Will St. Mirren benefit if McGinn goes - did they have a sell-on clause? Given the way that John left them, I would be surprised if they did!
Results 1 to 29 of 29
Thread: McGinn sell-on clause
-
05-08-2018 06:07 PM #1
- Join Date
- May 2002
- Location
- Musselburgh
- Age
- 57
- Posts
- 4,836
McGinn sell-on clause
-
05-08-2018 06:07 PM #2This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
05-08-2018 06:08 PM #3
The figure widely quoted in the media is 30%, or a third - somewhere thereabouts. I thought he left on good terms?
-
05-08-2018 06:08 PM #4
- Join Date
- Mar 2017
- Age
- 47
- Posts
- 339
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
05-08-2018 06:08 PM #5
Noone really knows, but general consensus is they have a sell on clause which may be up to the 33% mark.
Mon the Hibs.
-
05-08-2018 06:10 PM #6
I just can’t see it being as high as 33%
Was part of the reason he left on the cheap not because Thompson launched a pole into his leg?!
-
05-08-2018 06:10 PM #7
Plenty reports suggesting they're due about a third. I hope we look for similar if we sell him on because his value could well soar.
-
05-08-2018 06:11 PM #8
The clause, imo has to be something like 33% of any fee above x"
When we signed him, he was worth maybe a couple of hundred k? Why would we agree to a deal where we would potentially be paying 7 figures for at that time, a 19/20 year old from St Mirren? Doesn't add up for me
-
05-08-2018 07:23 PM #9
- Join Date
- May 2002
- Location
- Musselburgh
- Age
- 57
- Posts
- 4,836
I thought John was going to take St. Mirren to court over the whole javelin in my leg situation but I may have that wrong. And 33%, that seems unduly excessive
-
05-08-2018 07:33 PM #10This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
-
05-08-2018 07:35 PM #11
The 33% has become such urban myth that Sportsound report it as fact after today's game when confirming that Hibs are waiting for a Ł3m bid.
-
05-08-2018 07:44 PM #12This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
05-08-2018 07:47 PM #13
Since it’s with the Saints, I think we should call it the ‘Santa Claus’. Could be a cracker for them or maybe cold turkey.
-
05-08-2018 07:48 PM #14This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
His actual words were "It's nowhere near 30%".
As I have said ad nauseam on here, 50 is nowhere near 30.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
-
05-08-2018 07:51 PM #15
- Join Date
- May 2012
- Posts
- 2,688
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
05-08-2018 07:52 PM #16This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
05-08-2018 07:54 PM #17
It was great deal for us at the time.
We might never have had him if we didn’t agree to the 30% or whatever the actual figure is.
-
05-08-2018 07:59 PM #18
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
- Posts
- 492
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
05-08-2018 07:59 PM #19This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
05-08-2018 08:02 PM #20
Never mind, if McGlinn stays for one more fantastic season, the ‘clause’ is in the ether and St Mirren can have 100% of sod all.
-
05-08-2018 08:25 PM #21
- Join Date
- Jan 2017
- Posts
- 4,115
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
05-08-2018 08:38 PM #22This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
-
05-08-2018 08:49 PM #23
- Join Date
- Jul 2018
- Posts
- 83
I can't get my head around the idea of sell-on clauses.
There are a lot of aspects of football finances I struggle to come to terms with if I'm honest.
Sell-on fees seem to be almost ubiquitous these days when a smallish club sells a player to a medium-sized club.
From the small club's perspective, I obviously get it. It's a chance of a free drink somewhere down the line. But why would a medium-sized club, such as us, agree to that?
I understand it's now convention and football tends to be a very conservative field. When it comes to innovation or any practice that goes against the consensus.
Medium-sized football clubs are not normally run on a sound fiscal footing. They encounter financial problems regularly. Signing contracts that contain a clause that sets-up the club to suffer somewhat arbitrary expense a few years later isn't sound business practice. Especially when that future expense brings no benefit to the club. Aye, weasel agents allowing😨, the medium-sized club will receive a much bigger fee for the player than the amount they'll have to pass-on to the smaller club. Sadly, they might be needing to sell him to get themselves out of financial difficulty. Having that sell-on clause might see them attempt to hold-out for a transfer fee above market value. That, in turn, can mean they can't or won't sell the player. That means an unhappy player.
Clearly none of that seems to apply in the SJM case, but it has often applied elsewhere.
As for add-ons for international caps, words fail me. At least a club has control over a transfer. It has no control over which players a national manager selects.
Promotion add-ons are scarcely any more sensible.
Nor are appearance-based add-ons.
Three or four years ago, I bumped into a player I used to know. It was almost 30 years since I'd seen him. I approached him hesitantly, as I was far from sure it was him. He was a long way from the pro club he'd played for and not exactly close to home either. When I'd known him, he was a young semi-pro. Scouts were after him. He made a huge leap to sign for a big club. They were in financial trouble at the time. Their situation got worse. His transfer contract contained a sell-on clause and an appearance clause. He didn't nail down a 1st team place, but he was in and out of the team and, as a young fish in a big pond, he was satisfied with his progress. One game before the appearance-based add-on was due to kick-in, he mysteriously dropped down the pecking order. He didn't play another game. Lawyers eventually became involved.
He was stuck in the wilderness for a while. Never played full-time pro again. He did alright though. Went back semi-pro at a club that paid a weekly wage that many unskilled workers wouldn't get. Got a reasonable sales job. Did OK for himself.
Just saying though.
Sell-ons don't make much overall business sense.Last edited by EricStoner; 05-08-2018 at 08:56 PM.
-
05-08-2018 09:02 PM #24This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
05-08-2018 09:09 PM #25
There is almost nothing that can happen from now on to take away from the fact that whatever the deal was to get McGinn from St Mirren, it was one of the best deals in our history.
-
06-08-2018 10:41 AM #26
- Join Date
- Jul 2012
- Location
- Edinburgh
- Age
- 77
- Posts
- 2,343
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
06-08-2018 10:46 AM #27
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Posts
- 10,644
Whether we get a fortune or he see out his contract and leaves for free SJM has been one of the best signings made in the time I have been watching Hibs. 100% effort, improvement every season, success, temperament. We have had great value on our investment and all that can happen now is it was a decent win or a big win. In many ways I hop he sees out his contract as it could be a great season and he is the fulcrum to our team.
-
06-08-2018 10:48 AM #28
The part I don't understand is why do St Mirren get a development fee and a large sell on clause? Surely the development fee would suffice?
-
06-08-2018 01:03 PM #29
- Join Date
- Jul 2012
- Location
- Edinburgh
- Age
- 77
- Posts
- 2,343
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Please read earlier posts - this was a way for us to avoid a big development/asking price, so his fee from St Mirren to us will really be paid by whoever buys SJM from us (if anybody does that is).
Log in to remove the advert |
Bookmarks