| Right then ye f..... 19:26 - Aug 4 with 24457 views | TheResurrection |
Have a bit of that.
Young side, trying to play football, dug in and get the rewards.
To the usual fackwits on Planet tvvat, fack you...
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |  |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:30 - Aug 5 with 1149 views | E20Jack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:24 - Aug 5 by londonlisa2001 |
I haven’t agreed with you in anyone’s mind apart from your own.
My posts have been absolutely clear. General principle applies. Label not important. Sometimes shortfall done one way. Sometimes another.
Happy to clarify. |
We are talking about signing on fee Lisa.
You are changing it to “having to incur a cost” in order to get an angle to debate.
Builth clarified above stating “if we sell Clucas for £8m then we have to pay him and his agent £2m” as we saw from previous posts, he is referring to that being a signing on fee.
If you are not agreeing that signing on fees are paid by the buying club then quite simply you are wrong, even if you wish to site an isolated incident where a payment was made by a selling club to cover some costs.
Cheers for clarifying what I stated about the lioness. |  |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:32 - Aug 5 with 1124 views | E20Jack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:28 - Aug 5 by londonlisa2001 |
Joe Allen was paid more at Liverpool than he was here so there was no shortfall of wages.
There are all sorts of permutations in the way these things work depending on all sorts of factors. |
Make sure no difference.
We are talking about the signing on fee. Not an agreement to make up the shortfall in personal terms.
The shortfall in personal terms is not the same thing. The signing on fee is usually 10% of the transfer fee, for them to be offset and for you to make the speculative case they can be classed as pretty much the same thing in terms of effect, the shortfall would have to exactly match the fee - which is extremely unlikely to put it in extreme kindness. | |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:33 - Aug 5 with 1121 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:30 - Aug 5 by E20Jack |
We are talking about signing on fee Lisa.
You are changing it to “having to incur a cost” in order to get an angle to debate.
Builth clarified above stating “if we sell Clucas for £8m then we have to pay him and his agent £2m” as we saw from previous posts, he is referring to that being a signing on fee.
If you are not agreeing that signing on fees are paid by the buying club then quite simply you are wrong, even if you wish to site an isolated incident where a payment was made by a selling club to cover some costs.
Cheers for clarifying what I stated about the lioness. |
I don’t care what it’s called, but if we need to pay anyone £2m then it’s us out of pocket and takes more out of your “retained value” argument. |  | | |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:35 - Aug 5 with 1113 views | E20Jack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:33 - Aug 5 by 34dfgdf54 |
I don’t care what it’s called, but if we need to pay anyone £2m then it’s us out of pocket and takes more out of your “retained value” argument. |
Of course you don’t care what it is called because it would mean you being wrong, or even worse, me being right.
I don’t think for a second we would agree to make up any shortfall in wages to a Premier League club so its a moot point. | |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:38 - Aug 5 with 1097 views | PozuelosSideys |
A player isnt going to walk away from a £50k pw salary in the Championship to go and earn £35k a week in the PL. I wouldnt, you wouldnt. Nobody would.
Its highly likely the selling club will cover the net shortfall in wages if we really want him off the books for the duration of his contract with us.
Signing on fees are usually paid for by the buying club which will be separate from the contract buyout that we are forced to cover. |  |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:41 - Aug 5 with 1086 views | E20Jack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:38 - Aug 5 by PozuelosSideys |
A player isnt going to walk away from a £50k pw salary in the Championship to go and earn £35k a week in the PL. I wouldnt, you wouldnt. Nobody would.
Its highly likely the selling club will cover the net shortfall in wages if we really want him off the books for the duration of his contract with us.
Signing on fees are usually paid for by the buying club which will be separate from the contract buyout that we are forced to cover. |
Again, it is not the same thing.
A shortfall in wages when the selling club really want to sell is usually (possibly always) remedied by a reduction in transfer fee. So if the transfer fee is £8m then that is the reduced figure to allow it, it wouldn’t be further losses on top - which is being claimed for possibly the first time on any football related discussion in the planet to do so here.
In fact it is the exact same scenario that happened between us and Man City for Bony. Yet we still had to pay him a signing on fee - they are not related.
We will continue to pay him in instalments of that sum every year too, until he hands in a transfer request and it is forfeited. [Post edited 5 Aug 2018 13:44]
| |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:43 - Aug 5 with 1076 views | PozuelosSideys |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:41 - Aug 5 by E20Jack |
Again, it is not the same thing.
A shortfall in wages when the selling club really want to sell is usually (possibly always) remedied by a reduction in transfer fee. So if the transfer fee is £8m then that is the reduced figure to allow it, it wouldn’t be further losses on top - which is being claimed for possibly the first time on any football related discussion in the planet to do so here.
In fact it is the exact same scenario that happened between us and Man City for Bony. Yet we still had to pay him a signing on fee - they are not related.
We will continue to pay him in instalments of that sum every year too, until he hands in a transfer request and it is forfeited. [Post edited 5 Aug 2018 13:44]
|
You realise not all contractual arrangements are the same tho right? In this case, we are desparate to get his numbers off the books and Burnley know it. They arent going to break their wage structure for him, especially given his medical issue at the moment and will leverage that as an excuse.
The signing on fee is an arrangement between the buying club and the player. The contract wage buyout is between the clubs. | |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:43 - Aug 5 with 1075 views | icecoldjack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:38 - Aug 5 by PozuelosSideys |
A player isnt going to walk away from a £50k pw salary in the Championship to go and earn £35k a week in the PL. I wouldnt, you wouldnt. Nobody would.
Its highly likely the selling club will cover the net shortfall in wages if we really want him off the books for the duration of his contract with us.
Signing on fees are usually paid for by the buying club which will be separate from the contract buyout that we are forced to cover. |
I have it on good authority he's on nothing like 50k a week .
Nearer half that amount, my guess is that Burnley want to pay him around the same and he wants to be put on their high wage bracket. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:45 - Aug 5 with 1071 views | PozuelosSideys |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:43 - Aug 5 by icecoldjack |
I have it on good authority he's on nothing like 50k a week .
Nearer half that amount, my guess is that Burnley want to pay him around the same and he wants to be put on their high wage bracket. |
If thats the case then we are all talking speculative bollox and the chances are the hold up is agent-related. | |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:45 - Aug 5 with 1070 views | E20Jack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:43 - Aug 5 by icecoldjack |
I have it on good authority he's on nothing like 50k a week .
Nearer half that amount, my guess is that Burnley want to pay him around the same and he wants to be put on their high wage bracket. |
Then it isn’t even close to being remotely possible then. | |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:45 - Aug 5 with 1070 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:30 - Aug 5 by E20Jack |
We are talking about signing on fee Lisa.
You are changing it to “having to incur a cost” in order to get an angle to debate.
Builth clarified above stating “if we sell Clucas for £8m then we have to pay him and his agent £2m” as we saw from previous posts, he is referring to that being a signing on fee.
If you are not agreeing that signing on fees are paid by the buying club then quite simply you are wrong, even if you wish to site an isolated incident where a payment was made by a selling club to cover some costs.
Cheers for clarifying what I stated about the lioness. |
Nope. I was talking about the situation builth outlined.
I was clear.
He called it a signing fee. Not me. I said it didn’t matter what you called it.
The thrust of your response to him was that the situation he outlined would be paid by the buying club, because it was labelled a signing fee.i pointed out that was incorrect.
Does a buying club pay a signing fee - absolutely.
Does a selling club suffer a financial hit when that player signs for another club - sometimes they do, yes. And when they do it can happen in a variety of ways.
Now I can’t explain it anymore clearly than that, I’m afraid, so I won’t repeat it. If you don’t understand, that’s fine. If you do understand but are simply arguing, that’s your perogative. Perhaps you’ve little to do in Australia at present. |  | | |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:47 - Aug 5 with 1053 views | E20Jack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:43 - Aug 5 by PozuelosSideys |
You realise not all contractual arrangements are the same tho right? In this case, we are desparate to get his numbers off the books and Burnley know it. They arent going to break their wage structure for him, especially given his medical issue at the moment and will leverage that as an excuse.
The signing on fee is an arrangement between the buying club and the player. The contract wage buyout is between the clubs. |
Nope.
Give me two examples where a selling club has paid a signing on fee on behalf of the buying club.
Should be fairly common considering the amount of deals that are done where a player is on a high salary. | |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:48 - Aug 5 with 1047 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:43 - Aug 5 by icecoldjack |
I have it on good authority he's on nothing like 50k a week .
Nearer half that amount, my guess is that Burnley want to pay him around the same and he wants to be put on their high wage bracket. |
For clarity. I’ve made it clear throughout that I’m not talking about the Clucas situation but in general terms. | | | |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:51 - Aug 5 with 1029 views | PozuelosSideys |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:47 - Aug 5 by E20Jack |
Nope.
Give me two examples where a selling club has paid a signing on fee on behalf of the buying club.
Should be fairly common considering the amount of deals that are done where a player is on a high salary. |
I have at no point stated that the selling club (us) have paid a signing on fee to the player on behalf of the buying club (Burnley)
Im talking about us having to pay the net shortfall in wages. They are separate items. | |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:53 - Aug 5 with 1020 views | E20Jack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:45 - Aug 5 by londonlisa2001 |
Nope. I was talking about the situation builth outlined.
I was clear.
He called it a signing fee. Not me. I said it didn’t matter what you called it.
The thrust of your response to him was that the situation he outlined would be paid by the buying club, because it was labelled a signing fee.i pointed out that was incorrect.
Does a buying club pay a signing fee - absolutely.
Does a selling club suffer a financial hit when that player signs for another club - sometimes they do, yes. And when they do it can happen in a variety of ways.
Now I can’t explain it anymore clearly than that, I’m afraid, so I won’t repeat it. If you don’t understand, that’s fine. If you do understand but are simply arguing, that’s your perogative. Perhaps you’ve little to do in Australia at present. |
The situation was outlined by builth clearly, twice, and was that we have to pay £2m of the transfer fee to Clucas and his agent as a signing on fee.
He called it a signing on fee because that is what he was referring to. You changed it from that as you knew he was wrong and attempted to make a case regarding a shortfall in wages, something highly speculative and is usually (always) remedied by a transfer fee reduction rather than a player lump fee, so again, not even close to being relevant considering the transfer fee is already set in the discussion at £8m.
Your summary has agreed with everything I have stated. Why you are telling me you are explaining y own point clearly is bizarre.
It’s almost 11pm here Lisa, It would seem I have about as much to do on a Sunday night than you do in the day time in London. [Post edited 5 Aug 2018 13:54]
| |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:54 - Aug 5 with 1016 views | PozuelosSideys |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:53 - Aug 5 by E20Jack |
The situation was outlined by builth clearly, twice, and was that we have to pay £2m of the transfer fee to Clucas and his agent as a signing on fee.
He called it a signing on fee because that is what he was referring to. You changed it from that as you knew he was wrong and attempted to make a case regarding a shortfall in wages, something highly speculative and is usually (always) remedied by a transfer fee reduction rather than a player lump fee, so again, not even close to being relevant considering the transfer fee is already set in the discussion at £8m.
Your summary has agreed with everything I have stated. Why you are telling me you are explaining y own point clearly is bizarre.
It’s almost 11pm here Lisa, It would seem I have about as much to do on a Sunday night than you do in the day time in London. [Post edited 5 Aug 2018 13:54]
|
Get your red pen out sheriff adz | |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:55 - Aug 5 with 1009 views | E20Jack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:54 - Aug 5 by PozuelosSideys |
Get your red pen out sheriff adz |
Is that the best you can come up with? Put some imagination into it man. | |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:56 - Aug 5 with 999 views | PozuelosSideys |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:55 - Aug 5 by E20Jack |
Is that the best you can come up with? Put some imagination into it man. |
Hes over there by all accounts my journo friend tells me ;) | |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:58 - Aug 5 with 988 views | E20Jack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:51 - Aug 5 by PozuelosSideys |
I have at no point stated that the selling club (us) have paid a signing on fee to the player on behalf of the buying club (Burnley)
Im talking about us having to pay the net shortfall in wages. They are separate items. |
We wouldn’t be paying anything if that were even the case, which is highly doubtful.
It would be a reduction of transfer fee. The discussion has already set that at £8m so the point is whatever financial hit has already been taken, it wouldn’t be a further £2m if it is a shortfall in wages you are talking about.
The signing on fee is ludicrous and not even worth debating. | |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:58 - Aug 5 with 981 views | E20Jack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:56 - Aug 5 by PozuelosSideys |
Hes over there by all accounts my journo friend tells me ;) |
I’ll have to tell him to claim a signing on fee, seems anyone can. [Post edited 5 Aug 2018 13:59]
| |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 14:00 - Aug 5 with 978 views | PozuelosSideys |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:58 - Aug 5 by E20Jack |
I’ll have to tell him to claim a signing on fee, seems anyone can. [Post edited 5 Aug 2018 13:59]
|
No. Signing on fees are just sweetners to the deal. Part paid to players and part to agents | |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 14:01 - Aug 5 with 970 views | E20Jack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 14:00 - Aug 5 by PozuelosSideys |
No. Signing on fees are just sweetners to the deal. Part paid to players and part to agents |
... by the buying party.
Yey, we all agree. | |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 14:03 - Aug 5 with 964 views | PozuelosSideys |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 14:01 - Aug 5 by E20Jack |
... by the buying party.
Yey, we all agree. |
Yes i know. Thats what i said. The buying club pays the signing on fee to the player/agent.
However, in this instance, we are likely to have to pay Burnley a figure to cover Clucas' shortfall in wages.
Whether thats included as part of the fee or not remains to be seen. Depends how its booked tho | |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 14:07 - Aug 5 with 947 views | E20Jack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 14:03 - Aug 5 by PozuelosSideys |
Yes i know. Thats what i said. The buying club pays the signing on fee to the player/agent.
However, in this instance, we are likely to have to pay Burnley a figure to cover Clucas' shortfall in wages.
Whether thats included as part of the fee or not remains to be seen. Depends how its booked tho |
We are absolutely not likely to have to pay a shortfall to Burnley.
25k a week is what all sources suggest he is on.
There is not a chance we will be having to pay a shortfall in wages. | |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 14:08 - Aug 5 with 940 views | PozuelosSideys |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 14:07 - Aug 5 by E20Jack |
We are absolutely not likely to have to pay a shortfall to Burnley.
25k a week is what all sources suggest he is on.
There is not a chance we will be having to pay a shortfall in wages. |
Then there is nothing to discuss. Just a flat sign-on fee for Burnley to pay Clucas | |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
