Jump to content

Hickey


Innocent Eggboniki

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mikey1874

    8

  • Lovecraft

    7

  • IveSeenTheLight

    6

  • Eno

    6

I hate the fact that Celtic will benefit fairly significantly (I've see folk quote 20/30/40%) from whatever fee we receive so would it be beneficial for us to simply sell him to Man City for a nominal fee with a loan back for 18 months and an agreement that we get a certain amount, say, £4m, when he makes his first team debut. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Musemic said:

I hate the fact that Celtic will benefit fairly significantly (I've see folk quote 20/30/40%) from whatever fee we receive so would it be beneficial for us to simply sell him to Man City for a nominal fee with a loan back for 18 months and an agreement that we get a certain amount, say, £4m, when he makes his first team debut. 

Interesting point there.  I suspect however that the 30% will be based on the overall total fee with Celtic receiving a cut as each event arises.  Just a guess however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

Interesting point there.  I suspect however that the 30% will be based on the overall total fee with Celtic receiving a cut as each event arises.  Just a guess however.

 

I've sure we could set the Man City agreement up in a way which minimises Celtic's cut. £100 max hopefully...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather he went to Southampton tbh, then at least we might make something off the sell on clause. 

 

Either way, he will be bought by someone. If Man City are interested, so will most top clubs in Europe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ernie Eskilsson

EPL teams are splashing £50m+ on players who are not world beaters. Hickey has great potential and has a whole career in front of him. £5m plus sell on is the absolute minimum for me but it should be closer to £10m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JamboAl said:

Interesting point there.  I suspect however that the 30% will be based on the overall total fee with Celtic receiving a cut as each event arises.  Just a guess however.


is quite interesting how the payback to Celtic is worded and if any way round it. Eg number of first team games and second payment. Is that covered?  Can it be avoided as he’s loaned back to us so we are in fact “developing him” and not part of Celtic deal?  
risk is he doesn’t make it or get sold on (with an agreed sell-on fee). Maybe just have to accept Celtic get a share and maximise what we get. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Sid said:


is quite interesting how the payback to Celtic is worded and if any way round it. Eg number of first team games and second payment. Is that covered?  Can it be avoided as he’s loaned back to us so we are in fact “developing him” and not part of Celtic deal?  
risk is he doesn’t make it or get sold on (with an agreed sell-on fee). Maybe just have to accept Celtic get a share and maximise what we get. 

 

 

I have to agree with JamboAl. Surely sell-on clauses relate to all future revenue connected to a sale the club gets from that player. So for example if Hearts negotiate a 25% sell on clause with Man City and City then sold him for £10m, Hearts would get a further £2.5m, but we would need to pay Celtic 20%/£500k of that. Otherwise every deal would be structured to avoid paying a sell-on fee - £1 fee with a £10m payment due after he has played 1 game or something equally silly.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IveSeenTheLight
3 hours ago, Rudy T said:

 

Says the supporter of the team who bang on about that bombscare McKenna!

 

McKenna is clearly capable of playing Sustained SPL football.

All I was saying was that Hickey in his last game against us showed me that he is capable and has great potential.

Cochrane has yet to show that capability and certainly going on loan will give him the opportunity to develop better.

 

right now, I see more in Hickey than in Cochrane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fabienleclerq
4 hours ago, Irufushi said:

1.5 would be a boot in the balls tbh. 

 

It's no even de bruyne and kuns wages for the month! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jr ewing said:

2m and 3 year loan back works for me. 

Needs to be much higher to make it worth dealing. We only need to look at McKenna to see how much teams down south are prepared to offer and we should be no different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zaba said:


:laugh:

 

Pardon?

Natural odours should stick to asking if you get done for self-abusing in jail. 

Edited by Zico
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bazzas right boot
8 minutes ago, IveSeenTheLight said:

 

McKenna is clearly capable of playing Sustained SPL football.

All I was saying was that Hickey in his last game against us showed me that he is capable and has great potential.

Cochrane has yet to show that capability and certainly going on loan will give him the opportunity to develop better.

 

right now, I see more in Hickey than in Cochrane.

 

 

Hickey has far more raw ingredients and being a left sided full back, imo he has far more potential to go further. 

 

Goalies, full backs and to a lesser extent centre halves have the best chance to make it. 

 

Extremely tough for midfielders, wingers imo. 

 

Cochrane could still be good or decent but Hickey is a stand out imo, he's not long turned 17 either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

 

I have to agree with JamboAl. Surely sell-on clauses relate to all future revenue connected to a sale the club gets from that player. So for example if Hearts negotiate a 25% sell on clause with Man City and City then sold him for £10m, Hearts would get a further £2.5m, but we would need to pay Celtic 20%/£500k of that. Otherwise every deal would be structured to avoid paying a sell-on fee - £1 fee with a £10m payment due after he has played 1 game or something equally silly.

 

I would be very surprised if the sell on clause was not void after the initial move.

Just because he is loaned back does not make him a Hearts player and any future sale would be between Hearts and Man City.

Or players and clubs would be beholden to multitude of historical deals.

 

I doubt any player would agree to that as eventually they want a larger slice of the pie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, neonjambo said:

I would be very surprised if the sell on clause was not void after the initial move.

Just because he is loaned back does not make him a Hearts player and any future sale would be between Hearts and Man City.

Or players and clubs would be beholden to multitude of historical deals.

 

I doubt any player would agree to that as eventually they want a larger slice of the pie.

Exactly, once we sell to Citeh or whoever else that's the sell on fee re. Celtic done and dusted . Any future sell on is clearly only between Hearts and the buying club . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should sell him to man city for a pound so that Celtic get 30p, put an agreement in place that city pay us 5 million over 5 years and send us loads of young talent on loan?

There's got to be a way around this haha. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, neonjambo said:

I would be very surprised if the sell on clause was not void after the initial move.

Just because he is loaned back does not make him a Hearts player and any future sale would be between Hearts and Man City.

Or players and clubs would be beholden to multitude of historical deals.

 

I doubt any player would agree to that as eventually they want a larger slice of the pie.

I think you're probably right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Robert Lazar said:

We should sell him to man city for a pound so that Celtic get 30p, put an agreement in place that city pay us 5 million over 5 years and send us loads of young talent on loan?

There's got to be a way around this haha. 

That's interesting.  I think £1 is too high because that's the same fee we paid for the great Michael Stewart but I would take it in exchange for a 2 year loan deal for De Bruyne and Aguerro.😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
7 hours ago, IveSeenTheLight said:

First couple of games against us I didn’t see what all the hype was about.

He was just a bit meh.

 

In the cup game however, I thought he was a standout and actually seemed better on the right.

 

He’s definitely got a lot more potential that the boy Cochran’s you guys were shouting as the next big thing.

 

Which youngsters (16, 17, 18) have Aberdeen got coming through and playing in the first team? Any we should look out for?

Edited by ToqueJambo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still not convinced by this sell on clause to The Smellies (as in the %). To me its a story from the Glasgae media to avoid the embarrassment of not securing a top talent as he rejected them to rejoin us. A Bunch Of Monkeys indeed.  

 

clint eastwood eyes GIF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are ways to get around the rumoured sell on fee to Celtic. Not sure if the club are smart enough though. 

Meshino back on loan and a fat fee please. Don’t think 2 million is enough but his contract situation dictates his valuation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Famous 1874 said:

There are ways to get around the rumoured sell on fee to Celtic. Not sure if the club are smart enough though. 

Meshino back on loan and a fat fee please. Don’t think 2 million is enough but his contract situation dictates his valuation. 

Can you enlighten us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, neonjambo said:

I would be very surprised if the sell on clause was not void after the initial move.

Just because he is loaned back does not make him a Hearts player and any future sale would be between Hearts and Man City.

Or players and clubs would be beholden to multitude of historical deals.

 

I doubt any player would agree to that as eventually they want a larger slice of the pie.

 

4 hours ago, ramrod said:

Exactly, once we sell to Citeh or whoever else that's the sell on fee re. Celtic done and dusted . Any future sell on is clearly only between Hearts and the buying club . 

 

So here is an example of a deal from this summer structured in the way I suggested...

"[Ipswich] look set to receive a third sell-on windfall of the summer with Brighton and Hove Albion widely reported to have made a £20 million - plus add-ons totalling a further £5 million - offer to Bristol City for ex-[Ipswich] centre-half Adam Webster. Webster joined [Bristol] from [Ipswich] for an initial £3.5 million last summer with the fee potentially rising to £8 million and some of those top-ups are almost certain to have been paid over the course of last season. [We] understands the sell-on clause in that deal is just below the previously reported 10 per cent, while Portsmouth would be due 20 per cent of anything [Ipswich] receive as a result of their sell-on from the 2016 move which saw Webster join [Ipswich] and Matt Clarke move to [Portsmouth]."

So Portsmouth -> Ipswich -> Bristol -> Brighton & Hove. Portsmouth would get a percentage of the Bristol to Brighton & Hove transfer despite being at two steps removed from that deal.

 

Similarly in the same story, a transfer where it is clear that a club also benefits from a percentage of the add ons.

"Tyrone Mings’s move from AFC Bournemouth to Aston Villa for an initial £20 million plus potentially another £6.5 million saw the Blues receive £1.2 million now with that windfall potentially reaching £1.85 million."

https://www.twtd.co.uk/ipswich-town-news/36372/town-could-receive-third-summer-sell-on-windfall-as-brighton-close-in-on-webster

 

This trickle back of payments is broken as soon as a club in the chain sells without a sell-on clause. So for example if Hearts sold Hickey to Man City who then sold Hickey to Barcelona, if Hearts include a sell-on clause, both Hearts and Celtic would receive a share of the fee Barcelona paid. If Hearts didn't include a sell-on clause, neither Hearts nor Celtic would receive a share of the Barcelona fee.

 

As I said before, clubs would be crazy not to make any sell-on clause apply to all future transfer revenue related to a player, otherwise you are just encouraging clubs to structure deals in a way that reduces the sell-on fee due to the previous club. There is probably more mileage in Famous 1874's suggestion of including non-cash elements in the sale, such as a loan-back or loans of additional players.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, IveSeenTheLight said:

 

Looks like he’s been sub 3 times and started twice, picking up a booking on both games he started.

 

He joined them on the 30th of August. Since then they have only played 5 league games, the first within 24 hours of him joining. He played as a sub in the first three, then started the two most recent games. Looks to me like the manager gave him some time to get to know his teammates and now appears like the manager is going to give him plenty of game time.

 

I agree with you that a loan is the best thing for him, but think otherwise you are being too harsh in your assessment of him (probably because you naturally aren't paying as much attention to him as you would an Aberdeen player). He is still only 18, had made 20 appearances in the top flight before his 17th birthday 2 seasons ago. Last season was pretty much lost to injury. He is only one year older than Hickey. And as another comparison he is two years younger than Lewis Ferguson. Next season would be the equivalent (age wise) to his first season at Aberdeen. By the end of this season he'll have far more first team games under his belt than Ferguson did when he left Hamilton. Absolutely no reason that Cochrane can't return to Hearts and be a first team regular next season at the age of 19! Crazy to think so many Hearts fans have written him off.

 

In my view it is far too early to say whether Hickey or Cochrane will have the better career. My hope is that both are mainstays of the Hearts team for the next 2 or 3 years at least before moving on to bigger and better things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seymour M Hersh
14 hours ago, Ernie Eskilsson said:

EPL teams are splashing £50m+ on players who are not world beaters. Hickey has great potential and has a whole career in front of him. £5m plus sell on is the absolute minimum for me but it should be closer to £10m.

 

And that's why he'll not go for huge money at this stage it's all just potential. Certainly he looks like he has all the requirements to become an excellent player but he's only been around the first team for 6 months so a lot could happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would be great to see the kid play and develop for a couple of seasons, no hurry in selling him. Hope the club can do a deal before Christmas to facilitate this. It would also be great to see him playing in a better Hearts team, it's a testimony to his talent that he is holding his own in a struggling side under the most basic of coaching teams. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Queens Park Rangers are the latest club to register an interest in Hearts left-back Aaron Hickey and the English Championship outfit are weighing up a £1.5m bid for the 17-year-old in January. (Sunday Mail)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Jambof3tornado said:

Hopefully learn from his errors today. Just wish we'd play him in his favoured position.

 

Right midfield? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambof3tornado
4 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Right midfield? 

Is that his favoured position? I meant left back, he'll be in goals before too long lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/10/2019 at 19:11, Clerry Jambo said:

Queens Park Rangers are the latest club to register an interest in Hearts left-back Aaron Hickey and the English Championship outfit are weighing up a £1.5m bid for the 17-year-old in January. (Sunday Mail)

 

Leeds United now too 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/leeds-prepare-transfer-swoop-aaron-20658504.amp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Lovecraft said:

Southampton and Norwich City mentioned at the bottom too.

 

Gerrard said on Sunday Rangers not doing anything - "nothing in it". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Gerrard said on Sunday Rangers not doing anything - "nothing in it". 

Because some of the big boys are showing interest down South.

 

😉

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jambof3tornado said:

As much as I'd love to see him spend a few years at Hearts developing I'm afraid we have to sell while his stock is high.

 

Its mainly about what he wants to do. 

 

He might be better staying at Hearts. Choosing a club that will play him is tricky. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Barack said:

Wasn't a disparaging comment of Leeds. More they are probably in a better financial place atmit, than Rangers. In that, they can at least pay large sums of money for a player...up front

 

£7 million for Bamford, as an example. £7 million for Kent, payable every 2nd Thursday of the month, until 2025...or Euro Cup Winners...(whichever comes sooner) in Rangers' case.

 

Leeds currently would be a good option.

 

Small first team squad, give young players a chance. 

 

But that's under the current management. What if they get another manager - which they will if they don't get promoted - who goes a different way. 

 

It would be a big risk leaving Hearts. 

Edited by Mikey1874
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rangers are also understood to be keen on the player------ Why do they keep peddling this when both Levein and Gerrard dismissed it. Notice in the football snippets that Crystal Palace are ready to pay £20 million for Morelos and there is big interest in Tavernier. Looks as if the spin machine is in overdrive in their attempt to generate funds before big Mike comes a calling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully we can expect a fee around £3m mark if there are a few clubs interested and given his contract situation. Think that's likely to be the upper limit though 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SuperstarSteve
1 hour ago, RS86 said:

Hopefully we can expect a fee around £3m mark if there are a few clubs interested and given his contract situation. Think that's likely to be the upper limit though 

I’m where your at. 

£3million and chuck Celtic their £1million. 

18 month loan back and 20% sell on fee. 

 

Thats us earned roughly the same money as we got for osman and kyle in the one transfer. Albeit with hickey’s potential it really could/should be more if not for his contract situation. 

 

Majority of us atleast accept its more than likely he is gone and it won’t be for big big money  (unless contract situation changes) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SuperstarSteve said:

I’m where your at. 

£3million and chuck Celtic their £1million. 

18 month loan back and 20% sell on fee. 

 

Thats us earned roughly the same money as we got for osman and kyle in the one transfer. Albeit with hickey’s potential it really could/should be more if not for his contract situation. 

 

Majority of us atleast accept its more than likely he is gone and it won’t be for big big money  (unless contract situation changes) 

 

 

 

3 Million gross is only £2.5 million once the VAT is paid so the Mhanks would get £750000. I hope it is structured with sell on so we maximise it to our advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would Man City work with Hearts to try and screw Celtic? They are now one of the biggest clubs in the world with a very good reputation and working relationship with Celtic - if anything they will probably work with them in their pursuit of Hickey and end up lending him to them if they want to get the player. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...