Does GFC still have a sell-on fee | Vital Football

Does GFC still have a sell-on fee

wxgill said:
For Paulo Gazzaniga?

https://tothelaneandback.com/2021/0...to-offers-for-danny-rose-and-paulo-gazzaniga/
Click to expand...
Assuming youre not taking the piss, and because weve not talked about it for a while..... some people say no....some say yes.

I am in the 'yes potentially there could be' camp. But i dont think anyone knows for sure. I dont know has Scally ever confirmed one way or another?

If Southampton sold him to spurs with a future profit clause (i.e. spurs have to pay Southampton a percentage of any profit), then if spurs do indeed end up selling him on at a profit to what they bought him from Southampton for originally, it means they will have to pay southampton said percentage of profit. Therefore it will in turn 'increase' the 'profit' which Southampton have made on on the transfer, a percentage of which will need to be paid to gfc as the deal we did with Southampton also included a clause that said we are entitled to a percentage of any profit made when they sell him.

Thats what I think. However some believe the percentage we get is only from the original fee, not future fees they receive, and therefore we wont be entitled to any future fee Southampton receive (if they do also have a future percentage clause). I don't think this could be true though, there cannot be that restriction to the clause...because that would make the clause very very easy for any club to avoid triggering. Southampton could have simply sold him to spurs for a nominal initial fee, with a higher (more true) future fee. According to the logic above, we wouldn't be entitled to that future fee. Theres no way the clause could be that easily got around, so i believe it must be false that the %age clause applies only to the initial fee.

Someone mentioned at the time that the FA review each transfer and apparently would not allow such a transfer. But i also dont believe this is true either. I dont believe the FA reviews transfers for 'fairness'. They would not opine on whether a deal can be based on a smaller inital fee with higher sell on clauses etc. That is entirely up to the two clubs involved. I dont believe the FA have these kind of restrictions on how transfers must be made up.

Of course theres a lot of ifs, buts and maybes though. Did the saints include a future profit fee in their sale to spurs? Will he go for a sum that actually provides profit and causes spurs to owe saints more?

I wont be holding my breath for the money. Dack though...starting to play again. Let's hope he signs a new deal, and goes in a years time when he has a solid goal breaking season this year and next. Worst case scenario, he doesnt sign, and goes to another club for free. That would not be good.
 
alphabet_king said:
Assuming youre not taking the piss, and because weve not talked about it for a while..... some people say no....some say yes.

I am in the 'yes potentially there could be' camp. But i dont think anyone knows for sure. I dont know has Scally ever confirmed one way or another?

If Southampton sold him to spurs with a future profit clause (i.e. spurs have to pay Southampton a percentage of any profit), then if spurs do indeed end up selling him on at a profit to what they bought him from Southampton for originally, it means they will have to pay southampton said percentage of profit. Therefore it will in turn 'increase' the 'profit' which Southampton have made on on the transfer, a percentage of which will need to be paid to gfc as the deal we did with Southampton also included a clause that said we are entitled to a percentage of any profit made when they sell him.

Thats what I think. However some believe the percentage we get is only from the original fee, not future fees they receive, and therefore we wont be entitled to any future fee Southampton receive (if they do also have a future percentage clause). I don't think this could be true though, there cannot be that restriction to the clause...because that would make the clause very very easy for any club to avoid triggering. Southampton could have simply sold him to spurs for a nominal initial fee, with a higher (more true) future fee. According to the logic above, we wouldn't be entitled to that future fee. Theres no way the clause could be that easily got around, so i believe it must be false that the %age clause applies only to the initial fee.

Someone mentioned at the time that the FA review each transfer and apparently would not allow such a transfer. But i also dont believe this is true either. I dont believe the FA reviews transfers for 'fairness'. They would not opine on whether a deal can be based on a smaller inital fee with higher sell on clauses etc. That is entirely up to the two clubs involved. I dont believe the FA have these kind of restrictions on how transfers must be made up.

Of course theres a lot of ifs, buts and maybes though. Did the saints include a future profit fee in their sale to spurs? Will he go for a sum that actually provides profit and causes spurs to owe saints more?

I wont be holding my breath for the money. Dack though...starting to play again. Let's hope he signs a new deal, and goes in a years time when he has a solid goal breaking season this year and next. Worst case scenario, he doesnt sign, and goes to another club for free. That would not be good.
Click to expand...

Dack signed a new contract last week!
 
If Gazzaniga moves to a foreign club, we would get a small amount of the fee (and when I say small I mean 1%ish) as a solidarity payment. Hardly likely to be much but might pay the wage bill for a week.
 
townendgill said:
If Gazzaniga moves to a foreign club, we would get a small amount of the fee (and when I say small I mean 1%ish) as a solidarity payment. Hardly likely to be much but might pay the wage bill for a week.
Click to expand...
Eh? Why? How? Never heard this particular rumour before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.