Luke Freeman to Blackburn £4m

PapaBurgundy said:
We have any sell on clauses??
Click to expand...

I expect there was a healthy sell on percentage when he left to join Arsenal - but he later signed for Stevenage, Bristol city and QPR.

If all transfers included a 20% of any profit clause we could get as much as £32k :grinning:

I doubt Arsenal bothered to be honest.
 
DurhamGills said:
Sell on clause only applies to first move - we will get sweet FA
Click to expand...
On what basis does it only apply to the first move? How do you know that? As far as i read it I see it as that we receive x % of any profit from a future transfer. If that profit comes in instalments, or via add one (I.e. sell on clauses) then that's still a profit from the transfer regardless of whether it was the first transfer or not. As far as i could see they are still liable to pay gfc for that.
 
alphabet_king said:
On what basis does it only apply to the first move? How do you know that? As far as i read it I see it as that we receive x % of any profit from a future transfer. If that profit comes in instalments, or via add one (I.e. sell on clauses) then that's still a profit from the transfer regardless of whether it was the first transfer or not. As far as i could see they are still liable to pay gfc for that.
Click to expand...

Who are "they"?

We would only have had a signed contract with Arsenal regarding the transfer, in which a sell on clause was presumably included and Arsenal would have met that obligation when they sold him on.

QPR have decided to transfer Freeman to Blackburn. Arsenal no longer have a contract with Freeman and therefore could have had no influence over whether he was to be sold or not. Neither would they receive any more money due to his intervening transfers (doubt they made a profit in selling to Stevenage anyway). Neither Stevenage, Bristol City, QPR or Blackburn are party to any contract with us regarding the player.

So who exactly is contractually obliged to pay us anything?
 
Last edited:
It might be true in Luke Freeman's case, although it is not necessarily true in ALL cases. I would think, given the number of other clubs he has transferred to, that we would have dropped out much earlier and doubt that we would have had a 'whatever ' future transfer clause included.
 
GillsBluenose said:
Who are "they"?

We would only have had a signed contract with Arsenal regarding the transfer, in which a sell on clause was presumably included and Arsenal would have met that obligation when they sold him on.

QPR have decided to transfer Freeman to Blackburn. Arsenal no longer have a contract with Freeman and therefore could have had no influence over whether he was to be sold or not. Neither would they receive any more money due to his intervening transfers (doubt they made a profit in selling to Stevenage anyway). Neither QPR or Blackburn are party to any contract with us regarding the player.

So who exactly is obliged to pay us anything?
Click to expand...
I'm certainly not commenting on the like Freeman case specifically. Durham posted a general comment about the limitations on all future transfer fee clauses. I was wondering how he knew this.

Let's put it this way. If as part of the John Egan sale Brentford included a clause saying that they owed 20% of future profits to them, then if he were to be sold for a profit in the future, then sheff Utd would pay 20% of any profits to Brentford. We would then get 20% of that 20% from Brentford once they receive it from Sheff Utd as it's still profit they are making from the transfer regardless of when they make it.

The same can be said for Freeman in principle. If arsenal did somehow make profit through this move, and we had a sell on clauses (I think we did), then we would be owed x% of that.

But clearly that relies upon arsenal making any money from it also. Which i doubt. he's been through many clubs as nibbles explains, and no one knows at all if there are sell on clauses based on future profits in every single transfer he's made since - as would need to be the case. Probably not, its very unlikely, and as nibbles indicates it would be peanuts after each club has taken their 20% even if the unlikely was true.
 
Last edited:
I dont recall us getting any sell returns from 2nd sales for any player and I cant see evidence of any other club getting any return on a 2nd or subsequent sale.
 
DurhamGills said:
I dont recall us getting any sell returns from 2nd sales for any player and I cant see evidence of any other club getting any return on a 2nd or subsequent sale.
Click to expand...

Im not even sure if the scenario has arisen where it could have happened. For this to have happened the player would have had to have had 2 more transfers AFTER leaving us, both for increasing amounts, as well as the transfer between the immediate two clubs after us having a 'percentage of profits clause' included in them also. How many of our players have even been involved in that?
 
On Sky Transfer news it says that QPR have turned down a 4million bid for Freeman from Blackburn and Middlesbrough are also interested in him
 
alphabet_king said:
Im not even sure if the scenario has arisen where it could have happened. For this to have happened the player would have had to have had 2 more transfers AFTER leaving us, both for increasing amounts, as well as the transfer between the immediate two clubs after us having a 'percentage of profits clause' included in them also. How many of our players have even been involved in that?
Click to expand...

I thought maybe Jarvis but I cannot find where any club has - not just us.
 
alphabet_king said:
Im not even sure if the scenario has arisen where it could have happened. For this to have happened the player would have had to have had 2 more transfers AFTER leaving us, both for increasing amounts, as well as the transfer between the immediate two clubs after us having a 'percentage of profits clause' included in them also. How many of our players have even been involved in that?
Click to expand...

If indeed in was for ANY future profit we'd have cashed in big style on Akinbiyi, sadly it wasn't. (Moved from us to Bristol city for £1.2m, then from Bristol city to Wolves for £3.5m, then from Wolves to Leicester for £5.5m).

Durham is correct,it is only usually profit made buy the selling of the buying club to his PREVIOUS club (not clubs) on that individual move. It is a profit on the transfer of a players registration, not past transfer registrations.
 
Captainreblue said:
Durham is correct,it is only usually profit made buy the selling of the buying club to his PREVIOUS club (not clubs) on that individual move. It is a profit on the transfer of a players registration, not past transfer registrations.
Click to expand...
Durham is only correct if it is indeed usual but I'm sure there are a variety of deals, including cash/player exchange and so on.
 
Captainreblue said:
If indeed in was for ANY future profit we'd have cashed in big style on Akinbiyi, sadly it wasn't. (Moved from us to Bristol city for £1.2m, then from Bristol city to Wolves for £3.5m, then from Wolves to Leicester for £5.5m).

Durham is correct,it is only usually profit made buy the selling of the buying club to his PREVIOUS club (not clubs) on that individual move. It is a profit on the transfer of a players registration, not past transfer registrations.
Click to expand...

Captainredblue, the point about this is that I'm only saying it occurs if the selling club Bristol city included a future sell on clauses in their contract with wolves, and if we included the clause also. If they didn't then there would be no additional funds due to gfc. Say all the clubs did though, and say it was 20% between all clubs, then when ade went to Leicester, then wolves would owe bristol city the 20% of their profit on the transfer. This would then be added to the amount bristol city have already made in profit and therefore they would owe gfc 20% of this additional profit they've made here.

Im not really understand what youre trying to say there below though. A % profit sell on clause is just the same as other sell on clauses.

Say the sheff utd deal for egan was 4m plus 4m if they get I promoted. Would we be entitled to 20% of the additional 4m Brentford receive if they were promoted? Why would that not be considered profit Brentford made on their transfer? If this was the case wouldn't Brentford just arrange a deal with them which was a nominal transfer fee up front with a 4m after 1 champioship game. Thereby meaning they don't have to pay gfc anything. Don't think that would happen would it.
 
Last edited:
I suspect that Durham is correct. We have seen reports of sell-on clauses being for 'any profit made' but as we all know legal contracts are rarely so simple and it is very likely that football league clubs will use variations of a standard contract. I imagine there will be all kinds of qualifying caveats eating away at the 'any profit'.
 
Your scenario of Sheff Utd is a good point. It would depend if that promotion 20% was included as part of the initial transfer deal, but as you've worded it yes, though normally it is worded as any future transfer profit, the payment for achieving promotion would normally be an extra individual 'add on', as part of the overall deal, not as part of just the transfer fee.

In reality there are normally individual clauses of additional payments inserted into transfers like Egans additional payments after 25, 50, 75 appearances (or whatever the number was) and when Ryan Bertrand went to Chelsea it was additional payments for first team appearances and England call ups etc.

Normally the sell on profit normally relates to a transfer fee alone.

Us and Bristol City both received additional payments from Akinbiyi moving on.
 
nibbles said:
I suspect that Durham is correct. We have seen reports of sell-on clauses being for 'any profit made' but as we all know legal contracts are rarely so simple and it is very likely that football league clubs will use variations of a standard contract. I imagine there will be all kinds of qualifying caveats eating away at the 'any profit'.
Click to expand...

Durham was very clear in what he said. He didnt say some cotracts will be different. He said categorically the %age clauses dont include future fees. If durham is correct and future add ons and fees are not considered then, what stopped Brentford selling him for £1 with £4m in add ons to be paid after one league game, and save having to pay us anything?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.