Player Watch Player Watch: Giovani Lo Celso

[Japhet]

I always assumed it is the whole price.

So, as a scenario, you pay 50m for a player with a 20% sell on clause. If you then sell that player for 60m, the sell on clause costs you 12m which means you're 2m out of pocket. Doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[Sandro30]

So, as a scenario, you pay 50m for a player with a 20% sell on clause. If you then sell that player for 60m, the sell on clause costs you 12m which means you're 2m out of pocket. Doesn't make much sense to me.

Clauses are normally based on the profit rather than the whole fee.

 

[Lilbaz]

So, as a scenario, you pay 50m for a player with a 20% sell on clause. If you then sell that player for 60m, the sell on clause costs you 12m which means you're 2m out of pocket. Doesn't make much sense to me.

Clubs make loses on players all the time. He was bout for €22m. Both betis and psg suspected he could be sold for far more than that.

 

[spids]

So, as a scenario, you pay 50m for a player with a 20% sell on clause. If you then sell that player for 60m, the sell on clause costs you 12m which means you're 2m out of pocket. Doesn't make much sense to me.

You’ve just explained why players with sell on clauses cost more money and are difficult to agree fees for. It’s why Palace want stupid money for Zaha.

 

[weststandyid]

So tough on them, if you end up paying to sell a player then don't sell but the way it works in these situations is that they get the player at a knock down fee in the first place, without the sell on clause they'd have had to pay twice as much. That said I don't know for certain which it is but I still think it is the whole fee.

it's on profit.

 

[Japhet]

You’ve just explained why players with sell on clauses cost more money and are difficult to agree fees for. It’s why Palace want stupid money for Zaha.

So you reckon it's a % of the whole fee. Plenty of divided opinions on this - would be good to have some proper insight from someone who knows how it works.

 

[nailsy]

wtf has this thread turnt into? dele's value, winks isn't a dm. sissokos best position, who's going to be dropped. ffs, not been in the thread for a day, seen it had jumped 12 pages, assumed there was news and its just utter bullshit as per! take it the player threads!

We had moved on, and we’re back to Lo Celso, now you’re part of the problem!

Is it just me or is SC's Padre questioning The Gospel According to Matthew?

 

[ToDarrenIsToDo]

So, as a scenario, you pay 50m for a player with a 20% sell on clause. If you then sell that player for 60m, the sell on clause costs you 12m which means you're 2m out of pocket. Doesn't make much sense to me.

Either way if it's based on price or profit a team can make a profit or a loss from the cost minus sell on clause if they hit good or bad with their signing.

If as you said a player is signed for £50m + 20% of any sell on clause but sell him for only £60m meaning that is an extra £2m they lose on the £12m owed to the previous club it just means the player didn't work out as well as they envisaged perhaps or that they weren't in a position to negotiate a better deal.

Take away the sell on clause. If you buy a player for £50m and sell him for £48m you still lose £2m so in theory you can argue this all day long and ask what's the point in buying a player etc. If a player is signed for X and sold for substantially more it's a good deal, if he's signed and sold for less or leaves on a free it can be seen as a poor deal in theory.

Player sales constantly end in a potential profit or a loss for the selling team, that's just the way it goes regardless of if the sell on % is based on price or profit. I'm guessing the selling club would rather it be based on profit and the previous club would rather it be based on total fee which ultimately leads to another thing for both teams to negotiate when discussing terms etc.

 

[Timberwolf]

It wasn’t
it wasn’t just Eriksen we relied upon Dele Alli Kane Son and later Moura when fit Lamela . Eriksen was is important but we are far from being a one man team... ps I know you’re not claiming that to be the case.

Yeah you're right - I should've worded it differently. What I meant to say was we relied almost exclusively on Eriksen for a certain type of creativity.

Son, Moura, and Alli are all more effective either finishing off moves, creating for themselves, or playing on the break. Eriksen on the other hand has the technical ability and imagination to create from deep, tie moves together and put in crosses to break down stubborn defences. Kane, Lamela and Trips are also capable of this but are limited by either their position (Kane/Trips) form (Trips) or consistency/injury (Lamela).

Eriksen has, therefore, been uniquely important to our build up play and creativity. Hence it's vitally important that we not only replace him with Lo Celso, but also spread the burden of creativity with other signings (Ndombele, Ceballos, etc) so we aren't so reliant on one player to provide in that manner.

 

[worcestersauce]

So, as a scenario, you pay 50m for a player with a 20% sell on clause. If you then sell that player for 60m, the sell on clause costs you 12m which means you're 2m out of pocket. Doesn't make much sense to me.

I take your point but in reality a club wouldn't have paid £50 m for a player that would one day be worth £60 million and accept a sell on clause, the reality is that they pay £25 million and accept a sell on clause or they pay £50 million and don't.
I'm perfectly happy for someone to confirm that I'm wrong on which part of the fee it is calculated on but I'm not convinced yet.
In this case I'm pretty certain PSG knew Real Betis were going to sell him quickly but I don't suppose they could do anything about it.

 

[mike_l]

So tough on them, if you end up paying to sell a player then don't sell but the way it works in these situations is that they get the player at a knock down fee in the first place, without the sell on clause they'd have had to pay twice as much. That said I don't know for certain which it is but I still think it is the whole fee.

Sort of thus, it can be either whole fee or profit, depends on what the clubs agree on.

it's on profit.

It is if that's what both clubs agreed on.

So you reckon it's a % of the whole fee. Plenty of divided opinions on this - would be good to have some proper insight from someone who knows how it works.

It works however the two clubs agree, there can be all kinds of weird clauses, like the one where he gets a pay rise if a certain bid is rejected, or Toby's weird release fee for a set duration, there is no industry standard.

 

[yido_number1]

Sort of thus, it can be either whole fee or profit, depends on what the clubs agree on.


It is if that's what both clubs agreed on.

It works however the two clubs agree, there can be all kinds of weird clauses, like the one where he gets a pay rise if a certain bid is rejected, or Toby's weird release fee for a set duration, there is no industry standard.

Totally agree with this. There will be no hard and fast. There will be a standard contract and then as the financials get larger their will be a load of innovative ideas to make the sale or purchase more favourable.

 

[Jospur]

Odds on Lo Celso joining Spurs have just slipped from 1/3 to 2/5...

 

[dirtyh]

Odds on Lo Celso joining Spurs have just slipped from 1/3 to 2/5...

come on then, who put the 50p on?

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

So you reckon it's a % of the whole fee. Plenty of divided opinions on this - would be good to have some proper insight from someone who knows how it works.

Sell on clauses can be based on anything you like. It is what is agreed at the time of sale. However, in my experience it is almost always based on sale price in excess of purchase price (what most here would refer to as "profit", though that's not strictly true in accounting or taxation terms).

 

[Lilbaz]

Sell on clauses can be based on anything you like. It is what is agreed at the time of sale. However, in my experience it is almost always based on sale price in excess of purchase price (what most here would refer to as "profit", though that's not strictly true in accounting or taxation terms).

Angel di maria, david bentley, cesc fabregas, sterling all were percentages of the total fee.

 

[guiltyparty]

Odds on Lo Celso joining Spurs have just slipped from 1/3 to 2/5...

Slipped in betting means it’s gone out, not in.

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

Angel di maria, david bentley, cesc fabregas, sterling all were percentages of the total fee.

I didn't say always, and obviously there are exceptions - it all depends on how desperate the buying club are.

 

[SpursSince1980]

This really has gone quiet. Hopefully it's just being kept under wraps while they negotiate. Would be excellent if we could get him in prior to our pre-season trip. Give Poch at least a few weeks to work with him, get the lad integrated with the team, and time to get settled before the season gets under way.

 

[Primativ]

It’s all gone quiet the last few days. Annoying!