Hourihane went to Villa for £500,000

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Well therefore I haven't a clue what you're on about.

What I do know, and it's on the record, is that QPR received £12.25 million as there 25% sell on cut of Raheem Sterling's £49 million move from Liverpool to Man City.

Which kinda blows your argument to pieces.

No it doesn't.

You are hiding behind this "depends on how the contracts were drawn up" rubbish.

Why would Argyle agree to a nonsense, illogical clause in a contract.

You are talking garbage.

No I'm not.

If all contracts were the same Hourihane would have cost £49m and we'd've got $12.25m because, and this is on the record, that was how much QPR got when Man City bought Raheem Stirling.

But not all contracts are the same, are they?

There's no point in me carrying on. You're something else.

Vive le difference.

There is no link at all between the Stirling and Hourihane deals: different players, teams, divisions, time specifications, agents, prices and percentages... It's entirely irrelevant and proves nothing even if the details you provide are entirely right (and I don't care either way if they are or not); I can't imagine why you brought it up or what you think it proves.

Some transfers have no sell-on clause at all. Some reset the fee to the percentage on resale (which is what I am suggesting might have happened). Some just deliver the percentage on top of the original fee. Any number of conditions, clauses and sub-clauses could apply on any aspect of the deal.

Which all appears to be news to you.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

There's no point in me carrying on. You're something else.

That something else is a whack job.

As usual, SFD knows nothing about the actual deal and is just using it as an excuse to blabber away. He's probably knows as much about player contracts as he did about player medical insurance. i.e, nothing!

Some sell on clauses are straight percentage and some are percentage of profit over original deal.

Rickler wrote:

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

There's no point in me carrying on. You're something else.

That something else is a whack job.  

As usual, SFD knows nothing about the actual deal and is just using it as an excuse to blabber away.  He's probably knows as much about player contracts as he did about player medical insurance. i.e, nothing!

1. Here we go again. The interregnum, as predicted, didn't last long.
2. I've not said a word, made a suggestion or hint of anything at all in Rickler's direction. I even ignored his first little shot across the bows, he's obviously been itching for weeks to have yet another baseless dig at me, from the other night when I said "win every game and we're champions". Obvious enough, I'd've thought, but obviously beyond Rickler.
3. I'm a "whack job" for discussing transfer protocol? Really? I suppose Green Genie, who has confirmed my suggestion as at least being possible, will soon be labelled mentally ill, too. No? I thought not. It's nothing to do with what I said but simply because it was me saying it.
4. I've never even said a word about player medical insurance that I can recall so this is just inventing a lie, another one, to back up the emptiness of his latest sad, groundless, insulting salvo.

Free speech is one thing but this relentless, decades-long lying, completely unwarranted hounding, bullying and insulting is a ridiculous flaunting, and abuse if you like, of everything free speech stands for.

green_genie wrote:

Some sell on clauses are straight percentage and some are percentage of profit over original deal.

That was my understanding, and Frank's suggestion that others still are X% of the fee, less any monies already paid also make sense. I guess it depends on how far the selling club are willing to bend over.

None of us really know. Unless the clubs involved publish detailed accounts, then we're probably not going to either.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

harvetheslayer wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Hourihane could not have cost Villa £500,000.

If we get 20% of any fee then it is normal in these deals for the transfer fee when originally sold to be deducted first. 20% of £500,000 is £100,000 and we've already been paid £200,000 so there's a net imbalance of £100,000 - we'd be due nothing.

Reverse engineering this we'd only get a fee if that 20%>£200,000.

So if 20% was £200,000 then 100% was £1,000,000.

If 20% was £300,000 (which it would need to be for us to eligible for £100,000). His fee must have been £1,500,000 minimum.

Completely and utterly lost me. What we received for the player originally has absolutely no bearing on a sell on clause

Yes it does.

This is illogical.
Barnsley paid Argyle £200,000 for the footballing services of Hourihane. They received them over two and a half years. They then sell him on for a profit.
What has the original fee got to do with it?
It is completely separate.

No it isn't.

It all depends on how the contract was drawn up when we sold him.

Just read all this thread up to now, so to go back to this post by Franny, shorely you haven't a clue as to how the contracts were drawn up? So ultimately, your maths is pointless because you are simply guessing at the figures that you base your maths on?

Czarcasm wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

harvetheslayer wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Hourihane could not have cost Villa £500,000.

If we get 20% of any fee then it is normal in these deals for the transfer fee when originally sold to be deducted first. 20% of £500,000 is £100,000 and we've already been paid £200,000 so there's a net imbalance of £100,000 - we'd be due nothing.

Reverse engineering this we'd only get a fee if that 20%>£200,000.

So if 20% was £200,000 then 100% was £1,000,000.

If 20% was £300,000 (which it would need to be for us to eligible for £100,000). His fee must have been £1,500,000 minimum.

Completely and utterly lost me. What we received for the player originally has absolutely no bearing on a sell on clause

Yes it does.

This is illogical.
Barnsley paid Argyle £200,000 for the footballing services of Hourihane. They received them over two and a half years. They then sell him on for a profit.
What has the original fee got to do with it?
It is completely separate.

No it isn't.

It all depends on how the contract was drawn up when we sold him.

Just read all this thread up to now, so to go back to this post by Franny, shorely you haven't a clue as to how the contracts were drawn up? So ultimately, your maths is pointless because you are simply guessing at the figures that you base your maths on?

Absolutely.

It's just a bit of fag packet arithmetic.

Why should it upset anybody?

The only person upset is you - because you were flagged for bullshit (as per usual).

Rickler wrote:

The only person upset is you - because you were flagged for bullshit (as per usual).

Sigh.

Relentless and unwarranted doesn't even begin to describe it. It's more like a misguided, pointless, devotional life mission.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Hourihane could not have cost Villa £500,000.

And I contend that he could have. Yours is a clear statement of fact when the reality is you're guessing. It's almost as if you want to show off with your mathematical prowess.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Czarcasm wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

harvetheslayer wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Hourihane could not have cost Villa £500,000.

If we get 20% of any fee then it is normal in these deals for the transfer fee when originally sold to be deducted first. 20% of £500,000 is £100,000 and we've already been paid £200,000 so there's a net imbalance of £100,000 - we'd be due nothing.

Reverse engineering this we'd only get a fee if that 20%>£200,000.

So if 20% was £200,000 then 100% was £1,000,000.

If 20% was £300,000 (which it would need to be for us to eligible for £100,000). His fee must have been £1,500,000 minimum.

Completely and utterly lost me. What we received for the player originally has absolutely no bearing on a sell on clause

Yes it does.

This is illogical.
Barnsley paid Argyle £200,000 for the footballing services of Hourihane. They received them over two and a half years. They then sell him on for a profit.
What has the original fee got to do with it?
It is completely separate.

No it isn't.

It all depends on how the contract was drawn up when we sold him.

Just read all this thread up to now, so to go back to this post by Franny, shorely you haven't a clue as to how the contracts were drawn up? So ultimately, your maths is pointless because you are simply guessing at the figures that you base your maths on?

Absolutely.

It's just a bit of fag packet arithmetic.

Why should it upset anybody?

I'm not sure it upset anyone. I was just pointing out that your assertions, by your own admission, were pointless made up numbers. You then bizarrely went on to provoke an argumentative response to your pointless made up numbers with replies like "Yes it does".

You really don't help yourself sometimes Franny.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Hourihane could not have cost Villa £500,000.

And I contend that he could have. Yours is a clear statement of fact when the reality is you're guessing. It's almost as if you want to show off with your mathematical prowess.

"I contend" is explicitly a suggestion. It is the proposal of an idea. Conjecture. It is not a statement of or assertion of fact.

Get a dictionary out and look it up.

Czarcasm wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Czarcasm wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

harvetheslayer wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Hourihane could not have cost Villa £500,000.

If we get 20% of any fee then it is normal in these deals for the transfer fee when originally sold to be deducted first. 20% of £500,000 is £100,000 and we've already been paid £200,000 so there's a net imbalance of £100,000 - we'd be due nothing.

Reverse engineering this we'd only get a fee if that 20%>£200,000.

So if 20% was £200,000 then 100% was £1,000,000.

If 20% was £300,000 (which it would need to be for us to eligible for £100,000). His fee must have been £1,500,000 minimum.

Completely and utterly lost me. What we received for the player originally has absolutely no bearing on a sell on clause

Yes it does.

This is illogical.
Barnsley paid Argyle £200,000 for the footballing services of Hourihane. They received them over two and a half years. They then sell him on for a profit.
What has the original fee got to do with it?
It is completely separate.

No it isn't.

It all depends on how the contract was drawn up when we sold him.

Just read all this thread up to now, so to go back to this post by Franny, shorely you haven't a clue as to how the contracts were drawn up? So ultimately, your maths is pointless because you are simply guessing at the figures that you base your maths on?

Absolutely.

It's just a bit of fag packet arithmetic.

Why should it upset anybody?

I'm not sure it upset anyone. I was just pointing out that your assertions, by your own admission, were pointless made up numbers. You then bizarrely went on to provoke an argumentative response to your pointless made up numbers with replies like "Yes it does".

You really don't help yourself sometimes Franny.

How else can I refute somebody who is stating something is impossible when it is not other than by saying so?

I've not even been slightly rude to anybody.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Hourihane could not have cost Villa £500,000.

And I contend that he could have. Yours is a clear statement of fact when the reality is you're guessing. It's almost as if you want to show off with your mathematical prowess.

"I contend" is explicitly a suggestion. It is the proposal of an idea. Conjecture. It is not a statement of or assertion of fact.

Get a dictionary out and look it up.

I did, nowhere did it describe it as "suggestion".

CONTEND

verb (used without object)
1.
to struggle in opposition:
to contend with the enemy for control of the port.
2.
to strive in rivalry; compete; vie:
to contend for first prize.
3.
to strive in debate; dispute earnestly:
to contend against falsehood.
verb (used with object)
4.
to assert or maintain earnestly:
He contended that taxes were too high.


Wrong again blabbermouth.

What's wrong with "strive in debate" or "dispute earnestly" or "struggle in opposition"?

Really Rickler you don't need to do this. It doesn't make you look good.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

What's wrong with "strive in debate" or "dispute earnestly"?

Really Rickler you don't need to do this. It doesn't make you look good.

You mean....  It doesn't make you look good.

Already changed your definition of the word 'contend' I see.

"You really are something else".

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Hourihane could not have cost Villa £500,000.

And I contend that he could have. Yours is a clear statement of fact when the reality is you're guessing. It's almost as if you want to show off with your mathematical prowess.

"I contend" is explicitly a suggestion. It is the proposal of an idea. Conjecture. It is not a statement of or assertion of fact.

Get a dictionary out and look it up.

This is a familiar diversionary tactic by you.
The main point I'm making is that you are guessing.
You instead decide to question my use of the word 'contend'.

Of course I'm guessing. I've never denied it. Nor suggested ought else.

I'm just applying what I read somewhere else, I wish I could remember where but chances are it was PAFC FB paage and I can't search it adequately enough to find it, about the sell-on fee - possibly in another transfer meaning it was probably the Joe Mason one if it wasn't Hourihane.

It definitely happened along the lines I suggested to a transfer involving us and a sell-on fee where the money due had the original transfer fee subtracted from it and does anybody think we're savvy enough in our transfer dealings for it not to have happened again this time?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Of course I'm guessing. I've never denied it. Nor suggested ought else.

Why do you keep being slippery. Your 'Hourihane could not have cost £500,000' is misleading. Truth is you did not know.
You have finally been nailed but even then you try to wriggle. It's what you always do.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Of course I'm guessing. I've never denied it. Nor suggested ought else.

Why do you keep being slippery. Your 'Hourihane could not have cost £500,000' is misleading. Truth is you did not know.
You have finally been nailed but even then you try to wriggle. It's what you always do.

Blimey.

I said Hourihane didn't go for £500,000 and gave my reasons for why I thought that. If there's a problem with that it isn't at my end.

I'll run my post past a lawyer next time.

*IF* the sell-on clause was 20%, it would seem most likely to me that the fee paid by Villa was 700K, making Argyle's cut 100K (700K minus 200K already paid to Argyle by Barnsley multiplied by 20%).

700K seems low though, doesn't it? Perhaps our clause was only 10%, which would put the Barnsley/Villa deal at 1.2m....or the reported 1.25m, as our share was 'in excess of 100K' i.e only a few quid more than that.