| Hammers in for Hogan 11:55 - Jan 1 with 120975 views | hitman |
Just reading West Ham are about to put in a 10 million
Bid for Scott hogan due to a medical
With Dale getting 20%
Interesting reading |  | | |  |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 20:29 - Jan 15 with 5436 views | Jimlidale |
If the sticking point is Dale's cut then would it not be prudent for the board to get involved? Perhaps saying they will cap the sell on fee at a certain level. I was once told in negotiations that the first loss is the best loss or something along those lines. Maybe we could drop the percentage to 15% but add on other ways of gaining from the deal. Please forgive my igonorance in these matters if what I suggest is hogwash |  | | |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 20:46 - Jan 15 with 5381 views | fitzochris |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 20:29 - Jan 15 by Jimlidale |
If the sticking point is Dale's cut then would it not be prudent for the board to get involved? Perhaps saying they will cap the sell on fee at a certain level. I was once told in negotiations that the first loss is the best loss or something along those lines. Maybe we could drop the percentage to 15% but add on other ways of gaining from the deal. Please forgive my igonorance in these matters if what I suggest is hogwash |
I understand why you're suggesting this - as a way of getting the deal over the line.
My view would be that Brentford willingly accepted the sell-on fee at the time of signing Scott Hogan. The plus to them was they got Hogan for a comparatively small upfront fee. The plus for us is that we stood to make more in the future than we did at the time of sale.
Brentford cannot now quibble over the terms set out and agreed to at the time just because they have to pay us our due. If we relent now it would be akin to having our trousers taken down at the time of the original sale. |  |
| |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 20:52 - Jan 15 with 5357 views | TVOS1907 |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 20:46 - Jan 15 by fitzochris |
I understand why you're suggesting this - as a way of getting the deal over the line.
My view would be that Brentford willingly accepted the sell-on fee at the time of signing Scott Hogan. The plus to them was they got Hogan for a comparatively small upfront fee. The plus for us is that we stood to make more in the future than we did at the time of sale.
Brentford cannot now quibble over the terms set out and agreed to at the time just because they have to pay us our due. If we relent now it would be akin to having our trousers taken down at the time of the original sale. |
That's rugby players for you.
Sorry, wrong thread. |  |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 21:37 - Jan 15 with 5269 views | Jimlidale |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 20:46 - Jan 15 by fitzochris |
I understand why you're suggesting this - as a way of getting the deal over the line.
My view would be that Brentford willingly accepted the sell-on fee at the time of signing Scott Hogan. The plus to them was they got Hogan for a comparatively small upfront fee. The plus for us is that we stood to make more in the future than we did at the time of sale.
Brentford cannot now quibble over the terms set out and agreed to at the time just because they have to pay us our due. If we relent now it would be akin to having our trousers taken down at the time of the original sale. |
When the deal was done was a sell on fee that would equate to over £3 million for Dale expected though? | | | |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 21:43 - Jan 15 with 5250 views | fitzochris |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 21:37 - Jan 15 by Jimlidale |
When the deal was done was a sell on fee that would equate to over £3 million for Dale expected though? |
That's the beauty/risk of a sell-on clause. It can leave you with nowt or lots. As I say, we sold Hogan comparatively cheaply at the time given what other goal scorers in L1 and L2 were going for. This potential windfall is the club's reward for inserting that sell-on clause and they should get every penny. | |
| |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 21:47 - Jan 15 with 5218 views | Jimlidale |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 21:43 - Jan 15 by fitzochris |
That's the beauty/risk of a sell-on clause. It can leave you with nowt or lots. As I say, we sold Hogan comparatively cheaply at the time given what other goal scorers in L1 and L2 were going for. This potential windfall is the club's reward for inserting that sell-on clause and they should get every penny. |
If Hogan had been say a Posh or Blades player what would the likely have been and what sort of add ons do such teams negotiate? | | | |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 21:48 - Jan 15 with 5212 views | Yorkshire_Dale |
How about Player Loans as part of the deal.......trouble is,would we need any of their fringe players? | | | |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 21:49 - Jan 15 with 5207 views | fitzochris |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 21:48 - Jan 15 by Yorkshire_Dale |
How about Player Loans as part of the deal.......trouble is,would we need any of their fringe players? |
Why would we choose a short-term option over long-term stability? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Hammers in for Hogan on 21:54 - Jan 15 with 5188 views | D_Alien |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 21:48 - Jan 15 by Yorkshire_Dale |
How about Player Loans as part of the deal.......trouble is,would we need any of their fringe players? |
Tom Field. This lad's got a decent fringe
 |  |
| |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 22:01 - Jan 15 with 5159 views | Jimlidale |
The board know football they would surely know the fee other clubs would have received for Hogan plus the sort of percentage they would add on. Would it not be better instead of holding out for a 25-30% of £15 million. If the windfall from £12.5 mill equates to what a other clubs would receive would that not be sensible? Plus does our extras stop at thIs sale or do we get anything if Hogan was sold on again? | | | |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 22:06 - Jan 15 with 5138 views | dingdangblue |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 21:47 - Jan 15 by Jimlidale |
If Hogan had been say a Posh or Blades player what would the likely have been and what sort of add ons do such teams negotiate? |
Huddersfield sold Jordan Rhodes to Blackburn for £8 million! And still inserted a 20% sell on! They received another windfall when he went to Middlesbrough for £11 million. |  |
| |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 22:11 - Jan 15 with 5122 views | Jimlidale |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 22:06 - Jan 15 by dingdangblue |
Huddersfield sold Jordan Rhodes to Blackburn for £8 million! And still inserted a 20% sell on! They received another windfall when he went to Middlesbrough for £11 million. |
Was that 20% of £3 million or the £11 mill | | | |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 22:13 - Jan 15 with 5112 views | TVOS1907 |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 21:48 - Jan 15 by Yorkshire_Dale |
How about Player Loans as part of the deal.......trouble is,would we need any of their fringe players? |
The deal is 25-30% of the fee and that's what we should be getting. | |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 22:27 - Jan 15 with 5054 views | 49thseason |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 22:01 - Jan 15 by Jimlidale |
The board know football they would surely know the fee other clubs would have received for Hogan plus the sort of percentage they would add on. Would it not be better instead of holding out for a 25-30% of £15 million. If the windfall from £12.5 mill equates to what a other clubs would receive would that not be sensible? Plus does our extras stop at thIs sale or do we get anything if Hogan was sold on again? |
It's all about risk. There is no risk in money paid up front, but in the event that the up-front money does not meet what is required by the seller, one option is to build into the deal a percentage sell-on which helps the buying club achieve a lower purchase price but which also offers the possibility that the selling club might, in the long term, achieve a total fee that is greater than the initial valuation. That is where we are now, if Hogan is sold for more than £750k (the up-front fee). These add-ons also encourage the buying club (Brentford) to put a similar clause in their contract when they too come to sell Hogan on, so that if for example, West Ham were to sell Hogan in 2-3 years time for say £30m and Brentford have a 25% clause, they would receive a further £3.75m (25% of the£15m profit West Ham make on the deal) and Rochdale would be entitled to their % of £3.75m as agreed in the initial contract.
The risk is that Hogan may never have played again after his injuries and Rochdale would have received nothing except the initial fee. That risk is the reason Rochdale will expect their share, of any big transfer fee. A deal is a deal, tough if Brentford don't like it now that big money is at stake, but it isn't Rochdale's problem and there is no reason to get involved now. We should also bear in mind that if the deal does not go through, the initial deal is all we have until next time (if there is one). |  | | |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 11:45 - Jan 16 with 4748 views | stigmundo77 |
thats weird, is it just me or does anyone else think that this is not going to happen as its been dragging on for ages | | | |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 18:24 - Jan 16 with 4393 views | pnc4eva1 |
Sky sports reported earlier that a £9000000 initial fee had been agreed with negotiations ongoing for other add ons |  |
| |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 18:41 - Jan 16 with 4327 views | Yorkshire_Dale |
West Ham are having trouble with Marsieilles over Payet too.......miles apart on a deal so far. | | | |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 19:04 - Jan 16 with 4247 views | midlandsdale |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 22:01 - Jan 15 by Jimlidale |
The board know football they would surely know the fee other clubs would have received for Hogan plus the sort of percentage they would add on. Would it not be better instead of holding out for a 25-30% of £15 million. If the windfall from £12.5 mill equates to what a other clubs would receive would that not be sensible? Plus does our extras stop at thIs sale or do we get anything if Hogan was sold on again? |
Apart from the principle, this is setting a dangerous precedent going forward. Im guessing you don't do much business negotiation? |  | | |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 19:21 - Jan 16 with 4178 views | DaleiLama |
Surely not?
 |  |
| |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 19:34 - Jan 16 with 4139 views | Jimlidale |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 19:04 - Jan 16 by midlandsdale |
Apart from the principle, this is setting a dangerous precedent going forward. Im guessing you don't do much business negotiation? |
Isn't the most important part of a business negotiation that a deal goes ahead? | | | |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 20:04 - Jan 16 with 4017 views | Frog |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 19:34 - Jan 16 by Jimlidale |
Isn't the most important part of a business negotiation that a deal goes ahead? |
Not if it's a bad one. |  | | |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 20:32 - Jan 16 with 3905 views | 49thseason |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 19:34 - Jan 16 by Jimlidale |
Isn't the most important part of a business negotiation that a deal goes ahead? |
 | | | |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 15:13 - Jan 17 with 3354 views | 1907 |
Rumours circulating that West Ham have had a £9 mill up front bid accepted with £6 mill of add ons | | | |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 15:47 - Jan 17 with 3241 views | Jimlidale |
| Hammers in for Hogan on 15:13 - Jan 17 by 1907 |
Rumours circulating that West Ham have had a £9 mill up front bid accepted with £6 mill of add ons |
Are Dale in line for a cut of any 'add ons' | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
