(NHC) BBC Gossip Column

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Arsenal, Liverpool and Manchester United are all ready to make bids for 21-year-old Brentford and Scotland full-back Aaron Hickey, who would cost upwards of £60m. (Sunday Mirror)

That's unfortunate.

[Bostonhibby]

Arsenal, Liverpool and Manchester United are all ready to make bids for 21-year-old Brentford and Scotland full-back Aaron Hickey, who would cost upwards of £60m. (Sunday Mirror)

That's unfortunate.They'll be dancing in the Gorgie plaza/piazza/b&q patio pack in anticipation of their sell on fee negotiated by their A list financial geniuses who run their club

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[MagicSwirlingShip]

Arsenal, Liverpool and Manchester United are all ready to make bids for 21-year-old Brentford and Scotland full-back Aaron Hickey, who would cost upwards of £60m. (Sunday Mirror)

That's unfortunate.

Sounds like a slow news day

[hibby rae]

Sounds like a slow news day

At least that's relevant to Scotland.

The amount of updates on Jota in Saudi Arabia in that gossip column is unreal

[JohnM1875]

Arsenal, Liverpool and Manchester United are all ready to make bids for 21-year-old Brentford and Scotland full-back Aaron Hickey, who would cost upwards of £60m. (Sunday Mirror)

That's unfortunate.

Could be wrong. But did they not do something stupid with their sell on fee for Hickey and aren't likely to get much more money from future sales?

Could well be nonsense mind you.

[Eyrie]

Could be wrong. But did they not do something stupid with their sell on fee for Hickey and aren't likely to get much more money from future sales?

Could well be nonsense mind you.

Story was they asked for £100k to replace a sell on clause.

It's what big teams do.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Could be wrong. But did they not do something stupid with their sell on fee for Hickey and aren't likely to get much more money from future sales?

Could well be nonsense mind you.

Aye, I missed out the smiley in the OP. I wouldn't have posted it if I thought that they were going to benefit from that size of a fee.

[scm70nyd1973]

Aye, I missed out the smiley in the OP. I wouldn't have posted it if I thought that they were going to benefit from that size of a fee.

Did they need the £100,000 to pay for the added cost due to forgetting to order the seats for the stand in time - if so it would definitely destroy my weekend 🤭

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Did they need the £100,000 to pay for the added cost due to forgetting to order the seats for the stand in time - if so it would definitely destroy my weekend 🤭

Who cares? If it comes to pass it's faf! 🤭

[007]

Could be wrong. But did they not do something stupid with their sell on fee for Hickey and aren't likely to get much more money from future sales?

Could well be nonsense mind you.

Report from Baz Anderson last year said they'd sold him for less than a million and the sell-on clause was a fixed six figure sum.

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hearts/details-of-hearts-sell-on-fee-in-ps14m-aaron-hickey-deal-with-brentford-set-to-sign-bologna-defender-3757466

[lyonhibs]

If you negotiate a % sell on fee (or, lol a fixed sum) when selling a player to club A, that will only apply when that club sells to club B, not for any and all subsequent transfers surely?!?

[Kato]

If you negotiate a % sell on fee (or, lol a fixed sum) when selling a player to club A, that will only apply when that club sells to club B, not for any and all subsequent transfers surely?!?Depends what you write into a contract. Hibs were paid for multiple transfers of Fletcher.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Michael]

Didn't realise he was only 21, still potential to improve a fair bit (which would be a large aspect of that value).

[Since90+2]

He's a quality player without a doubt. Not sure he's Arsenal or Liverpool right enough but certainly a very good, I'm not sure he has the pace to play at the absolute top level.

[CapitalGreen]

Aye, I missed out the smiley in the OP. I wouldn't have posted it if I thought that they were going to benefit from that size of a fee.

If he’s sold for £60m they’ll get somewhere between £500k-£1m in FIFA solidarity payments.

[Centre Hawf]

If you negotiate a % sell on fee (or, lol a fixed sum) when selling a player to club A, that will only apply when that club sells to club B, not for any and all subsequent transfers surely?!?

It's all dependent on the actual agreements as the transfers happen as someone else stated. But it can trickle down over the course of different transfers if it's straight forward sell on fee.

[HoboHarry]

It's all dependent on the actual agreements as the transfers happen as someone else stated. But it can trickle down over the course of different transfers if it's straight forward sell on fee.I'm yet to understand how this could possibly be legally enforceable. Who pays the sell on % three transfers down the line?

[LaMotta]

I'm yet to understand how this could possibly be legally enforceable. Who pays the sell on % three transfers down the line?

Example:

The original selling club (Club A) write in the contract that they will take 10% of any future profit from the buying club (Club B) makes from the player.

Club B then sell them to Club C for a 10million profit so Club A gets £1m. Club B also agree a clause that they will receive 10% of any profit that Club C makes on the player.

Club C sells to Club D for £50 Million Profit. Club B Gets £5m and Club A gets 10% of that - so £500k. Etc Etc

[BoomtownHibees]

I'm yet to understand how this could possibly be legally enforceable. Who pays the sell on % three transfers down the line?

Team A’s agreement will be with Team B. So Team A sell a player to Team B with an agreement that Team B will pay Team A a certain % of profit Team B make on any future transfer.

When Team B sell to Team C, Team A then receive that agreed %. If, as part of that transfer, Team B agree to a sell on clause with Team C, they will then receive the agreed % when the player is sold to Team D.

If there is further profit due to Team B through that transfer, this still means that Team A are entitled to the agreed % in the first transfer.

Hope that makes some sort of sense

[HoboHarry]

Team A’s agreement will be with Team B. So Team A sell a player to Team B with an agreement that Team B will pay Team A a certain % of profit Team B make on any future transfer.

When Team B sell to Team C, Team A then receive that agreed %. If, as part of that transfer, Team B agree to a sell on clause with Team C, they will then receive the agreed % when the player is sold to Team D.

If there is further profit due to Team B through that transfer, this still means that Team A are entitled to the agreed % in the first transfer.

Hope that makes some sort of sense
If that was true and legally enforceable then every transfer in the last 30 years (maybe more) would have had that clause in it. I'd love to hear a genuine contracts lawyer input into that suggestion.

[BoomtownHibees]

If that was true and legally enforceable then every transfer in the last 30 years (maybe more) would have had that clause in it. I'd love to hear a genuine contracts lawyer input into that suggestion.

It is true, hence why we continued to get profit from the likes of Fletcher moving between various teams.

The buying team don’t have to agree to have that clause in the contract

[Mibbes Aye]

It is true, hence why we continued to get profit from the likes of Fletcher moving between various teams.

The buying team don’t have to agree to have that clause in the contract

:agree:

And there is no guarantee of recurring payments, definitely not that they will hold their value- players see out their contracts, they get injured, their form disappears.

And one would imagine that the buying club looks for something off the asking price if it is committing to giving club A a future payment. But for some/many club As, it will be more desirable to have the money now, without the complication of maybes and might bes. It's short-term thinking but it carries less risk. For many selling clubs it is a case of balancing the books today rather than gaining irregular diminishing returns over unspecified future years.

For someone like Fletcher it was an ideal apptoach - a player who was technically good enough to move to a market where lots of clubs regularly bought and sold players of around the same level.

[LaMotta]

If that was true and legally enforceable then every transfer in the last 30 years (maybe more) would have had that clause in it. I'd love to hear a genuine contracts lawyer input into that suggestion.

Of course its legally enforceable, as long as both clubs who buy and sell a player keep agreeing to sell on clauses.

It won't always happen though, but it is a clause that can make sense for both clubs - if the player is a success then they both win out of it.

[MWHIBBIES]

Links with Arsenal are boring and lazy. Timber, White, Tomiyasu, Zinchenko. They aren't spending 60 beans on a fullback.

United haven't made a good signing in about 3 years, so he'd fit in there.

Liverpool are smarter than that too.

[the_ginger_hibee]

If he’s sold for £60m they’ll get somewhere between £500k-£1m in FIFA solidarity payments.

Is it as much as that? I'm not sure, but I know he spent just as much time being developed at Celtic as he did at Hearts. Celtic also got nearly half of the transfer fee for his move to Bologna.

[jacomo]

Story was they asked for £100k to replace a sell on clause.

It's what big teams do.


:faf: