Nathan Wood and sell on fees in general

Obviously inserting any clauses reduces the up-front fee and guaranteed money is often preferable to potential money. How many players have we released or sold on the cheap have actually gone on to be sold for a big fee?

We probably let a lot of players go because the fee we would get is smaller than the amount of money we will save on wages by not having them around. Giving them away or selling for very low fees with a sell-on is a way to ensure any major mistake is at least minimised.
 
A club is looking to sell a valuable player that they bought subject to a sell-on clause. What is to stop them from reducing the price being asked for that player on condition (undisclosed) that the buyer takes an additional player at a price way above any credible estimate, thus reducing the value of the sell-on clause.
There should be no 3rd party interests in transfers.
 
Anton_Berg said:
A club is looking to sell a valuable player that they bought subject to a sell-on clause. What is to stop them from reducing the price being asked for that player on condition (undisclosed) that the buyer takes an additional player at a price way above any credible estimate, thus reducing the value of the sell-on clause.
There should be no 3rd party interests in transfers.
Click to expand...
I'd imagine that would be a pretty obvious arrangement and lawyers would become involved. I doubt you'd make it economically viable as sell on clauses are usually 10-30% so unless it is Ronaldo being bought, it's a long complication and risk for a small saving

Interestingly just been reading that akpom had a variable sell on clause when they sold him to PAOK where a sale to an English club cost more

www.linklaters.com

Play on: CAS clarifies the permissibility of variable sell-on clauses in football transfers

Football’s January transfer window is upon us. Against the buzzing of mobile phones, dealmakers and lawyers will be tirelessly drawing up transfer terms. When it comes to deciding whether to cash in on players who could go on to achieve big things, savvy clubs may include sell-on clauses as a...
www.linklaters.com www.linklaters.com
 
festa5 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Agree with this. I think most of these clauses only apply to the net transfer value, but given we didn't get much for him our fee will still be very healthy.

It was a pragmatic decision to let a player go who we would have ideally liked to sign a contract because we recognised his potential.

We obviously could have got a little more in terms of transfer fee, but it was a sensible decision to look for a sell-on clause, given his potential value was likely to rise.

In terms of the player, I'm not seeing it if I'm honest, albeit I'd qualify that by saying I don't watch him every week.

If this does go through then there's still only one manager who's ever paid money for him. Russell Martin could be Catermole's Steve Bruce!
 
Anton_Berg said:
A club is looking to sell a valuable player that they bought subject to a sell-on clause. What is to stop them from reducing the price being asked for that player on condition (undisclosed) that the buyer takes an additional player at a price way above any credible estimate, thus reducing the value of the sell-on clause.
There should be no 3rd party interests in transfers.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I think one factor would be the makeweight player.

First, he must have some idea he was being used, maybe the contract at his new club wouldn't reflect the fee, and he'd not agree to go to a club where he wasn't really wanted. It's not the slave trade after all.
 
festa5 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Boom - good post
 
Frozen Horse said:
Interesting. I think one factor would be the makeweight player.

First, he must have some idea he was being used, maybe the contract at his new club wouldn't reflect the fee, and he'd not agree to go to a club where he wasn't really wanted. It's not the slave trade after all.
Click to expand...

The makeweight player transaction doesn't have to happen immediately. Or between just two clubs, given that there is multiple ownership of clubs across borders.
 
Wood did absolutely nothing at Boro. Couldn't quite make the breakthrough to the first team, didn't do anything on loan. Was a bit in limbo.

So the move to Swansea was good for all parties. Looks like he's started to fulfill his very early potential, and fair play to him.

So Swansea and Boro now looking at sharing some of Southamptons I'll gotten gains (parachute payments), potential £2-3m to Boro.

Quite surprised at the lack of praise for Gibson/ Bausor in sticking a whopping sell on fee into the sale.......🙄🙄
 
Yes, I will give the club praise if there is a 25% plus add on fee and we receive it. As said the lad seemed a long way off a Championship defender when he struggled against Division 2 attackers.

It says how difficult it is sometimes to judge younger players and how they will develop.

Sothampton are going to increase their bid according to Sky

Ref Young players - Balogun to Monaco - 16 months ago playing at Boro and not setting the Championship alight - I would have put him a bit below Archer and Ramsey - now supposedly a £40m player!
 
Last edited:
Anton_Berg said:
A club is looking to sell a valuable player that they bought subject to a sell-on clause. What is to stop them from reducing the price being asked for that player on condition (undisclosed) that the buyer takes an additional player at a price way above any credible estimate, thus reducing the value of the sell-on clause.
There should be no 3rd party interests in transfers.
Click to expand...
If this was to happen you would have a second player at a club who wasn't necessarily required and potentially taking up a squad place and also a salary. If the second player didn't show any improvement then it is likely they would be sold at a loss and adversely affect FFP. Might be an idea to insert your own add on to the sought after player. I think you have answered your own question with your last sentence.
 
h_m_boro said:
Wood did absolutely nothing at Boro. Couldn't quite make the breakthrough to the first team, didn't do anything on loan. Was a bit in limbo.

So the move to Swansea was good for all parties. Looks like he's started to fulfill his very early potential, and fair play to him.

So Swansea and Boro now looking at sharing some of Southamptons I'll gotten gains (parachute payments), potential £2-3m to Boro.

Quite surprised at the lack of praise for Gibson/ Bausor in sticking a whopping sell on fee into the sale.......🙄🙄
Click to expand...
Well, not for the club.

Sales of balloons in the Pally Park area however took a nice boost....

Allegedly.
 
WE have released countless players over the last 10 years who some supporter or another has said they would turn out to be prem class or playing
for england etc etc and they unded up playing for the dog and duck

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, at the end of the day the club could not afford to just keep wood in the reserves, he was given ample opportunity in loan
spells and he didn't cut the mustard, he went to hibs and couldn't get in their side, so what other options did the club have apart from take a risk playing him
in the off chance he developed more

He needed to go somewhere to play for a full year and he did at Swansea, and in this case hes become a better player, football is littered with players
who have gone and played full time and still been substandard so i fail to see the point in endlessy harping on wbout Wood

You could say the same thing about players we have signed, Djed Spence as an example, fulham released him and we signed him up and got 15 million for him
its swings and roundabouts, thats just football, get over it
 
Think Wood would have thrived under the current regime, unfortunately he came through in a period with managers at the helm who didn't trust young players, he's thrived under Russell Martin. It's very common to have large sell on percentages for young academy players moving in the last year of their contracts - 25% to 40%. They go for a token fee (or free) and the selling club puts in a big sell-on fee, the buying club see's them as a win win. If a player who has come through an academy lets his contract run down and is under the age of 24, it will go ta tribunal and the club taking them will pay a fee set by the tribunal. So they negotiate a small fee and accept a sell on clause, as they know if it goes to a tribunal they will probably pay much more upfront
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top