Hickey - signs for Bologna

[Drew Wallace]

11 minutes ago, Ronald Villiers said:

Totally mate.  Things are looking great for us right now.  I wonder what percentage we'd be due should Hickey go to the EPL.  Atleast he'll only be sold for a decent fee.

Thinking the same 

[johnking123]

Sure we get 20%. But celtic get 30% of our cut.

[Boris]

5 minutes ago, johnking123 said:

Sure we get 20%. But celtic get 30% of our cut.

Wasn't that on the initial fee from Bologna? Do they still get a sell on from a sell on??

[Mysterion]

9 minutes ago, Boris said:

Wasn't that on the initial fee from Bologna? Do they still get a sell on from a sell on??

 

A sell on clause is for the first deal. Would be some level of incompetency to agree otherwise. 

 

For that reason I believe Celtic are entitled to hee haw. 

[OTT]

3 hours ago, Gambo said:

He'd be better of learning and playing in Serie A .

 

**** that, I want an EPL bloated transfer fee. 

 

Newcastle pls

 

[Ari Gold]

Has it been confirmed we have a sell on clause?

[Drew Wallace]

2 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

**** that, I want an EPL bloated transfer fee. 

 

Newcastle pls

 

Thats the one £30 million minimum

 

Well transfer fee that is 

[Boris]

34 minutes ago, Mysterion said:

 

A sell on clause is for the first deal. Would be some level of incompetency to agree otherwise. 

 

For that reason I believe Celtic are entitled to hee haw. 

Hope so!

[stevie1874]

4 hours ago, Gambo said:

He'd be better of learning and playing in Serie A .

Agree, hope he plays in Italy for a good few years. Just shows other talented youngsters what can be achieved with the right move rather than jumping to go to Glasgow for a few Bob. 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

Hickey will have better options than Aston Villa if he keeps going the way he's going. Why rush anyhow. Still only 19.

[FarmerTweedy]

4 hours ago, Mysterion said:

 

A sell on clause is for the first deal. Would be some level of incompetency to agree otherwise. 

 

For that reason I believe Celtic are entitled to hee haw. 

A sell on clause will probably be for any money Hearts receive for him, whenever they receive it.  Would be some level of incompetence from celtic to agree otherwise. 

 

The reality is that (using Hickey as an example) if celtic had agreed to only take a percentage of the initial fee we received, it would have left them open to all sorts of shenanigans from us in terms of agreeing a deal that gives us virtually nothing up front but scores us loads later on.

 

As I've said before on this subject, none of us actually knows the real detail of the deal, but any club which sells a player in a deal involving a sell-on clause, is almost certain to make that clause cover all money that the buying club receives for the player, whenever they receive it.

[Naisys Tackle]

4 hours ago, Mysterion said:

 

A sell on clause is for the first deal. Would be some level of incompetency to agree otherwise. 

 

For that reason I believe Celtic are entitled to hee haw. 

Two words. Craig Levein. 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

26 minutes ago, Robbies Tackle said:

Two words. Craig Levein. 

 

Wasn't it Levein who spotted HIckey's potential, signed him, gave him his debut at 16 and developed him into a $1.8m Serie A player?

[Saint Jambo]

43 minutes ago, FarmerTweedy said:

A sell on clause will probably be for any money Hearts receive for him, whenever they receive it.  Would be some level of incompetence from celtic to agree otherwise. 

 

The reality is that (using Hickey as an example) if celtic had agreed to only take a percentage of the initial fee we received, it would have left them open to all sorts of shenanigans from us in terms of agreeing a deal that gives us virtually nothing up front but scores us loads later on.

 

As I've said before on this subject, none of us actually knows the real detail of the deal, but any club which sells a player in a deal involving a sell-on clause, is almost certain to make that clause cover all money that the buying club receives for the player, whenever they receive it.

 

Absolutely. In the past I've posted links to articles reporting clubs benefitting from these kind of cascade sell on fees. The chain is only broken by the player moving on freedom of contract or a deal that doesn't include a further sell on clause.

 

I also agree that none of us know the details of the deal with bologna. I'd be interested in anyone who can post a link to a journalist even speculating on the size of the sell on fee. But if the 20% to Hearts and 30% to Celtic is true, it is maybe worth spelling out what that would actually mean. It would mean of any future sale by Bologna, Hearts would get 14% of the fee and Celtic 6%. Or for a £5m fee, Hearts would get £700k and Celtic £300k. If he move, it is likely to be a nice bonus but unlikely to be an earth shattering financial benefit for us 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

15 minutes ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

Absolutely. In the past I've posted links to articles reporting clubs benefitting from these kind of cascade sell on fees. The chain is only broken by the player moving on freedom of contract or a deal that doesn't include a further sell on clause.

 

I also agree that none of us know the details of the deal with bologna. I'd be interested in anyone who can post a link to a journalist even speculating on the size of the sell on fee. But if the 20% to Hearts and 30% to Celtic is true, it is maybe worth spelling out what that would actually mean. It would mean of any future sale by Bologna, Hearts would get 14% of the fee and Celtic 6%. Or for a £5m fee, Hearts would get £700k and Celtic £300k. If he move, it is likely to be a nice bonus but unlikely to be an earth shattering financial benefit for us 

 

Considering he's not really a "Scottish" player now in terms of not playing in a league considered a backwater now, if your figures are right we could be looking at realistically pocketing up to around 2m instead of 700k, or more if Celtic don't get anything. Still 19, a starter in Serie A, left-sided, two-footed.... He has to be worth more than 5m in the current market. And more than that if an EPL club comes in for him. Crossed fingers anyhow. We're overdue a windfall.

[Saint Jambo]

4 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Considering he's not really a "Scottish" player now in terms of not playing in a league considered a backwater now, if your figures are right we could be looking at realistically pocketing up to around 2m instead of 700k, or more if Celtic don't get anything. Still 19, a starter in Serie A, left-sided, two-footed.... He has to be worth more than 5m in the current market. And more than that if an EPL club comes in for him. Crossed fingers anyhow. We're overdue a windfall.

Hopefully he goes for more. Bologna's record sale seems to be £23m. Every year or two they tend to sell someone for £10m+ but far more of their players go for the £1-5m range. While it might be better for Hickey to stay in Bologna, I'd quite like to see him sign for Hickey for big money now as the risk is he loses form or even just the buzz around him decreases over a couple of years and we miss out on a sell on fee. Although even at £25m the sell on fee isn't going to be game changing for us.

 

The 20% and 30% were just taken from an earlier post. I'm definitely not claiming they are correct. I am saying that if we have a sell on, then Celtic will be due a cut. That is just how these clauses work. 

[SuperstarSteve]

In my opinion there is absolutely no chance Celtic get any % from a 2nd hickey sale.
 

If he goes for a big fee it will be Headlines for that mob “oh what could’ve been” for a day or two. 

[Section Q]

As a 19 yo defender with a lot to learn, he couldn't be in a better place. Hope he stays put....

[CostaJambo]

7 hours ago, Saint Jambo said:

 

Absolutely. In the past I've posted links to articles reporting clubs benefitting from these kind of cascade sell on fees. The chain is only broken by the player moving on freedom of contract or a deal that doesn't include a further sell on clause.

 

I also agree that none of us know the details of the deal with bologna. I'd be interested in anyone who can post a link to a journalist even speculating on the size of the sell on fee. But if the 20% to Hearts and 30% to Celtic is true, it is maybe worth spelling out what that would actually mean. It would mean of any future sale by Bologna, Hearts would get 14% of the fee and Celtic 6%. Or for a £5m fee, Hearts would get £700k and Celtic £300k. If he move, it is likely to be a nice bonus but unlikely to be an earth shattering financial benefit for us 

There is a twitter link to Banderson speculating on this in the other Hickey thread. He seems to think there is indeed a sell-on clause but is unsure of the percentage. Also, nobody at all seems to know if Celtic get a cut of the initial Hearts fee only OR all repeat fees Hearts receive.

[Francis Albert]

8 hours ago, Section Q said:

As a 19 yo defender with a lot to learn, he couldn't be in a better place. Hope he stays put....

Agreed. If you can make it as a defender in Serie A you'll make it anywhere. To paraphrase.

 

As pointed out our share of even a very large fee will not be transformational for Hearts. 

 

I admire Hickey for his ambition and willingness to settle in and assimilate to a different culture and not just in football terms, in contrast to so many Scottish players whose ambition extends to playing for their boyhood favourites usually the OF or at a push the familiarity of England.

And many older and more experienced players have struggled after going abroad.

 

Good luck to him whatever it means for Hearts.

Edited October 19, 2021 by Francis Albert

[Unknown user]

11 hours ago, FarmerTweedy said:

A sell on clause will probably be for any money Hearts receive for him, whenever they receive it.  Would be some level of incompetence from celtic to agree otherwise. 

 

 

I wanted to say this but couldn't think of the words.

 

Is there any chance at all that Celtic's HR, finance and legal departments never thought of that, but we did, when they've been involved in over a century of transfers?

 

[jambo89]

I always thought sell on fees were usually only applicable to the next transfer (certainly used to be the case)

 

The qoute below is from the book of sports arbritation:-

 

'In its most common use, the sell-on clause is inserted in transfer contracts between two clubs, whereby the selling club, against a lower immediate transfer fee, retains the right to a certain percentage of a potential future transfer fee of the player to a third club.'

 

It makes no mention of 4th clubs or 5th clubs. That is not to say that such a parctice exists, however I thought it was pretty uncommon (I had never heard of this oractice until the John McGinn trabsfer).

 

There is also mention of 'third party ownerhip' with regards to future sell on fees. I assume it could be argued that if a 3rd party is due compensation for any transfer fees, then this could eb classed as thrid party ownership, which isn't allowed under FIFA rules.

 

Tried doing a bit of reading, but sell on clauses are by no means straight forward. The simpliest amd easiest 'sell on type' is between the 2 clubs and the sale to a 3rd club.

 

What people above are suggesting is that Celtic negotiated for a percentage of the next sale. As far as the reading suggests, that is as far as it can go i.e. you cannot get a cut of the players 10th transfer fee for example. For celtic to get a percentage of Hickeys next potential move, this would have had to be specifically negotiated (i.e. this is not the standard / starting point for sell on clauses)

[Saint Jambo]

50 minutes ago, jambo89 said:

I always thought sell on fees were usually only applicable to the next transfer (certainly used to be the case)

 

The qoute below is from the book of sports arbritation:-

 

'In its most common use, the sell-on clause is inserted in transfer contracts between two clubs, whereby the selling club, against a lower immediate transfer fee, retains the right to a certain percentage of a potential future transfer fee of the player to a third club.'

 

It makes no mention of 4th clubs or 5th clubs. That is not to say that such a parctice exists, however I thought it was pretty uncommon (I had never heard of this oractice until the John McGinn trabsfer).

 

There is also mention of 'third party ownerhip' with regards to future sell on fees. I assume it could be argued that if a 3rd party is due compensation for any transfer fees, then this could eb classed as thrid party ownership, which isn't allowed under FIFA rules.

 

Tried doing a bit of reading, but sell on clauses are by no means straight forward. The simpliest amd easiest 'sell on type' is between the 2 clubs and the sale to a 3rd club.

 

What people above are suggesting is that Celtic negotiated for a percentage of the next sale. As far as the reading suggests, that is as far as it can go i.e. you cannot get a cut of the players 10th transfer fee for example. For celtic to get a percentage of Hickeys next potential move, this would have had to be specifically negotiated (i.e. this is not the standard / starting point for sell on clauses)

 

Maybe later I'll dig out my post from last year where I posted a range of articles highlighting clubs receiving such 'windfalls'. From an internet search there were various examples. Generally lower league English clubs who had sold a player who through transfers had made several steps up through the pyramid. For Celtic the sell on fee clause is still only with Hearts, as outlined in the text you quote, it is just that it covers the full transfer fee Hearts receive for Hickey, whether that is paid to Hearts immediately on the sale, in installments, based on triggering performance clauses (e.g. appearances for Bologna) or from a future sell on fee when he leaves Bologna.

 

It obviously makes sense to structure deals in this way or you would be incentivising the club with who you have the sell on clause to structure their sale in a way that reduced the immediate fee in favour of other clauses. (E.g. £1 up front, £5m when he makes his first appearance) to avoid having to pay the sell on fee.

 

It isn't super common, because the chain is broken as soon as the player moves without the selling club having a sell on fee. The selling club can decide they just won't money up front or because the player moves on a free transfer.

 

The third party ownership thing is a red herring. If that was an issue it would apply even in the case of a single sell on clause. When Hearts sold to Bologna, Celtic were a third party. But it isn't a problem because the selling club isn't an owner. They have no control over the player. They don't have any way of exerting influence. If Hearts had decided to release Hickey for free rather than sell him, Celtic wouldn't have been able to stop us.

[Section Q]

13 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Agreed. If you can make it as a defender in Serie A you'll make it anywhere. To paraphrase.

 

As pointed out our share of even a very large fee will not be transformational for Hearts. 

 

I admire Hickey for his ambition and willingness to settle in and assimilate to a different culture and not just in football terms, in contrast to so many Scottish players whose ambition extends to playing for their boyhood favourites usually the OF or at a push the familiarity of England.

And many older and more experienced players have struggled after going abroad.

 

Good luck to him whatever it means for Hearts.

It's a short career and he's still a kid. Ability + a level head = anything he wants it to be....!

[Naisys Tackle]

15 hours ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Wasn't it Levein who spotted HIckey's potential, signed him, gave him his debut at 16 and developed him into a $1.8m Serie A player?

We are supposed to believe that the guy who wasted millions in signing shite for the first team spotted a young player in the Celtic youths to sign?  no doubt he would have been involved in negotiations though and the ludicrous sell on fee to Celtic of all teams. 

[Juho_Makela_Goal_Machine]

4 hours ago, jambo89 said:

I always thought sell on fees were usually only applicable to the next transfer (certainly used to be the case)

 

The qoute below is from the book of sports arbritation:-

 

'In its most common use, the sell-on clause is inserted in transfer contracts between two clubs, whereby the selling club, against a lower immediate transfer fee, retains the right to a certain percentage of a potential future transfer fee of the player to a third club.'

 

It makes no mention of 4th clubs or 5th clubs. That is not to say that such a parctice exists, however I thought it was pretty uncommon (I had never heard of this oractice until the John McGinn trabsfer).

 

There is also mention of 'third party ownerhip' with regards to future sell on fees. I assume it could be argued that if a 3rd party is due compensation for any transfer fees, then this could eb classed as thrid party ownership, which isn't allowed under FIFA rules.

 

Tried doing a bit of reading, but sell on clauses are by no means straight forward. The simpliest amd easiest 'sell on type' is between the 2 clubs and the sale to a 3rd club.

 

What people above are suggesting is that Celtic negotiated for a percentage of the next sale. As far as the reading suggests, that is as far as it can go i.e. you cannot get a cut of the players 10th transfer fee for example. For celtic to get a percentage of Hickeys next potential move, this would have had to be specifically negotiated (i.e. this is not the standard / starting point for sell on clauses)

Wouldn’t the sell-on fee that Hearts receive in a potential Hickey transfer be part of the fee received for his transfer to a third club? And therefore, Celtic are entitled to their 30% of that. I’d imagine, as stated elsewhere on the thread, that this ‘chain’ is broken when the player moves clubs without a sell-on percentage included in the deal. But, just the same, if Hickey moved to Wolves for 5m+20% sell on for Bologna, we would be entitled to our share of their 20% if he was then to move to Liverpool for 40m, for example. 

[Unknown user]

6 minutes ago, Juho_Makela_Goal_Machine said:

Wouldn’t the sell-on fee that Hearts receive in a potential Hickey transfer be part of the fee received for his transfer to a third club? And therefore, Celtic are entitled to their 30% of that. I’d imagine, as stated elsewhere on the thread, that this ‘chain’ is broken when the player moves clubs without a sell-on percentage included in the deal. But, just the same, if Hickey moved to Wolves for 5m+20% sell on for Bologna, we would be entitled to our share of their 20% if he was then to move to Liverpool for 40m, for example. 

 

Exactly. Of course the seller will expect a percentage of ANY future money received for that player, why wouldn't they set it up that way?

[jambo89]

20 minutes ago, Juho_Makela_Goal_Machine said:

Wouldn’t the sell-on fee that Hearts receive in a potential Hickey transfer be part of the fee received for his transfer to a third club? And therefore, Celtic are entitled to their 30% of that. I’d imagine, as stated elsewhere on the thread, that this ‘chain’ is broken when the player moves clubs without a sell-on percentage included in the deal. But, just the same, if Hickey moved to Wolves for 5m+20% sell on for Bologna, we would be entitled to our share of their 20% if he was then to move to Liverpool for 40m, for example. 

 

Only if that is what is specified in the deal. As I was trying to highlight, this is not the default position of 'sell on clauses' and would have to be agreed from both parties and isn't as simple as 'obviosuly they structured it that way', as some on here are suggesting.

[Guest ToqueJambo]

7 hours ago, Robbies Tackle said:

We are supposed to believe that the guy who wasted millions in signing shite for the first team spotted a young player in the Celtic youths to sign?  no doubt he would have been involved in negotiations though and the ludicrous sell on fee to Celtic of all teams. 

 

Yes

[redjambo]

He's playing first team football in Serie A at the age of 19. He'd be daft to go anywhere else at the moment. Take your time, you're in a great place to learn your trade and enjoy your football, would be my advice.

[DH1986]

Unless I’m mistaken..

 

Celtic will be due a percentage of all future transfer fees for Hickey….as will Hearts.

 

Its something to do with a FIFA youth development fee.

[Francis Albert]

5 minutes ago, DH1986 said:

Unless I’m mistaken..

 

Celtic will be due a percentage of all future transfer fees for Hickey….as will Hearts.

 

Its something to do with a FIFA youth development fee.

Source for this?

[Francis Albert]

15 minutes ago, redjambo said:

He's playing first team football in Serie A at the age of 19. He'd be daft to go anywhere else at the moment. Take your time, you're in a great place to learn your trade and enjoy your football, would be my advice.

Bologna or Birmingham?

 

He has already shown he is far from daft. Doubt he is going anywhere soon.

 

[Seymour M Hersh]

18 minutes ago, DH1986 said:

Unless I’m mistaken..

 

Celtic will be due a percentage of all future transfer fees for Hickey….as will Hearts.

 

Its something to do with a FIFA youth development fee.

 

This was discussed earlier and the consensus seemed to be they had their one and only cut from the Bologna fee. I hope the consensus is correct. 

[Naisys Tackle]

2 hours ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

Yes

Nae bovs Craig you’re decent on the radio 😎

[XB52]

18 minutes ago, Robbies Tackle said:

Nae bovs Craig you’re decent on the radio 😎

What's wrong with some people who can't let go of their hatred for a Hearts legend???? It's totally weird that some posters on here use any subject to spit their dummies out about Levein. He's long gone and the club is on the up, sit back and enjoy the present 

[Naisys Tackle]

14 minutes ago, XB52 said:

What's wrong with some people who can't let go of their hatred for a Hearts legend???? It's totally weird that some posters on here use any subject to spit their dummies out about Levein. He's long gone and the club is on the up, sit back and enjoy the present 

I do. And Levein is brilliant on the radio. Actually really funny.  Especially when admitting he’s a former manager. 

Edited October 19, 2021 by Robbies Tackle

[DH1986]

15 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Source for this?

 

15 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

This was discussed earlier and the consensus seemed to be they had their one and only cut from the Bologna fee. I hope the consensus is correct. 

 

https://www.parsalaw.com/fifa-player-transfers

 

FIFA Player Training Compensation 
 

[Juho_Makela_Goal_Machine]

22 hours ago, jambo89 said:

 

Only if that is what is specified in the deal. As I was trying to highlight, this is not the default position of 'sell on clauses' and would have to be agreed from both parties and isn't as simple as 'obviosuly they structured it that way', as some on here are suggesting.

 

Of course that can be specified. Although I'd imagine that the machinations of that would be difficult to enforce due to the nature of how transfers are structured with add-ons etc. (i.e. if there was an add-on for 500k for Hickey to make a certain amount of appearances for Bologna, Celtic would be entitled to their 30% of that if it is triggered.) The definition of the sell-on clause would be something like 'Club A is entitled to X% of any future financial benefit arising from the transfer of Player Y to a third club'.

[FTH]

On 19/10/2021 at 14:42, Juho_Makela_Goal_Machine said:

Wouldn’t the sell-on fee that Hearts receive in a potential Hickey transfer be part of the fee received for his transfer to a third club? And therefore, Celtic are entitled to their 30% of that. I’d imagine, as stated elsewhere on the thread, that this ‘chain’ is broken when the player moves clubs without a sell-on percentage included in the deal. But, just the same, if Hickey moved to Wolves for 5m+20% sell on for Bologna, we would be entitled to our share of their 20% if he was then to move to Liverpool for 40m, for example. 

So in this hypothetical do Bologna get the full 5mill (minus our 20% with celtic taking 30% of said 20%) followed by Bologna getting 20% of the next 40mill (minus our 20% of that 20%, with celtic again taking 30% of our 20% of Bologna's 20%). It's all a bit inception!

[Jambo92]

Celtic, Hearts and anyone else hes played for will be due a very small percentage of any future transfer (talking 5 figures fees) and potentially any future future transfer.  On top of that the hope is Hearts will have agreed their own future cut as part of the transfer agreement. Celtic will get absolutely none of that.

[Seymour M Hersh]

3 hours ago, DH1986 said:

 

 

https://www.parsalaw.com/fifa-player-transfers

 

FIFA Player Training Compensation 
 

 

Have we not already paid sellik from the Sale to Bologna? 

[Saint Jambo]

So here is an example of reporting if a deal that makes clear the way sell-on clauses can daisy chain, providing a sell-on benefit from more than one deal.

 

"[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

 

[john thomas]

6 hours ago, DH1986 said:

 

 

https://www.parsalaw.com/fifa-player-transfers

 

FIFA Player Training Compensation 
 

Bloody Levein again !

[Four faces]

1 hour ago, Saint Jambo said:

So here is an example of reporting if a deal that makes clear the way sell-on clauses can daisy chain, providing a sell-on benefit from more than one deal.

 

"[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

 

As straightforward as that?

[FarmerTweedy]

On 19/10/2021 at 09:16, Smithee said:

 

I wanted to say this but couldn't think of the words.

 

Is there any chance at all that Celtic's HR, finance and legal departments never thought of that, but we did, when they've been involved in over a century of transfers?

 

It's possible, but it's about as likely as me winning the jackpot on the next euromillions draw!

[FarmerTweedy]

On 19/10/2021 at 09:42, jambo89 said:

I always thought sell on fees were usually only applicable to the next transfer (certainly used to be the case)

 

The qoute below is from the book of sports arbritation:-

 

'In its most common use, the sell-on clause is inserted in transfer contracts between two clubs, whereby the selling club, against a lower immediate transfer fee, retains the right to a certain percentage of a potential future transfer fee of the player to a third club.'

 

It makes no mention of 4th clubs or 5th clubs. That is not to say that such a parctice exists, however I thought it was pretty uncommon (I had never heard of this oractice until the John McGinn trabsfer).

 

There is also mention of 'third party ownerhip' with regards to future sell on fees. I assume it could be argued that if a 3rd party is due compensation for any transfer fees, then this could eb classed as thrid party ownership, which isn't allowed under FIFA rules.

 

Tried doing a bit of reading, but sell on clauses are by no means straight forward. The simpliest amd easiest 'sell on type' is between the 2 clubs and the sale to a 3rd club.

 

What people above are suggesting is that Celtic negotiated for a percentage of the next sale. As far as the reading suggests, that is as far as it can go i.e. you cannot get a cut of the players 10th transfer fee for example. For celtic to get a percentage of Hickeys next potential move, this would have had to be specifically negotiated (i.e. this is not the standard / starting point for sell on clauses)

Firstly, it doesn't have to mention 4th, 5th clubs, etc. If celtic are due a percentage of any transfer fee we receive for Hickey, then if we got £1.5m initially, and have a 20% sell-on clause, and Bologna sell him for £15m, we get another £3m from them. That's still part of the transfer deal and therefore part of the fee we receive for him, so why wouldn't celtic be due a percentage of it? 

 

Secondly, it doesn't resemble third party ownership in any way.

[FarmerTweedy]

On 19/10/2021 at 15:11, jambo89 said:

 

Only if that is what is specified in the deal. As I was trying to highlight, this is not the default position of 'sell on clauses' and would have to be agreed from both parties and isn't as simple as 'obviosuly they structured it that way', as some on here are suggesting.

You didn't highlight any such thing though, nothing in what you posted earlier supported your point about 'default positions' in any way, you just put your own interpretation on it.

 

You're right that the specifics of the deal had to be agreed between both parties, but unless whoever was negotiating from celtic's side was stunningly incompetent, they'd have made sure their sell-on clause covered all money Hearts receive for Hickey in the future, not just the initial payment. As SaintJambo pointed out, if that wasn't the case we could have agreed a deal with Bologna where we got one pound up front and the rest of the £1.5m (or however much it actually was) if and when he played his first game for them. In your scenario, celtic would then have been totally screwed! If you really think celtic would have been quite that daft, fair enough! 

 

 

[FarmerTweedy]

7 hours ago, FTH said:

So in this hypothetical do Bologna get the full 5mill (minus our 20% with celtic taking 30% of said 20%) followed by Bologna getting 20% of the next 40mill (minus our 20% of that 20%, with celtic again taking 30% of our 20% of Bologna's 20%). It's all a bit inception!

It's really not that complicated, but people seem determined to try to make it so! Celtic will (almost certainly) be entitled to 30% of any money we ever get from Bologna for Hickey. We will (almost certainly) be entitled to whatever %age we agreed with Bologna of any money they receive for Hickey in the future. It's then up to Bologna to agree, or not, a sell-on deal if they do sell Hickey in the future. If Bologna get £10m for him initially, they're due us maybe £2m (assuming our deal with them is for 20%). If Bologna then later get another £5m, they're due us another £1m. And so on.  We were already due celtic 30% of the initial £1.5m we got, I.e. £450k. If we get another £2m in, we're due them another £600k. If we then get another £1m, we're due them another £300k.  To sum up, (if we do actually have a sell-on with Bologna) we will (almost certainly) get x% of whatever money Bologna ever receive for him. Celtic will (almost certainly) get 30% of whatever money we ever receive for him. If there are another half a dozen transfers for Hickey with sell-on clauses, all that matters is we'll (almost certainly) get our %age of every amount Bologna ever see for him, and celtic will then be due their cut of the money we get.

[OTT]

I think sell on fees are about the only way Scottish clubs can actually get fair value for their players. Always forced to sell on the cheap, but if they do well and we’ve managed to get a sell on fee agreed then there is potential to get another couple of million.

 

IMO Hickey was worth a lot more than Bologna paid for him, so hopefully this sell on fee when he is sold fixes that somewhat. (I think getting fees which hit around £3m for him would show good business - initial fee + sell on).

 

Not sure if Celtic will be due anything other than a training fee/solidarity payment (I think that’s what they’re called?). If it turns out they’re entitled to more, does that not therefore mean we are too with Hickeys next again move? Ie the move after he moves from Bologna?