c.hill12 Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 if stephens goes to norwich on a free and mcdonald comes here as 2 'seperate' deals the bury get 20% of nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apple Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 if stephens goes to norwich on a free and mcdonald comes here as 2 'seperate' deals the bury get 20% of nothing. Let's not be naive. Bury would, correctly, lodge a complaint with the Football League on the basis that Oldham & Norwich conspired to cheat them out of 20% of the value of a player , Stephens, that a matter of weeks before Oldham had valued as worth a significant amount (see statements from the club). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldhamSheridan Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 if stephens goes to norwich on a free and mcdonald comes here as 2 'seperate' deals the Bury get 20% of nothing. We'd have to release him and they'd have to release Cody. It would take a great amount of trust in Norwich and the players involved, and their agents (yeah right). A free would just go to tribunal. Plus, I wouldn't want a hearing at the FA for about ten years if we did that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnno1 Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 Why would a club like Norwich who are now basking in the Premier League £millions want to bother getting involved in a shady bit of business to do Bury out of what would amount to a PL players weeks wages? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldhamandy1 Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 I still don't understand we paid Bury money for Stephens and as part of the deal they would get 20% of the fee we get. If we don't get a fee then we can't give 20% of it. 20% of nothing is nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c.hill12 Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 I still don't understand we paid Bury money for Stephens and as part of the deal they would get 20% of the fee we get. If we don't get a fee then we can't give 20% of it. 20% of nothing is nothing. exactly! im not saying i agree with the ethics of it but it is possible. if we paid 5ok to norwich as a 'nominal fee' for macdonald and sent stephens to norwich either on loan or on a free then we don't pay bury 100k and norwich get 50k. doesn't seem alot to a pl club but still not to be sniffed at!it's the equivalant of 1250 shirt sales. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c.hill12 Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 chesterfield favourites for donaldson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apple Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 I still don't understand we paid Bury money for Stephens and as part of the deal they would get 20% of the fee we get. If we don't get a fee then we can't give 20% of it. 20% of nothing is nothing. Let's say this slowly. An exchange of players - if there is a sell on fee applying to one or both of them - is referred to a tribunal. This is so clubs get what is rightly theirs. Not sure how much more clearly to explain it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldhamandy1 Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 Well easy away round it we let Stephens go for free and Norwich give us McDonald for a nominal fee or free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apple Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 Well easy away round it we let Stephens go for free and Norwich give us McDonald for a nominal fee or free. Are you a wind up merchant? Please read posts 33 & 34 in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlayItLivo Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 Norwich are after Stephens? Since when? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldhamSheridan Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 Norwich are after Stephens? Since when? Since we were after Cody McDonald. Oh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldhamandy1 Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 I am genuinely puzzled how any club can demand a fee from a transfer when none has been obtained, my understanding of the rules is that a 20% clause would relate to any transfer money recieved for the player. In theory if a player were to leave for free then there would be no transfer hence no 20%. I am proberly wrong on this it just seems ilogical for it to work any other way as we have already paid a fee for Stephens that was decided by the tribunal in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creepy Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 Norwich are after Stephens? Since when? nobody knows if they are or not, i would find it highly unlikely Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldhamSheridan Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 I am genuinely puzzled how any club can demand a fee from a transfer when none has been obtained, my understanding of the rules is that a 20% clause would relate to any transfer money recieved for the player. In theory if a player were to leave for free then there would be no transfer hence no 20%. I am proberly wrong on this it just seems ilogical for it to work any other way as we have already paid a fee for Stephens that was decided by the tribunal in the first place. It's quite simple. To stop teams cheating the sell on clause, those with a sell on clause can take any transition of player to tribunal if they wish (and think they are sold short). Therefore if we swap a player worth £500k for one worth the same value (say McDonald), Bury would still receive £100k for their 20%. It stops us doing the ZeroK swaps you talk of. It doesn't happen often as players are rarely sold below their value. Though I would have given it a go if I were Wrexham and the Eardley affair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 Well easy away round it we let Stephens go for free and Norwich give us McDonald for a nominal fee or free. You're suggesting then that we should give a player to a Premiership club in exchange for a player they deem not good enough for that level and we should pay them an additional top-up fee? Don't get me wrong, I'll be thrilled if we sign McDonald (not that we will) but there's no way he's worth more than Stephens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsLee Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 You're suggesting then that we should give a player to a Premiership club in exchange for a player they deem not good enough for that level and we should pay them an additional top-up fee? Don't get me wrong, I'll be thrilled if we sign McDonald (not that we will) but there's no way he's worth more than Stephens. spot on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 (edited) I am genuinely puzzled how any club can demand a fee from a transfer when none has been obtained, my understanding of the rules is that a 20% clause would relate to any transfer money recieved for the player. In theory if a player were to leave for free then there would be no transfer hence no 20%. I am proberly wrong on this it just seems ilogical for it to work any other way as we have already paid a fee for Stephens that was decided by the tribunal in the first place. You are probably right, however in the real world, Oldham would never allow Stephens to go to a higher club for nothing, without recieving something in return. It is a very simple view to try and treat two seperate transactions involving two clubs as being truly seperate, especially when it results with a third party not recieving a fee it would have expected. Businesses try and do this with tax on a regular basis, and it is known in the non-criminal sense as being 'avoidance'. The tax man has 'anti-avoidance' measures in place to stop schemes which are just about avoiding tax. I would expect the FL to have similar measures in place to stop clubs avoiding paying sell on fees. As for a swap deal, this would be seen in the eyes of the tax man as being a 'barter transaction' and would expect each party to issue an invoice for the monetary value even though no money changes hands. Edited June 19, 2011 by jimsleftfoot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsLee Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 Lets say Danny Philiskirk had a sell on clause from Chelsea the lad has been released what is his value to Sheff United as an example? Do we have a claim? or is that just for Bury? Can someone answer the mutual loan arrangement. ? 20% of what? I am pretty sure we did have a sell on clause for Danny but if he is released then we lose out. Like other poster's have pointed out 20% of nothing is nothing so we are losing out and it would be the same case as bury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 Well easy away round it we let Stephens go for free and Norwich give us McDonald for a nominal fee or free. I'm sure we'd be deligghted if City did a similar deal with Barcelona involving Micah Richards. A tribunual would put a fee on both players. If not, the VAT man would certainly show an interest as such activity would be fraudulent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longtimeblue Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Off the reliable rumours website... Norwich City tell Oldham to up thier bid for Cody Mc he will not leave for anything under £3.000.000 I think we should hold firm at our 2.5 offer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc1955 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 £3000.00 is a bargain Norwich City tell Oldham to up thier bid for Cody Mc he will not leave for anything under £3.000.000 That looks more like £3million to me!!! :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobOAFC Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Norwich City tell Oldham to up thier bid for Cody Mc he will not leave for anything under £3.000.000 That looks more like £3million to me!!! :lol: Due to the '.' that is actually £3. However we are only currently offering £1 and a mars bar.. However if we add a twix extra to the offer, we may be able to do a deal.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc1955 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Due to the '.' that is actually £3. However we are only currently offering £1 and a mars bar.. However if we add a twix extra to the offer, we may be able to do a deal.. Due to the '.' that is actually £3 Only if you knock off the last zero...£3.000.00 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razza699 Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 FACT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.