• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

50% sell on fee for Caulker

What would be really interesting is if Sherwood decides to try and buy Caulker back in Jan!!!! He IS one of Sherwood's youth players. And by my reckoning, we could bid what we paid for him, hell, even 2 mill more and get 50% off the second a deal is agreed! It's very feasible…
 
At first I was supporting it but now I think it was a bad move for us to sell Caulker, especially since his supposed replacements Kaboul and Chiriches also making many mistakes.
 
So if we bought him for £11m then it's all theirs but if we pay £11,000,000.01 then he effectively costs us £5.5m?

CASHBACK
 
That Mail story has clearly come from Tan's PR crisis managers and in many ways it makes shag-all sense.

Above all, were the people making the deals for Cardiff empowered by Tan and his associates to sign those deals or not? If they were, tough. If they weren't, then how in GHod's name were their signatures of any legal value on those contracts? Either they had authority to sign, or they didn't. That aspect of the story simply does not add up.

Plus, it's not a scandal when your £7.6m striker doesn't score. It's just the way it goes. I then see Medal described as Cardiff's best performer and that he cost £10m. Maybe an overpayment, but that's not bad for your linchpin midfielder. None of the rest of the fees look particularly outrageous. And the Caulker sell-on fee is 50% OVER £11m, which is likely to amount to shag-all.

Yes, all the wages & agents fees look outrageous, but that's been a very standard industry-wide problem for years, not just at Cardiff.
 
That Mail story has clearly come from Tan's PR crisis managers and in many ways it makes shag-all sense.

Above all, were the people making the deals for Cardiff empowered by Tan and his associates to sign those deals or not? If they were, tough. If they weren't, then how in GHod's name were their signatures of any legal value on those contracts? Either they had authority to sign, or they didn't. That aspect of the story simply does not add up.

Plus, it's not a scandal when your £7.6m striker doesn't score. It's just the way it goes. I then see Medal described as Cardiff's best performer and that he cost £10m. Maybe an overpayment, but that's not bad for your linchpin midfielder. None of the rest of the fees look particularly outrageous. And the Caulker sell-on fee is 50% OVER £11m, which is likely to amount to shag-all.

Yes, all the wages & agents fees look outrageous, but that's been a very standard industry-wide problem for years, not just at Cardiff.

I have never understood that blaming the Manager (Harry for example ;)) for agents fees etc or wages etc when its not the MANAGER that negotiates BUT the DoF or in our case I imagine Daniel Levy
 
I have never understood that blaming the Manager (Harry for example ;)) for agents fees etc or wages etc when its not the MANAGER that negotiates BUT the DoF or in our case I imagine Daniel Levy

Some managers tend do go to the same agent for most of their players (Fat Sam is a good example, Steve Bruce another) or prefer aging players already on high wages at their current club. That doesn't leave the chairman much of a choice unless they choose to say 'no', in which case they'll be blamed for not backing the manager. Most of a chairman's job is really lose/lose situations when it comes to fan opinion.
 
…in which case bid the extra 2 million for 11 million and get him at half-price! You understand the premise I'm suggesting right?

I am pretty sure it'll be 50% of only the amount over the 11m. So youre premise may well be flawed hmmmmmmmm. Would be silly for them to agree to that - like really silly. UNLESS we sold him for 5.5m therefore they would break even so to speak.
 
If football was more like that hand egg thing they play elsewhere I'd have Caulker in the offensive dead ball lineup.
 
I WASNT happy when Caulker was sold. I would like him back. We NEED someone like him. Dawson is looking past it, and Kaboom too injury prone. Verts//Chich would be a good complement to him.
 
Steff Steff :lol: if we bid £12m then we gett him for £11.5...

At the risk of looking very VERY thick here (**** it, let's be truthful, not hard for me!)…if we bid over 11 million, and have a bid accepted, and there is clause that says we get 50% of any future fee, wouldn't that effectively mean we get him for 5.5 or 6 mill?

I'm missing something aren't I? Good job I'm not an accountant…:(


N.B. AHHHHHHHHH…DHSF explained it. I get it.

What's so awful about that deal from a Cardiff POV?

But more importantly…I get it I get it I get it yay yay yay \o/
 
Caulker has found his level. He is no way a top four quality player. He still looks scared when he has the ball at his feet and when he hasn't, he's watching it and not the player. I've never been happier when we've sold a player.
 
At the risk of looking very VERY thick here (**** it, let's be truthful, not hard for me!)…if we bid over 11 million, and have a bid accepted, and there is clause that says we get 50% of any future fee, wouldn't that effectively mean we get him for 5.5 or 6 mill?

I'm missing something aren't I? Good job I'm not an accountant…:(


N.B. AHHHHHHHHH…DHSF explained it. I get it.

What's so awful about that deal from a Cardiff POV?

But more importantly…I get it I get it I get it yay yay yay \o/

Im assuming it would be 50% of any amount over and above the difference between what they paid and what they sell him for.

If it was a flat out 50% of the overall amount then that would be awful because unless they sold him for 18m (if we sold him for 9m) then they would essentially be not making any money on their asset. Then again his value in the accounts wont be 9m over the course of the years of his contract therefore accounting wise they would.

Anyways you do get i t- now you owe me a pint or two for the free lesson
 
Im assuming it would be 50% of any amount over and above the difference between what they paid and what they sell him for.

If it was a flat out 50% of the overall amount then that would be awful because unless they sold him for 18m (if we sold him for 9m) then they would essentially be not making any money on their asset. Then again his value in the accounts wont be 9m over the course of the years of his contract therefore accounting wise they would.

Anyways you do get i t- now you owe me a pint or two for the free lesson

…you didn't say of what though!
I might be ****e at mathematics, but I'm fookin' great at rhymin' semantics!
 
Back