Bent-The price and the stock exchange

[ShayLaB]

£8m for bassong according to ssn

£10 million for Bent according to SSN despite what it says on the OS.

They are probably guessing.

 

[Scutch]

£10 million for Bent according to SSN despite what it says on the OS.

They are probably guessing.

How very dare you claim that SSN are guessing. They've changed their music and fonts and everything. Innit.

 

[AFred]

£10 million for Bent according to SSN despite what it says on the OS.

They are probably guessing.

Bent's transfer is also stated as £10 million on Sunderland's official website.

 

[talkshowhost86]

Bent's transfer is also stated as £10 million on Sunderland's official website.

Yup and the stock exchange says up to £16.5m. So to sum up...not even Sunderland know what's going on.

 

[rebrab]

According to ValY, the fee for Bent was 10 million, but the extra 6.5m was his wages... Sneaky if so :shrug:

 

[CAS_GG]

5 August 2009
Tottenham Hotspur plc


Player Transfer


Tottenham Hotspur plc announces that agreement has been reached for the transfer of the player registration of Darren Bent to Sunderland AFC for a total consideration of up to £16.5 million.

 

[Stars]

Yup and the stock exchange says up to £16.5m. So to sum up...not even Sunderland know what's going on.

Logic suggests that it's £10m plus further potential add-ons of £6.5m. What I can't understand is why Sunderland say 10 and we say 16.5 - normally you'd expect the buying club to overstate the purchase (to appease the fans that they're spending big) and the selling club to understate it (to avoid giving the impression that they've got an excess of cash to spend, and that sellers can inflate their prices accordingly).

I believe the answer is that you need to report the truth to shareholders - and that's what we've done.

 

[pistolP]

Yup and the stock exchange says up to £16.5m. So to sum up...not even Sunderland know what's going on.

We should take Stock Exchange statement as gospel.( i think)

 

[Scutch]

According to ValY, the fee for Bent was 10 million, but the extra 6.5m was his wages... Sneaky if so :shrug:

Hmm. Now that is rather confusing.

 

[russjmills]

If a PLC make a public statement then you have to believe that it is 100% reliable

 

[meursault]

We should take Stock Exchange statement as gospel.( i think)

"up to £16.5M" could mean anything, it's waffle

 

[talkshowhost86]

Logic suggests that it's £10m plus further potential add-ons of £6.5m. What I can't understand is why Sunderland say 10 and we say 16.5 - normally you'd expect the buying club to overstate the purchase (to appease the fans that they're spending big) and the selling club to understate it (to avoid giving the impression that they've got an excess of cash to spend, and that sellers can inflate their prices accordingly).

I believe the answer is that you need to report the truth to shareholders - and that's what we've done.

I think 16.5 is a convenient figure for us though as it's exactly what we paid for him (allegedly). I think Levy is probably happy to show us that we've got our money back.

 

[mil1lion]

Well the Bent transfer is done so we dont need to talk about it here. There is a Bent thread :wink:

 

[AFred]

Yup and the stock exchange says up to £16.5m. So to sum up...not even Sunderland know what's going on.

I am guessing is all a posturing and "word playing" by both Spurs and Sunderland.

The initial fee is £10 million rising up to £16.5 if all conditions and targets are met.

By the time Bent hangs up his boots, his transfer fee will probably be between £10 and £16.5 million

 

[KingNick]

According to ValY, the fee for Bent was 10 million, but the extra 6.5m was his wages... Sneaky if so :shrug:

Then ValY is wrong.

Our Stock Market exchange says we could receive up to 16.5M so wages are not relevant.

 

[Stars]

"up to £16.5M" could mean anything, it's waffle

Disagree mate. What it means is that the maximum consideration (i.e. payment to us) under the deal is £16.5m. What we don't know is how much is guaranteed, and what the rest is dependent upon.

 

[teddy_sheringham_125]

According to ValY, the fee for Bent was 10 million, but the extra 6.5m was his wages... Sneaky if so :shrug:

Val didn't say that, he was taking the piss out of somebody who suggested it.

 

[ValenciaYid]

Rebrab...youve taken what i said out of context...i was actually ridiculing someone for believing thats how the deal was made up...there is no way that a sale price of any sort would be made up to include savings from future overheads of the asset...its ludicrous to think so...the deal was for a consideration of 16.5m...sunderland have paid 10m now and the residue I would suggest would be made up of a further 60-70% of fixed payments and maybe, just maybe the rest leveraged against goals, caps etc...

 

[rebrab]

Rebrab...youve taken what i said out of context...i was actually ridiculing someone for believing thats how the deal was made up...there is no way that a sale price of any sort would be made up to include savings from future overheads of the asset...its ludicrous to think so...the deal was for a consideration of 16.5m...sunderland have paid 10m now and the residue I would suggest would be made up of a further 60-70% of fixed payments and maybe, just maybe the rest leveraged against goals, caps etc...

Okay, sorry mate, got completely mixed up!

I thought it was bollocks but copied it across anyway because it was you who said it, and you are very accurate with fees/wages ect.

 

[BringBack_leGin]

According to ValY, the fee for Bent was 10 million, but the extra 6.5m was his wages... Sneaky if so :shrug:

No, that would be making an incorrect statement to the stock exchange because consideration only covers money received (or spent for incoming transfers). The FSA would not look kindly on that.

Val didn't say that, he was taking the piss out of somebody who suggested it.

That makes more sense.

So that could be 8m, rising to 12....13mil? who knows these days, I mean Bent's deal looks bad at 10m, but then we here this could rise to 16.5mil and we are all delirious! Same could be said about Crouch deal, we were all saying, not sure about Crouch, but then again we only paid 9mil for him, and will get about 14 for bent, so good deal!

BUT, maybe Crouch is really 9, rising to 15mil - I mean if Bent is 10m rising to 16.5mil, why is that so far fetched - so in essence there is really only a mil or so between the Crouch and Bent deals, still ok but not earth shattering. Guess we would need for ITK on Crouch deal to be sure.....

No, Crouch deal is not going to rise to 15m. If it was, then we would have had to declare up to 15m consideration to the stock exchange because of the percentage relationship between that and our balance sheet and turnover, just like we had to declare the Bent deal to the stock exchange yesterday. The fact that we declared nothing means that the figure is going to be below the threshold.