sometimes just right sometimes over and thats how I see player values.

So I can say if 25yrs old now:

Zico today (no idea on contract or buying/selling club) IMO a £80m+
Maradona 120m+
Baresi 80m

I base the above on looking at what various players of similar ability IMO have been selling for exactly what I am doing with SJM and he is right at the bottom in fees.
so.........WE WAS ROBBED :greengrin

I've got a really lovely detached house in North York. 4 bedrooms, conservatory, double garage and garden back and front.

It wasn't exactly cheap, but if it was in London it would be worth at least 10 times what it is now, probably much more.

If I sell it for market price, I'm not being robbed just because it would be worth more elsewhere.

[Greenworld]

On the face of it we did ok st mirren did better than ok .
It's the going forward sale that none of us have a clue about do st mirren get a bit of that do hibs get 15% or just 2/3rds of that .
I don't actually understand why it's a secret at all. Don't see any reason not to share

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

[Helensburghhibs]

I've got a really lovely detached house in North York. 4 bedrooms, conservatory, double garage and garden back and front.

It wasn't exactly cheap, but if it was in London it would be worth at least 10 times what it is now, probably much more.

If I sell it for market price, I'm not being robbed just because it would be worth more elsewhere.

What if the price of the house included moving it to a nice plot in London though? Would it be worth less because it had not been proven as an effective London house?

[theonlywayisup]

Saints fans seem to think they will get a cut if the next Transfer fee as well Surely not

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They will get a % of whatever Hibs make from the transfer of John McGinn.

If John McGinn moved 20 times, they would get a % of each albeit the sum of money will be ever diminishing, until such time as a selling club doesn't write a sell % clause into the contract.

[FilipinoHibs]

What if the price of the house included moving it to a nice plot in London though? Would it be worth less because it had not been proven as an effective London house?

You are comparing an inanimate object to animate one. Would a highland deer perform as well in central London.

[Hibbyradge]

What if the price of the house included moving it to a nice plot in London though? Would it be worth less because it had not been proven as an effective London house?

Well, you'd have to factor in the cost of buying the nice plot in London and the cost of moving it there.

I certainly wouldn't want to pay for those things.

[Tobias Funke]

Your posts regularly have me puzzled.

Not half as puzzled as I am at the fact they are still able to post on here, given the number of times they’ve been pumped off this site for being a fud.

[Captain Trips]

I've got a really lovely detached house in North York. 4 bedrooms, conservatory, double garage and garden back and front.

It wasn't exactly cheap, but if it was in London it would be worth at least 10 times what it is now, probably much more.

If I sell it for market price, I'm not being robbed just because it would be worth more elsewhere.

So SJM was a 3m at time of leaving Hibs because that's the fee we got?

IMO Villa lucked out they got a player very cheaply due to the situation of the players contract and club situation in possibly not risking losing out on fee for player. For me those factors decided a lot more than his ability unfortunately.

[Hibbyradge]

So SJM was a 3m at time of leaving Hibs because that's the fee we got?

IMO Villa lucked out they got a player very cheaply due to the situation of the players contract and club situation in possibly not risking losing out on fee for player. For me those factors decided a lot more than his ability unfortunately.

I agree.

We weren't, sorry, wasn't, robbed though.

We just had no way to maximise the initial fee.

We've also lucked out because SJM is now being eyed by the big boys and we've got a significant stake.

[Yorkshire HFC]

I agree.

We weren't, sorry, wasn't, robbed though.

We just had no way to maximise the initial fee.

We've also lucked out because SJM is now being eyed by the big boys and we've got a significant stake.

How have we lucked out? We don’t have him as a player.

Unlike many others it seems, I haven’t been able to read the contracts that he signed - but I’m also not interested. Do you think Hibs will invest any money they do receive wisely?

[Dalianwanda]

How have we lucked out? We don’t have him as a player.

Unlike many others it seems, I haven’t been able to read the contracts that he signed - but I’m also not interested. Do you think Hibs will invest any money they do receive wisely?

The player wanted to move on, the positive is he improved so much when playing for us & has kicked on again in England. (not many players do)

Yes hibs will invest the money, what tells you they won’t?

[Dmas]

The player wanted to move on, the positive is he improved so much when playing for us & has kicked on again in England. (not many players do)

Yes hibs will invest the money, what tells you they won’t?

He said wisely, there’s not been much evidence of that in recent times

[MrRobot]

I think Hibs business in the McGinn deal was pretty good to be honest. Would love to have made more on him since he is clearly outstanding, but Hibs structured a very good deal IMO.

[brog]

They will get a % of whatever Hibs make from the transfer of John McGinn.

If John McGinn moved 20 times, they would get a % of each albeit the sum of money will be ever diminishing, until such time as a selling club doesn't write a sell % clause into the contract.

You're right in principle but probably not quite in practice. The sell on is based on profit. If Villa sell SJM for a huge sum, say £40m, then it reduces the opportunity for further profits. That then increases the possibility that there is no, or a limited, sell on clause. The daisy chain probably breaks more quickly than may be expected.

[DetroitHibs]

I don’t think St Mirren will be due anything going forward. We managed to negotiate that with Fletcher, but that’s a very rare thing, not many clubs do this. St Mirren would have had to negotiate at the time and I don’t see that being in the contract.

[J-C]

I don’t think St Mirren will be due anything going forward. We managed to negotiate that with Fletcher, but that’s a very rare thing, not many clubs do this. St Mirren would have had to negotiate at the time and I don’t see that being in the contract.


That's my take on it too, they were going to lose any monies for development if he went to USA, we couldn't afford the £300-400K dev fee, so we negotiated a small fee with a 33% sell on, the £1M+ deal is probably all they'll get and probably all they deserve TBH.

[brog]

I don’t think St Mirren will be due anything going forward. We managed to negotiate that with Fletcher, but that’s a very rare thing, not many clubs do this. St Mirren would have had to negotiate at the time and I don’t see that being in the contract.

It's not rare at all & there's no negotiation required. The clause just says x% of future profits. Simple & being increasingly used.

[1875STEVE]

Surely St. Mirrren have been paid up in full now and are out of the equation, they can't be due any more from any future sale otherwise where does it all stop? SJM moves to Man U for £50m then onto Real Madrid for £100m? has to be and end at some point as to how long you can hang onto the coat tails of a player.

It doesnt stop.

If there's a sell-on in every move he ever makes, st mirren and every club after will get a cut, until he moves without a sell-on.

That's what happened with us with Steven Fletcher.

Hibs sold to Burnley(3.5m) with a sell-on, Burnley to wolves(7.5m) with a sell-on, Wolves to Sunderland(12m). He then signed on a free with Sheff Wed. so we got nowt

Money trickled back to us with every move.

The only factor is if it's % of fee, or % of profit

[Scott Allan Key]

I don't think we were.

Realistically, Villa were taking a bit of a punt on McGinn, and for a couple of million he was a good value risk. There's no doubt that other, bigger teams, would have been monitoring him but maybe wanted to see if her adapted to the English game before making a move.

The deal suited both parties, Villa got a good player at a great price knowing that if he blossomed in England then they'd need to weigh us in further down the line.

We got a decent initial fee knowing that we couldn't get the same price as Villa could, so sold low and trusted them to increase his value.

It was a very shrewd bit of business all round.

I beg to differ on this. English clubs and scouts knew fine well what a brilliant prospect SJM was, as did any clued up football writers. Before he even kicked a ball for Villa, 442 magazine had him down as the no. 1 summer signing in the Championship. The same journal that put Ormond, Johnston, Reilly, Turnball à and Smith on the spine of their magazine.

[JimBHibees]

How have we lucked out? We don’t have him as a player.

Unlike many others it seems, I haven’t been able to read the contracts that he signed - but I’m also not interested. Do you think Hibs will invest any money they do receive wisely?

Will definitely invest whether it will be wisely will depend on who we buy.

[JimBHibees]

I beg to differ on this. English clubs and scouts knew fine well what a brilliant prospect SJM was, as did any clued up football writers. Before he even kicked a ball for Villa, 442 magazine had him down as the no. 1 summer signing in the Championship. The same journal that put Ormond, Johnston, Reilly, Turnball à and Smith on the spine of their magazine.

If the scouts knew how good a prospect he was why did only Villa take a punt. 2 to 3m is absolute chicken feed to big English clubs. Steve Bruce did well out of signing both McGinn and Robertson and obviously trusts the Scottish leagues more than others do.

[MWHIBBIES]

If the scouts knew how good a prospect he was why did only Villa take a punt. 2 to 3m is absolute chicken feed to big English clubs. Steve Bruce did well out of signing both McGinn and Robertson and obviously trusts the Scottish leagues more than others do.

3 million is chicken feed to big English clubs, not Aston Villa in the championship though. If McGinn had 3/4 years on his deal we'd have got big money, was just never gonna happen when he had a year.

[JimBHibees]

3 million is chicken feed to big English clubs, not Aston Villa in the championship though. If McGinn had 3/4 years on his deal we'd have got big money, was just never gonna happen when he had a year.

Villa are a very big club also agree about the length of the contract.

[MWHIBBIES]

Villa are a very big club also agree about the length of the contract.

Yes, they are. But that is still not nothing to them while they are in the championship and reportedly in trouble. It was also obviously enough for Hibs so accept so why would they pay more.

[Scott Allan Key]

If the scouts knew how good a prospect he was why did only Villa take a punt. 2 to 3m is absolute chicken feed to big English clubs. Steve Bruce did well out of signing both McGinn and Robertson and obviously trusts the Scottish leagues more than others do.

I'd hazard a guess, those other clubs were unwilling to pay much towards a Scottish club that wasn't Celtc or The Rangers. Steve Bruce trusted his judgement of a player in spite of where he played.
If McGinn had put in same performances that he did for us for Celtic, he'd have gone for much more money, up to five times more, and straight to an established Premiership side.

[BILLYHIBS]

Celtic shudda just paid the asking price

They must still be kicking themselves 😂

[wallpaperman]

Some of the basic lack of understanding of the situation Hibs were in with McGinn leaves me shaking my head with disbelief.

The club were less than 5 months away from losing a John to a pre contract in the following January. He probably would have signed that with Celtic and we would have gone grovelling to them for a measly £250k or something, possibly would have got not a penny.

I think the board did pretty well digging up Villa from somewhere (they must have been aware they scouted him previously), and structuring the deal the way the did. Another £1m (third to St Mirren) as Villa got promoted, nice one.

As for many English clubs knowing what a prospect McGinn was, well they all went missing when the bidding process began, and from memory this was not that quick a process and plenty of times for multiple clubs to jump in, which they never did......

[The Spaceman]

Some of the basic lack of understanding of the situation Hibs were in with McGinn leaves me shaking my head with disbelief.

The club were less than 5 months away from losing a John to a pre contract in the following January. He probably would have signed that with Celtic and we would have gone grovelling to them for a measly £250k or something, possibly would have got not a penny.

I think the board did pretty well digging up Villa from somewhere (they must have been aware they scouted him previously), and structuring the deal the way the did. Another £1m (third to St Mirren) as Villa got promoted, nice one.

As for many English clubs knowing what a prospect McGinn was, well they all went missing when the bidding process began, and from memory this was not that quick a process and plenty of times for multiple clubs to jump in, which they never did......

John McGinn is the best piece of big transfer business we have done in 15+ years.

We structured our deal with St Mirren to get him for a snip unless he developed into a monster of a player (which he did, winning the Scottish Cup along the way and driving us to promotion, earning him legend status at the club). He is now set to make us an absolute fortune away from the Old Firm (where all of our previous crown jewels have ended up). Outstanding work from us IMHO.

[SquashedFrogg]

So SJM was a 3m at time of leaving Hibs because that's the fee we got?

IMO Villa lucked out they got a player very cheaply due to the situation of the players contract and club situation in possibly not risking losing out on fee for player. For me those factors decided a lot more than his ability unfortunately.

Surely wages are also a factor in player valuation? You can't say a player is say, worth £10m when you're only paying him 3k per week?

Celtic for example, can demand higher fees often because they tie players down to longer deals and pay far higher wages.

He was running his contract down and wanted to move on. I think we got a very decent deal in the end.

[MWHIBBIES]

Our real mistake was not offering him a huge deal after the Scottish cup win. Him, Mcgeouch and Fyvie should've been tied down after that.

[Speedway]

Our real mistake was not offering him a huge deal after the Scottish cup win. Him, Mcgeouch and Fyvie should've been tied down after that.

Impossible. Not all those players wanted to be tied down, especially not under Lennon.

[flash]

Our real mistake was not offering him a huge deal after the Scottish cup win. Him, Mcgeouch and Fyvie should've been tied down after that.

It's ridiculous that nobody within the club thought of doing that.

[CapitalGreen]

Our real mistake was not offering him a huge deal after the Scottish cup win. Him, Mcgeouch and Fyvie should've been tied down after that.

Who said we didn’t? I don’t think we typically publicise confidential contractual negotiations with employees.

[superfurryhibby]

John McGinn is the best piece of big transfer business we have done in 15+ years.

We structured our deal with St Mirren to get him for a snip unless he developed into a monster of a player (which he did, winning the Scottish Cup along the way and driving us to promotion, earning him legend status at the club). He is now set to make us an absolute fortune away from the Old Firm (where all of our previous crown jewels have ended up). Outstanding work from us IMHO.

This, end of,

It cuts both ways, we got him from St Mirren on a deal structured to benefit them if he were to be successful and move away on a decent fee. Same applies with us and Villa. Aye, there is a huge disparity between transfer fees involving Scottish and English clubs, tv funded upstarts , blah, blah, boo hoo, I'm over it.

Hopefully when the time for the big move comes, and judging by Villa's form it could be sooner rather than later, Hibs reap the benefits and we can all celebrate the success of a wonderful player and the gift that keeps on giving.

[Captain Trips]

Surely wages are also a factor in player valuation? You can't say a player is say, worth £10m when you're only paying him 3k per week?

Celtic for example, can demand higher fees often because they tie players down to longer deals and pay far higher wages.

He was running his contract down and wanted to move on. I think we got a very decent deal in the end.

So a £3m player earns what? A £10m player earns what? . I'm sure Wiilie McKay stated same we had no right to demand the fees we wanted for Brown and Thomson as paying them "buttons".

[J-C]

Our real mistake was not offering him a huge deal after the Scottish cup win. Him, Mcgeouch and Fyvie should've been tied down after that.

IIRC Fyvie was offered one but dithered, Dylan was offered one but didn't get on with Lennon and McGinn out grew the club and wanted to test himself on a bigger stage.

[Peevemor]

Our real mistake was not offering him a huge deal after the Scottish cup win. Him, Mcgeouch and Fyvie should've been tied down after that.

McGinn was only one year into a 4 year deal, there was no need to change anything.

in 15/16 Dylan only started 24 games, reducing to 16 the following season. Although his ability was there to see, at that time nobody was bothered about tying him down to a longer deal.

Fyvie fannied about after being offered a new deal, looking for better elsewhere. Hibs couldn't wait for ever and moved on to someone else.

[SquashedFrogg]

So a £3m player earns what? A £10m player earns what? . I'm sure Wiilie McKay stated same we had no right to demand the fees we wanted for Brown and Thomson as paying them "buttons".

I said it's a factor in player evaluation. As is a players desire to move. There are many factors.

I think it's naive however to think wages and value aren't linked.

[danhibees1875]

McGinn was only one year into a 4 year deal, there was no need to change anything.


I've no idea if and when Hibs tried to extend John's contract but I don't necessarily agree with this.

He came in from st mirren and showed he could step up (by moving down to the championship :greengrin ) and be a great performer at Hibs. If we were serious about getting the most from John then there's no reason we couldn't have then acted in 2016.

It's the same position Villa were in last summer. McGinn had proven himself again, and was 1 year into a 4 year deal. He then got a new 5 year deal and villa have a bit more protection if they look to sell him in a year or 2.

I'd caveat that by saying I certainly wasn't upset or worried in 2016 that McGinn only had 3 years left on his contract. So I think it's hefty revisionism and hindsight being used to think we should have (and we very well may have tried).

[Peevemor]

I've no idea if and when Hibs tried to extend John's contract but I don't necessarily agree with this.

He came in from st mirren and showed he could step up (by moving down to the championship :greengrin ) and be a great performer at Hibs. If we were serious about getting the most from John then there's no reason we couldn't have then acted in 2016.

It's the same position Villa were in last summer. McGinn had proven himself again, and was 1 year into a 4 year deal. He then got a new 5 year deal and villa have a bit more protection if they look to sell him in a year or 2.

I'd caveat that by saying I certainly wasn't upset or worried in 2016 that McGinn only had 3 years left on his contract. So I think it's hefty revisionism and hindsight being used to think we should have (and we very well may have tried).

OK, it's maybe a daft example, but what should we do with Doidge? He didn't have the best of starts but now he's averaging more than a goal per game. Should we offer him an improved deal to protect our investment, even though he has more than 2.5 seasons left on his current contract?

[jgl07]

McGinn was only one year into a 4 year deal, there was no need to change anything.

in 15/16 Dylan only started 24 games, reducing to 16 the following season. Although his ability was there to see, at that time nobody was bothered about tying him down to a longer deal.

Fyvie fannied about after being offered a new deal, looking for better elsewhere. Hibs couldn't wait for ever and moved on to someone else.

And Fyvie ended up at Cove Rangers at the age of 26!

As for Dylan, his past injury record suggests that you will do well to get more than 25-30 games a season out of him. No doubting his quality but the likely absenses will have to be factored in.

[danhibees1875]

OK, it's maybe a daft example, but what should we do with Doidge? He didn't have the best of starts but now he's averaging more than a goal per game. Should we offer him an improved deal to protect our investment, even though he has more than 2.5 seasons left on his current contract?

It's the second time I've posted something like that, the first time I also added that Hibs obviously need to be more cautious and given our history of keek players I can see why we don't hand out improved contracts every summer to anyone looking good. It's a difficult balancing act to get right, and I'm sure whoever has the final say in the matter has made more good calls than bad - I just think it's an area where we could have got more out of John had we acted quickly like Villa have.

But to answer, no. Doidge is 27 and had a few goes at different teams down south and I'd be surprised if there was any danger of a lucrative deal being possible in 2 years time. :aok:
That's not to be anti-Doidge, I think he's having a very good season for us - even before he started banging them in like a Merlot soaked Pele.

[B.H.F.C]

I've no idea if and when Hibs tried to extend John's contract but I don't necessarily agree with this.

He came in from st mirren and showed he could step up (by moving down to the championship :greengrin ) and be a great performer at Hibs. If we were serious about getting the most from John then there's no reason we couldn't have then acted in 2016.

It's the same position Villa were in last summer. McGinn had proven himself again, and was 1 year into a 4 year deal. He then got a new 5 year deal and villa have a bit more protection if they look to sell him in a year or 2.

I'd caveat that by saying I certainly wasn't upset or worried in 2016 that McGinn only had 3 years left on his contract. So I think it's hefty revisionism and hindsight being used to think we should have (and we very well may have tried).

Agree with most of that.

Think what also needs considered is the incentive renew for the player though. Villa were probably offering him and extra £25k a week. We might have been able to offer an extra £500 a week which wouldn’t be enough to entice him to sign, when it would make it more difficult to get out potentially.

[IWasThere2016]

I think Hibs business in the McGinn deal was pretty good to be honest. Would love to have made more on him since he is clearly outstanding, but Hibs structured a very good deal IMO.

Of course we did.

The player was in demand, could earn a life-changing fortune, had achieved the greatest win he could with Hibs, held the aces and told Hibs he wanted to leave.

We received the best we could at the time - and add-ons that will dramatically increase the fee.. as he will go for BIG bucks in the Summer IMHO.

[MWHIBBIES]

Impossible. Not all those players wanted to be tied down, especially not under Lennon.Maybe not, that is true.


It's ridiculous that nobody within the club thought of doing that.Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.


Who said we didn’t? I don’t think we typically publicise confidential contractual negotiations with employees.


IIRC Fyvie was offered one but dithered, Dylan was offered one but didn't get on with Lennon and McGinn out grew the club and wanted to test himself on a bigger stage.


McGinn was only one year into a 4 year deal, there was no need to change anything.

in 15/16 Dylan only started 24 games, reducing to 16 the following season. Although his ability was there to see, at that time nobody was bothered about tying him down to a longer deal.

Fyvie fannied about after being offered a new deal, looking for better elsewhere. Hibs couldn't wait for ever and moved on to someone else.

McGinn being one year into a 4 year deal doesn't stop us from offering a new deal, better wages, year extension. This is how Spurs have managed to keep players while Arsenal haven't.
I was bothered, Dylan was excellent, should've tied him down no doubt.
Fyvie dithered yes, we let him go and got guys like Milligan, on more money, older, less potential. Know who I'd prefer.

[Gloucester Hibs]

I think if you could’ve guaranteed me one more season of prime SJM firing on all cylinders with no distractions and then he leaves for nowt I’d have taken it. Proven quality for one more season vs unknown future benefits. Bird in the hand and aw that. I do realise this was never the actual choice we had.

[CapitalGreen]

McGinn being one year into a 4 year deal doesn't stop us from offering a new deal, better wages, year extension. This is how Spurs have managed to keep players while Arsenal haven't.

Who says we didn’t offer?

[MWHIBBIES]

Who says we didn’t offer?

A big name player for the Scottish cup holders? A Scotland international? I personally think something would've came out if we had.

[southern hibby]

We will get what we get irrespective of if its a good deal or bad deal. I am just happy he never went to Celtic as I think he deserves the best footballing career out of all the young talent I have watched coming through.

Watched Brown, Fletcher, Griffiths etc etc come through ( yes we did get him from St Mirren, but we helped develop him) and there is something absolutely special about him that makes it worth saying we helped develop that young lad which in turn my just make some young talent pick us in the future that may have passed us by.

so maybe just maybe we might get another young lad that wouldn’t have come to us but will because we might get praised for developing McGinn. Agents will notice and hopefully advise young talent that Hibs have got a great reputation for developing young talent, which in turn may just get us more money.


GGTTH

[CapitalGreen]

A big name player for the Scottish cup holders? A Scotland international? I personally think something would've came out if we had.

So you have no idea if we did or not then, got ya 👍

[marleyhib]

Is what it is, can't retrospectively change any deal.

Getting SJM from St mirren was probably the best bit of business we've ever done. If i knew it'd mean we won the SC i'd have remortgaged my house to help buy him.

[jgl07]

Maybe not, that is true.
McGinn being one year into a 4 year deal doesn't stop us from offering a new deal, better wages, year extension. This is how Spurs have managed to keep players while Arsenal haven't.

I think you have cited the wrong club there?

Spurs have totally failed to get players to sign new contracts.

Toby Alderweireld, Jan Vertongan, and most damaging of all, Christian Eriksen are all out of contract at the end of this season and could sign a precontract in January and walk for no fee in May.

Spurs were looking for £130 million for Eriksen. They will be lucky to get £30 now.

[lord bunberry]

There’s a lot of complete nonsense being talked on this thread. Saying we should’ve offered McGinn a bumper contract after we won the cup fails to recognise that we were still in the second tier of Scottish football. At that stage we simply couldn’t afford to be paying players a fortune, especially since we’d pushed the boat out to get a top class manager we did everything right regarding McGinn, we offered him a new deal, but he wanted to leave. When he left we got the best deal we could with a sell on fee that will make us millions.

[MWHIBBIES]

So you have no idea if we did or not then, got ya 👍Aye very good pal. I don't really think its crazy to say Hibs are a little reactive in offering new deals.


I think you have cited the wrong club there?

Spurs have totally failed to get players to sign new contracts.

Toby Alderweireld, Jan Vertongan, and most damaging of all, Christian Eriksen are all out of contract at the end of this season and could sign a precontract in January and walk for no fee in May.

Spurs were looking for £130 million for Eriksen. They will be lucky to get £30 now.

Yes, now they are struggling with that but all those guys are aging and probably past their very best (except Eriksen). Also all 3 have been underperforming. All Spurs other important players are on very long deals, especially the ones like Kane who are really worth the big money. Spurs have been one of the most proactive clubs in recent years with getting the players that will sign new deals to sign them.

[Smartie]

There’s a lot of complete nonsense being talked on this thread. Saying we should’ve offered McGinn a bumper contract after we won the cup fails to recognise that we were still in the second tier of Scottish football. At that stage we simply couldn’t afford to be paying players a fortune, especially since we’d pushed the boat out to get a top class manager we did everything right regarding McGinn, we offered him a new deal, but he wanted to leave. When he left we got the best deal we could with a sell on fee that will make us millions.

The football we got from McGinn alone would have been an outstanding return for what we shelled out initially.

The fact that we’ve already received a significant sum for him with the possibility (probability) of more to come makes it even better.

I can’t believe anyone would begrudge St Mirren their share or somehow accuse Hibs of not getting the best deal they could?

We’ve made enough mistakes and dodgy deals over the years without trying to turn this into one as well.

[danhibees1875]

The football we got from McGinn alone would have been an outstanding return for what we shelled out initially.

The fact that we’ve already received a significant sum for him with the possibility (probability) of more to come makes it even better.

I can’t believe anyone would begrudge St Mirren their share or somehow accuse Hibs of not getting the best deal they could?

We’ve made enough mistakes and dodgy deals over the years without trying to turn this into one as well.

Does it have to be so black and white?

I don't think we were robbed, but I think there are likely areas that we could have looked to have done better on. That's not being critical of Hibs or McGinn, or at least it isn't intending to be.

As you say, we have enough dodgy deals and mistakes in our history that we need to make sure we maximise return when we get the opportunity to do so.

[matty_f]

So a £3m player earns what? A £10m player earns what? . I'm sure Wiilie McKay stated same we had no right to demand the fees we wanted for Brown and Thomson as paying them "buttons".

It definitely comes into the valuation. The fee is essentially the buying club compensating the selling club for the player, so the value remaining on the contract is a consideration. Hence why you can sell a player with 3 years left on their contract for more than you can sell a player with 18 months left on their contract.

There are other factors as well, but if the fee went to tribunal, the wages are definitely taken into account.

[Aldo]

The football we got from McGinn alone would have been an outstanding return for what we shelled out initially.

The fact that we’ve already received a significant sum for him with the possibility (probability) of more to come makes it even better.

I can’t believe anyone would begrudge St Mirren their share or somehow accuse Hibs of not getting the best deal they could?

We’ve made enough mistakes and dodgy deals over the years without trying to turn this into one as well.

The bit about St Mirren is spot on.

We do things properly and it will benefit us in the future with other clubs.

The club at the time made the best deal possible to get SJM to ER and look at the benefits we have reaped. We didn’t rip anyone off (unlike our Edinburgh rivals) and if we try and sign another player from St Mirren they know what they are dealing with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Leith Dutch]

The football we got from McGinn alone would have been an outstanding return for what we shelled out initially.

The fact that we’ve already received a significant sum for him with the possibility (probability) of more to come makes it even better.

I can’t believe anyone would begrudge St Mirren their share or somehow accuse Hibs of not getting the best deal they could?

We’ve made enough mistakes and dodgy deals over the years without trying to turn this into one as well.

100%

He was a cracking player for us for 3 seasons where we won the Scottish Cup.
We got a sizeable transfer fee by our standards which, from the looks of it, will become easily our most profit on a player when Villa sell.
And we didn't sell to the OF.

Would have been brilliant if we'd tied him up longer and got either a couple more seasons or a couple more million out of him but we did well.