Spurs open talks on Spence

MidlandsBoroFan said:
But not necessarily…

Lets say someone offers us £20m. We say we also want 10% of any future profit if they sell him. If they sell him for £40m then we get £2m in future. If he has 2-3 great seasons in the Champions League and wins 20 England caps he might go for £60m, and we then get an extra £4m. Unlikely of course but not impossible.

Of course, he may not be sold in future for more than £20m. Whoever buys him may sell him for £10m in a couple of years. Djed may run down that contract. He may stay at the next club until he retires. That way we get nothing extra.

That £20m + a sell on clause is completely different to £22m or £24m now. It is better for the buying club as extra payments are reliant on his performances and effectively both us and whoever buys him from us will cash in.

As far as Boro are concerned, I assume we’d want as much as possible now. But once you get to an agreeable figure, we should try and add a clause in as it’s only relevant if he is a success.
Click to expand...

It's always a gamble certainly, but rarely a gamble that pays off; I'm not saying they can't result in a higher overall fee, but they rarely do. There is always a take off before an add on.

If he goes to SPurs or Arsenal and is great, very few are realistically able to come in and take him away from there; that pool of clubs is very small. I'd be keener on a sell on clause if he went to Forest as there is a realistic chance of his moving onward and upwards from there. If he leaves Arsenal or Spurs, it's likely to be in a downwards direction for less money, making a sell on clause useless.

If a club is willing to pay X + a sell on clause, they were willing to pay X + more up front too. If you want a sell on clause, you have to accept less up front. People feel very clever when sell on clauses pay out, but I'd guess in 9/10 cases they don't.
 
Last edited:
Frozen Horse said:
It's always a gamble certainly, but rarely a gamble that pays off; I'm not saying they can't result in a higher overall fee, but they rarely do. There is always a take off before an add on.

If he goes to SPurs or Arsenal and is great, very few are realistically able to come in and take him away from there; that pool of clubs is very small. I'd be keener on a sell on clause if he went to Forest as there is a realistic chance of his moving onward and upwards from there. If he leaves Arsenal or Spurs, it's likely to be in a downwards direction for less money, making a sell on clause useless.

If a club is willing to pay X + a sell on clause, they were willing to pay X + more up front too. If you want a sell on clause, you have to accept less up front. People feel very clever when sell on clauses pay out, but I'd guess in 9/10 cases they don't.
Click to expand...
Agree pretty much. Not many leave Arsenal or Spurs in an upward direction, unless they become world beaters and go to Barca / Real. Nice thought, but I’m not sure that will be Djed!
 
indeedido said:
People mix up Fees, conditional add ons and payment schedules.
If Boro agree a fee of £20m regardless of when that is paid, they will book that Profit in Player Sales as £20m in this accounting year. It will immediately impact the FFP assessment in full.
If there are conditional add ons they will be booked in the year that they are actually triggered.
When clubs actually pay in terms of instalments does not impact the P&L or FFP.

If Boro get £20m fee for Spence it will ALL be booked in the year of sale.
If Boro commit that £20m in fees for players over 4 year contracts, then the P&L is hit by £5m amortisation in the season they buy those players registrations.

There are so many posters who haven’t a clue how buying and selling assets impacts P&L’s and hence FFP.
Boro are so dependent on Gibson O’Neill for its funding, the cash flow dimension of when payments are made versus when transactions are agreed is relatively unimportant.

Gibson May have made some godawful decisions on who to employ, who to sign and how much to pay, but I am certain he knows exactly how to structure and best finance deals.
Click to expand...
Some good points thanks. In terms of amortisation charges of the current squad it is low, with only Mcnair and Payero going through the accounts at around £1m per annum. The rest of the squad are relatively low unless I have made a glaring omission now we have let others leave who we paid significant transfer fees for. We all know who they are.

The debate around add-ons or a percentage of future sales should be looked at where we are letting players go relatively cheaply or for free who have shown promise and for whatever reason it is in their best interests to move on to further their career. Ideally we should have had the foresight to have seen this with someone like Godfrey, who ended up at Everton. I don't think anyone would have thought he would command a fee of around £20m when we left, however it would have not done any harm to insert a clause to help future cash flow. I cannot think of any players where we have inserted an add-on clause?
 
Last edited:
Frozen Horse said:
It's always a gamble certainly, but rarely a gamble that pays off; I'm not saying they can't result in a higher overall fee, but they rarely do. There is always a take off before an add on.

If he goes to SPurs or Arsenal and is great, very few are realistically able to come in and take him away from there; that pool of clubs is very small. I'd be keener on a sell on clause if he went to Forest as there is a realistic chance of his moving onward and upwards from there. If he leaves Arsenal or Spurs, it's likely to be in a downwards direction for less money, making a sell on clause useless.

If a club is willing to pay X + a sell on clause, they were willing to pay X + more up front too. If you want a sell on clause, you have to accept less up front. People feel very clever when sell on clauses pay out, but I'd guess in 9/10 cases they don't.
Click to expand...

Really excellent point and would wholeheartedly agree.
 
I'd say that if they offer 15 million plus add ons based on his performances, potential senior England call-up and percentage of any sell on value then we should start to listen.

As previous posters have said, the Trees going up could do us a good favour financially as it means another club now with the means to pay handsomely who are hugely interested. As we know there's a "gentleman's agreement" honoured for the playoff final that sees the losing side bag the gate receipts etc to the tune of maybe 3 million, it would be nice if we got that kind of gravy added to the Spence fee just for NF getting promoted.👍
 
festa5 said:
They go out and watch them perform? They never do do they? Well that's a relief because as far as I can tell they'll have been watching a player many pundits and Forest fans think is the best wing back in the league (and who made team of the season).

I'm assuming those fans and pundits will have come to that conclusion from erm watching him perform. Although I suppose it's possible they just like his hair and the way he pulls his socks up over his knees.
Click to expand...
His hair isn't as fine as Crooksy's though. That will knock a few mill off his value unfortunately.
 
Ipad1977 said:
it would be nice if we got that kind of gravy added to the Spence fee just for NF getting promoted.👍
Click to expand...

Forest fans were asking for a cut of any transfer fee for developing him. Maybe we should meet cheek with cheek and ask for a cut of their promotion windfall? 5% of their PL TV revenue maybe? :rolleyes:
 
Again there is a difference between add ons and a cut in future transfer profit.

I'll drop 6 names whose clubs will have wished they had a sell on transfer profit clause in their deals when selling to Levy at Spurs.
Eriksson, Trippier, Walker, Modric, Bale and Wimmer combined to generate £171m profit on future sales.

6 Arsenal names Van Persie, Oxlade Chamberlain, Walcott, Adebayor, Toure and Song generated £103m for them.

It all depends on the player, the book value of the player when initially sold, the likely development of the player at the club buying, the international exposure.

It is just not possible to generalise whether a higher initial fee is better than a lower initial fee plus percentage of sell on clause (and what that % should be)
I would agree with FH that there will be a trade off between initial fee and the % sell on clause, but the current financial and FFP position of the buying club will also be a factor.

Add ons are a different matter. It is all in their construct.
I personally think they are riskier, as the buying club are in more control of the conditions.
They control appearances - similar to players' own contracts and see how Downing was impacted by that.

A club could sell a player before an appearance threshold, or goalscoring mark to avoid the add ons being triggered and to max their own transfer profit.
It is complex how to structure fees, agents fees and players' own contracts.

Have your legal team on the ball if dealing with Levy.
In the end it is still all in the judgement of the player how to structure things.
 
If he goes for £10 mill then we’ve had our pants down big time (wouldn’t be the first time mind you)

To have strengthened a rival all season who potentially may be promoted to the PL this weekend and to then lose a decent player for only £10 mill which isnt a great amount these days in the market is quite frankly terrible negotiation.

If it was any other club in our situation they would be demanding at least £15 mill with add ons taking it around to £20 mill, no way any less.
 
I'll be gobsmacked if we end up (clauses, add ons) with over 12m for him. We just never seem to do that well. Spence has been lauded on social media, sky, bbc every time Forest play he's been thrown on a pedestal as this marauding wing back and in the age of attacking full backs he's been spoke about all over, but we never seem to get much.

Wan Bissaka to Man U, 50m
Sessegnon to Spurs, 25m
Ben White to Arsenal, 50m
Keane to Everton, 30m

If Spence is held in such high regard, and it's top top clubs after him, money in the game only going up and up, so why doesn't the bidding start at 20-25m before we even answer the phone? I personally don't think he's anywhere near that good and after one season at Forest i wouldn't want my club to spend that much on him but we're the selling club so lets just rinse anyone who wants him.
 
I would have thought the fee will be "undisclosed", it will then go wild on here with people speculating that we have been done, had our pants down etc...

Should be fun.
 
Colgates_shaving_foam said:
I would have thought the fee will be "undisclosed", it will then go wild on here with people speculating that we have been done, had our pants down etc...

Should be fun.
Click to expand...

That'll happen if its disclosed too.

Whether or whether there aren't add ons, we'll never know what we insisted upon instead of them, or gave up to get them, and it will always turn out that a better deal was possible.

The only people who will be definitively wrong will be those who were willing to carry him to a new club for £5 million last summer.
 
Last edited:
Livramento left Chelsea for Southampton for a fee rumoured to be £5m with a buyback clause of £25m.

Lamptey left Chelsea to join Brighton 2 and a half years ago for £3m.

Neither had played a significant amount of games and could be considered a bit of a gamble.

Spence has played over 100 competitive games and excelled in games against clubs in the top six of the Premier League. As such he wouldn’t be considered a gamble.

There are multiple clubs interested in him and each will have their own valuation and will also be looking at multiple other players in the same position.

Conte played Victor Moses at right wing back for Chelsea. He likes players with the ability to get up and down the flank, can attack yet work hard to cover. Spence would be ideal in that position for him.

There’s no way he is going for less than £15m total fee. And considering we got him for a free that’s an astonishing piece of business that the club deserves congratulations for.
 
Subbuteo_171 said:
Livramento left Chelsea for Southampton for a fee rumoured to be £5m with a buyback clause of £25m.

Lamptey left Chelsea to join Brighton 2 and a half years ago for £3m.

Neither had played a significant amount of games and could be considered a bit of a gamble.

Spence has played over 100 competitive games and excelled in games against clubs in the top six of the Premier League. As such he wouldn’t be considered a gamble.

There are multiple clubs interested in him and each will have their own valuation and will also be looking at multiple other players in the same position.

Conte played Victor Moses at right wing back for Chelsea. He likes players with the ability to get up and down the flank, can attack yet work hard to cover. Spence would be ideal in that position for him.

There’s no way he is going for less than £15m total fee. And considering we got him for a free that’s an astonishing piece of business that the club deserves congratulations for.
Click to expand...
15 million no where near enough and we need sell on clauses
This lad is the real deal and I have said it from day one
Warnock letting him go was stupid
 
allied_assault said:
15 million no where near enough and we need sell on clauses
This lad is the real deal and I have said it from day one
Warnock letting him go was stupid
Click to expand...
I just see a contradiction here.
There was nobody moaning about Spence going out on loan, yet the decision you say should yield at least £15m plus sell on clauses.
I'd say Warnock's decision has made Middlesbrough an awful lot of money that should be a massive help in building a team to get us up this season.
 
The club no doubt will take the best deal available. If one club is offering substantially a better deal than anyone else then that’s the club who will get the player subject to him agreeing terms.

His situation has been clear for sometime, clubs who are genuinely interested will no doubt have contacted MFC. He will go to the club who offers the best deal to the football club and player it’s quite simple.

We need to be concerned about how we use the money to strengthen the first team.
 
allied_assault said:
Warnock letting him go was stupid
Click to expand...
I think it seems that way from the outside, but there does seem to be some real issues that we don't know about (a poster alluded to these yesterday, can't recall who it was).

Ultimately its helped Jones establish himself, in addition to making the club a lot of money for Spence, so a win win really.

I don't think he would have been loaned out if CW had been in Warnocks position, but that's largely due to Spence suiting the wing back position.

Personally I'm not too disappointed the way things have worked out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top