Nathan Wood and sell on fees in general

S

sparkins

Well-known member
This is one that will divide fans I am sure. When I first saw Nathan Wood play age 16 or so, I remember saying on Twitter that I thought he would go on to to be the next Boro player to be seen in an England shirt - I thought he had all the attributes to be top class. Things didn't work out for one reason or another and the 'blame' for want of a better word is probably shared - I don't think the various regimes in place previously were ever going to be ones to allow players like him to grow and thrive and, as is not uncommon with young kids he appeared to have his head turned a bit and lost focus. There were a couple of games where he got bullied by gnarled old forwards who they could ruffle and intimidate, which is all part of the learning curve.

I remember when he was sold I was genuinely annoyed and the fee seemed crazily low for someone with so much potential - thankfully it appears we had a sell on fee included - how do these work and typically what type of % would a club look to recoup? Is it 10%, 25%, more? If it is in the 25% region and we end up getting almost £3m for him, then I would see the original sale in a different light - do I think we could have held on to him and sold him for 10m this summer? Highly unlikely as I doubt he would have got the opportunities he has had - Swansea took the risk, gave him playing time and developed him and good luck to them.
 
I’d still say he’s a long way off playing for England, even if he goes to Southampton.

Had we “developed” him it might have meant losing Fry for free, or something like that. Sometimes you just have to accept that a player has done well after they’ve left. If we have a sell-on clause, great.

I reckon the club will want to disclose this one as if we are getting 20% or something it will look like really good business for us.
 
They are typically anywhere from 10-25%. Reported yesterday in a Swansea paper our sell on is 35% due to the low initial fee.
 
Yep, I agree @atypical_boro - I got ahead of myself with the England prediction back then, but given the relative dearth of quality CB options, if he has got his head straight, and can really start to live up to that potential then I have seen stranger things
 
My guess would have been 25% because he was young and very cheap.

I remember seeing him really struggle away at Mansfield in the FAC in January 2022 and think he would never make the Championship.

But credit to him and Swansea for the improvement.

I did go to Swansea away last season and I thought he was OK, but nothing special for them so was surprised with a £10 bid. Compare that with say £4m to £5m for Giles.
 
GibbosEmpire said:
Swansea rejected £10 mill, they want more. Maybe our windfall will be quite decent
Click to expand...
Surely we can do some coppering up to get together a fee for Joel Piroe?

£6.6m in the kitty + Bola + McNair + Payero + the Wood fee and throw in a loan of Josh Coburn..
 
sparkins said:
I remember when he was sold I was genuinely annoyed and the fee seemed crazily low for someone with so much potential - thankfully it appears we had a sell on fee included - how do these work and typically what type of % would a club look to recoup? Is it 10%, 25%, more? If it is in the 25% region and we end up getting almost £3m for him, then I would see the original sale in a different light - do I think we could have held on to him and sold him for 10m this summer? Highly unlikely as I doubt he would have got the opportunities he has had - Swansea took the risk, gave him playing time and developed him and good luck to them.
Click to expand...

I suppose it's whatever Is negotiated.

Other than percentage it can vary on whether it's % of the next transfer fee, or % of future profit.

I'm a bit cynical about them: they always represent £ off the upfront fee. We're happy now because it looks like this gamble will pay out, but maybe we knocked £1million off the upfront fee to get the clause, and they don't always pay out.

Im also dubious about asking for too large a sell on clause: the larger you make it, the less chance of that player ever being sold, as what's in it for the selling club?
 
GibbosEmpire said:
Swansea rejected £10 mill, they want more. Maybe our windfall will be quite decent
Click to expand...

I guess that's the problem with a large %.

If Swansea know they have to give us 3.5m, the question they ask themselves is "are we happy getting 6.5 for him, or should we keep him?"

The more they have to give away, the less chance they'll agree a deal because a deal is not in their interest.
 
Frozen Horse said:
I guess that's the problem with a large %.

If Swansea know they have to give us 3.5m, the question they ask themselves is "are we happy getting 6.5 for him, or should we keep him?"

The more they have to give away, the less chance they'll agree a deal because a deal is not in their interest.
Click to expand...

Depends on what noises Wood is making about an extension, surely.
If he won't extend, it's £6.5m now or nothing in the summer.

Swansea aren't a club with a particularly big budget either.
 
TeaCider said:
Depends on what noises Wood is making about an extension, surely.
If he won't extend, it's £6.5m now or nothing in the summer.

Swansea aren't a club with a particularly big budget either.
Click to expand...

Certainly part of it.
However, if, for example Chuba's transfer from PAOK to us had a 35% sell on clause in it, chances are he'd still be here.
Plenty think we should have turned down 10m just to keep him for 1 season. If, in practical terms, the same bid was only £6.5m, maybe the club hierarchy might have agreed with them and thought Chuba was worth keeping for one more year? PAOK would then get £0.

There comes a point where what the selling club (Swansea, or us in the hypothetical example) have to think about what they would actually receive, and then decide if it's a good deal for them.
 
Frozen Horse said:
I'm a bit cynical about them: they always represent £ off the upfront fee. We're happy now because it looks like this gamble will pay out, but maybe we knocked £1million off the upfront fee to get the clause, and they don't always pay out.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Some fans seem to think we get a sell on clause if we just ask nicely, or tick the right box on the transfer paperwork.

We have to give up part of the up-front fee. It only pays off financially if they can sell him on for a higher price, and the only way that can be a safe bet is if we sell too low to start with
 
clay said:
Exactly.

Some fans seem to think we get a sell on clause if we just ask nicely, or tick the right box on the transfer paperwork.

We have to give up part of the up-front fee. It only pays off financially if they can sell him on for a higher price, and the only way that can be a safe bet is if we sell too low to start with
Click to expand...
I also depends on how keen the club is to get a player off their wage bill or to bring in a 'better' player in that position. Whatever, Swansea will hardly be complaining about making £6 million on a player they bought relatively recently.
 
In this instance it made perfect sense. The only surprise is the club made a good decision for once.

As a player at the time he wasn't good enough. Struggled under Wilder, struggled on loan in Scotland. But he had one year left and wanted to play first team football.

He was also only 19/20? Really young for a centre back and clearly had potential. Our hands were tied a bit, given the contract situation, but seems fairly clear the club still expected him to develop into a very good player.

The deal was a great compromise for all parties. Wood got his first team football, Swansea got their man on the cheap, Boro retained an investment in a very promising prospect.

Ideally we'd have handled him better and had him on a longer contract, but given the circumstances, it was a very shrewd move at the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top