Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Sell on clauses. What's a reasonable amount?

Bournemouth AddickBournemouth Addick
edited June 2011 in Other Football and Sports

Been following the on/off transfer saga down here of Cherrie's Jason Pearce to Peterboro. Biggest stumbling block seem to be that there is a whacking 50% sell on clause payable to Pompey. Okay, this was always likely to be 50% of any profit made but as he was signed on a free this amounts to the same thing.

Not quote sure what the norm is these days but 50% seems way too high to me and clearly someone, somewhere at AFCB made a cock up as this is now causing problems as Pompey are refusing to renegotiate. You could say welllplayed Pompey of course but if it doesn't got through and the player stays and runs down his contract they end up with 50% of nothing.

 

Comments

  • LargeAddickLargeAddick
    Bournemouth, the cock up as I see it is that the Bournemouth CHAIRMAN wasn't aware of the 50% sell-on until they opened Pearce's file after they had already accepted Posh's bid. What a way to run a football club !!  On a freebie I don't think 40% or 50% is excessive, on a normal deal you wouldn't expect more than 20/25 %. Can't see how they can complain as they thought the 500k bid was a good fee and now through their own error they have the strop. 
  • ISawLeaburnScoreISawLeaburnScore
    Agree with Large. It's not as if Portsmouth are a billionaire-backed club that can get all altruistic and waive the sell-on clause...

    If it's true they accepted the offer without releasing that there was a 50% sell-on that is completely ludicrous and you can see why a lot of AFCB fans have been getting a bit cheesed off with Eddie Mitchell throughout the Howe, Hollands, now Lovell/Wiggins/Pearce sagas.
  • kings hill addickkings hill addick
    He was signed on a free. Portsmouth probably didn't have to let him go on a free. We had a similar deal with Kyle Reid - signed on a ree with a sell on clause.
    I mean, they did sign him for nothing, and then sold him for a fee, why shouldn't the club that gave him away get a cut? If the choice was a 50% sell on clause or you don't get the player it's a no brainer. At least this was if he's a flop you paid nothing for him, and if he's a success you get half of the profit.

    I wish we'd signed Luke Varney and/or Andy Gray on a free with a significant percentage of any profit we made on the resale.
  • Bournemouth AddickBournemouth Addick

    No doubt that it's a joke that the club didn't know about this until the 11th hour, particularly since Pearce himself didn't even know and his contract's been extended twice since he got there as well. Laughable way to run a club agreed but it still seems amazing that Portsmouth were able to get this % through at the time of his transfer.

    Surely the fact it was a free transfer indicated that his selling club valued him at, well nothing really. Even so they weren't sure of their judgement enough not to stick a massive sell on fee just in case they were wrong. Wanting your cake and eating it springs to mind?

    Not Pompey's fault and shouldn't be expected to help out a rival club but I was still amazed that, even a club in such dire straights as AFCB were back then agreed to, what I consider to be, an excessively high figure. 

    If it were one of ours I suspect we'd be a bit peeved at losing half of the fee paid for a player that we'd made much better than when he arrived.

  • LargeAddickLargeAddick
    well Pompey must have thought he had something hence the sell-on fee. Can't see what Bournemouth can moan about. He's been a success and now they are making a 250k profit on a player they paid nothing for. If they hadn't agreed to the 50% sell-on then he would have gone elsewhere in the first place. Think Mitchell is kicking off due to the fact they have lost Hollands and will likely lose Pearce, Wiggins, Ings and Pugh and next season will be fighting relegation. He just wants to be seen as the good guy. Think it's all going to go tits up down there.
  • barstoolbarstool

    I have the inside on this, Pearce's agent didnt tell player or Bournmouth so it was something that had been signed with Portsmouth and the agent.....not sure he will end up at Peterboro as Burnley, Southampton and Leeds are in for him as well

  • MrOneLungMrOneLung

    Err - Bournemouth would have had to know about it.

    No way it could be in his contract otherwise.

  • Henry IrvingHenry Irving

    I have the inside on this, Pearce's agent didnt tell player or Bournmouth so it was something that had been signed with Portsmouth and the agent.....not sure he will end up at Peterboro as Burnley, Southampton and Leeds are in for him as well

    sorry, that can't be right.  The agent doesn't hold the registration of the player, the Club does so it must have been in the transfer contract.

    More likely the new owner didn't realise what the old board had agreed
  • Henry IrvingHenry Irving
    Opportunity for Charlton here.

    We tell Bournemouth will sign Pearce on a free transfer so no payment to Pompey.

    We also say we'll up our bid for Wiggins to the include what you would have made from the Pearce deal and a little bit more.

    Sorted.

    Only catches are I'm not sure we have that much dosh and that Steve Kavanagh s just too honest!
  • Bournemouth AddickBournemouth Addick
    Opportunity for Charlton here.

    We tell Bournemouth will sign Pearce on a free transfer so no payment to Pompey.

    We also say we'll up our bid for Wiggins to the include what you would have made from the Pearce deal and a little bit more.

    Sorted.

    Only catches are I'm not sure we have that much dosh and that Steve Kavanagh s just too honest!
    Nice one Henry, very West Ham like in it's deceitfulness. Now that would make me a happy man.
  • Sponsored links:


  • MortimericianMortimerician
    I don't think that there's a lot of point in a 50% clause as teams will invariably find a way of getting around it.  Usually by doing some kind of a swap.  4million pound Paul McShane anyone? 
    well Pompey must have thought he had something hence the sell-on fee.
    Not really, it's not got any real cost to them.  If you're allowing a player to go on a small or no fee you might as well take a sell on, particularly when the club you're moving the player to, can't afford to shell out.
  • oaksaddickoaksaddick
    Didn't we sign Semedo on a free transfer with a 50% sell on clause?
  • barstoolbarstool

    at the time he was signed Bournmouth were a lower league 2 club and in financial melt down and he was a young player from a premier league club on a free so it was overlooked

  • JohnBoyUKJohnBoyUK
    Opportunity for Charlton here.

    We tell Bournemouth will sign Pearce on a free transfer so no payment to Pompey.

    We also say we'll up our bid for Wiggins to the include what you would have made from the Pearce deal and a little bit more.

    Sorted.

    Only catches are I'm not sure we have that much dosh and that Steve Kavanagh s just too honest!
    Nice one Henry, very West Ham like in it's deceitfulness. Now that would make me a happy man.
    That was very similar to how Spurs got round the 15% sell on fee that would have been payable to Peterborough when Matthew Etherington joined West Ham as the make weight in the Fred Kanoute transfer many years ago.  I believe the 15% sell on fee would have been triggered on any transfer over and above £1.5m, so in the transfer we valued him at £500k and then increased Kanoute's value in the tranfer by the difference.  All to save in the region of £150k.  Barry Fry kicked up a massive stink about it at the time.  Dont know how it got resolved in the end. 
  • MuttleyCAFCMuttleyCAFC
    You can still only sell a player for what he is worth to the buying team. You cant say we want you to pay an extra 300K or whatever to compensate for the sell on clause.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!