Don't need to ask Wilsden, I was on the Board at the time of the deal. Simon and Richard are correct.
Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(
This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running.
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.
Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(
This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running.
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.
-
Welcome to Bantam Talk
Why not register for an account?Not only can you then get fully involved in the community but you also get fewer ads
-
Dismiss Notice
Premium Membership now Available
Please see this thread for more details
Most liked posts in thread: Windfalls
Page 1 of 16
-
-
I was one of the fist in line to bash the owners the last 2 years but I'm not getting the criticism that Rupp is getting here - there's been about 4 local press articles to tell us that Rupp is committed to bank rolling a competitive league 2 budget of 2.5 million pounds. that is a good budget. it's also been said time and again that this is not dependent on McBurnie/Wyke/AN other bonuses/add ons - and that he is putting the money in regardless.
I don't really know what more he can do at this stage.How, Bantam Boy, Old city man and 7 others like this. -
A transfer has three parties - the selling club, the buying club and the player (and his agent)
There are two separate 'contracts' - 1. The transfer contract between the buying and selling clubs which amongst other things contains the timing of and the amount to be paid by the buying club and any potential sell-on arrangements 2. The employment contract between the player and the buying club which of course covers wages, bonuses etc. Theses are negotiated between the respective pairs of parties. Only the buying club would see the entirety of the overall deal.
The significance is that the selling club is not involved in the employment contract between the buying club and player. It's confidential to those two parties. I doubt very much that City would have the faintest idea of what Swansea would be paying Oli in wages, bonuses etc 'cos it's none of our business. Similarly, the player (or his agent) is not involved in the transfer contract. Again, it's confidential between the buying and selling clubs. This means that it's unlikely that the player is aware at the time of any future sell-on arrangements between the buying and selling club. I suspect in this case that from Oli's perspective, he just isn't aware of any sell-on arrangement between Swansea and City rather than that there isn't one. I guess that's how this confusion has arisen.JimmyBantam, trevor, WilsdenBantam and 4 others like this. -
Stafford Bantam CaptainModerator P.L.22/23 Entrant P.L.23/24 Entrant Supporter P.L. 20/21 Top 30
Look:
@Yorkshire baller has confirmed there is no sell on clause for Oli McBurnie;
@wetherbywhaler has confirmed there is a sell on clause for Oli McBurnie; and
@Glenn Ackroyd has confirmed the sell on clause is 15%.
I think that sums it up. Its all in this thread, in earlier posts.
Now, can we all move on.Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...Silverbantam, Botswana Bantam, Onside and 4 others like this. -
Does anyone here honestly think that even if their is a Mcburnie sell on clause that any of it will be put back into improving the first team and investing in the players needed to get us promoted. It won't. Or if it is, it'll be a token amount at best. The vast amount will be put towards reducing "a deficit", and "running costs" and the associated loss of income incurred because of relegation.
Rupp's no doubt taken a massive hit financially because of where we've ended up and he'll be looking to minimise that by absorbing as much of our income as he possibly can. He's the owner and he'll get away with doing just that. If life was fair and football was run for the supporters that wouldn't happen, the money would be spent on new players, but it isnt fair and its run as a business unfortunately. Rahic and his little failed experiment has probably set us back about 6 seasons from where we were. The prick...BoingBoing, bantamdave41, The Evidence and 4 others like this. -
Against men in League One he looked lost. Rotherham game a fine example. That isn’t to say he was useless.....he showed promise at youth level but he only became a man when later loaned to Chester. As i say, well done to him for blooming, even though it wasn’t in League One for us under Parky. As mentioned above direct football wouldn’t have been ideal.......wrong place at wrong time and all that......Inspector, BradfordBanter, Botswana Bantam and 3 others like this. -
Silverbantam, Bantam@{Lancs}, Jay and 2 others like this.
-
NorthernMonkey, bantam2708, Fordy117 and 2 others like this.
-
Mistakes were made. We all know this. Rupp could just as easily have cut this season’s budget to be just the ticket sales only, but he understands that would give Bowyer very little flexibility. So he approved another £1m overspend this season to assist Bowyer. So why shouldn’t he then take that back earlier than planned, if he gets chance to? It makes no difference to this season’s budget either way, unless you are suggesting that this be made available too, thus giving Bowyer nearly £4m to spend?Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...How, Gardscoigne, Onside and 2 others like this. -
Wow, when I said he'd be along anytime, i wasn't expecting it to be that quick!
BoingBoing, Gardscoigne, The Evidence and 1 other person like this. -
Stafford Bantam CaptainModerator P.L.22/23 Entrant P.L.23/24 Entrant Supporter P.L. 20/21 Top 30Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...BoingBoing, Onside, BradfordBanter and 1 other person like this.
-
Rogered Tart Regular StarterP.L.22/23 Entrant P.L.23/24 EntrantBoingBoing, WilsdenBantam, The Evidence and 1 other person like this.
-
BoingBoing, Gardscoigne, RonnieBrown and 1 other person like this.
-
Thread Tools > Manage Reply Bans > Yorkshire Baller
That will 'zip it' for him!BoingBoing, BradfordBanter, Stafford Bantam and 1 other person like this. -
Rogered Tart Regular StarterP.L.22/23 Entrant P.L.23/24 Entrantborderlescott, Silverbantam, Onside and 1 other person like this.
-
Would love to see it spent on good players who could get us out of L2 and stabilize us back in L1
But fear it will have to be spent paying off this years "superstars" at bestFrenchBantam, Rogered Tart, Bronco and 1 other person like this. -
Botswana Bantam, shoatsy, FrenchBantam and 1 other person like this.
-
bantamdave41 Regular StarterP.L.22/23 Entrant P.L.23/24 Entrant Euro 2020Inspector, WilsdenBantam, FrenchBantam and 1 other person like this.
-
For under 24 players, a club is entitled to a development fee for his time at the club if the player is out of contract and the club has offered him a better contract but he has chosen to go elsewhere. The fee is set by a tribunal although FIFA has a formula which is broadly followed for transfers within England and always followed for international transfers. Do you recall the fiasco of Mark Stewart? Oli was still under contract at VP and these under 24 arrangements didn't kick in.
For younger players who are part of the EPPP arrangements, after the initial transfer has happened and the transfer fee calculated from the EPPP formula, the development club is then entitled to further payments (which I've heard some call development fees) depending on appearances at different levels. Oli didn't meet the EPPP criteria because of his age.
As a result, Oli's transfer was a standard transfer involving negotiations between the two clubs which may or may not have included sell-on arrangements. But development fees don't enter into it.Damo, Rogered Tart, Tolly856 and 1 other person like this. -
Oli wasn’t very good at City and the fans in general were amazed that Swansea came in for him when he looked so raw and just not ready for the first team (in Parky’s direct side). That must have angered his family, seeing such comments.
Fair play to the lad. He’s progressed into a very good footballer and best of luck to him in his next move.
His case shows patience is required with young players (he did do well on loan at Man Utd and in the youth team I suppose so there were signs of ability) while, at the same time, offering a reason why someone connected with him may be desperate to see no sell on clause in the deal - to stick two fingers up to fans/club who slated him.Botswana Bantam, Onside, bantamdave41 and 1 other person like this.
Page 1 of 16