**** Official Premiership Hickey Thread ( merged ) ****

[salvo69]

It just dawned on me does this make Hickey the biggest Scottish transfer of all time ?

[jamboinglasgow]

6 minutes ago, salvo69 said:

It just dawned on me does this make Hickey the biggest Scottish transfer of all time ?

 

Nope, that is Tierney to Arsenal for £25m. If we are taking in the full £19m fee, then it would make Hickey the third biggest transfer for a Scottish player (2nd is Oli McBurnie to Sheffield United for £20m.)

Edited July 6, 2022 by jamboinglasgow

[Harry Potter]

Brentford get crowds of about 17000 , not bad for a town with 100,000 population.

Good luck to the lad.

[Ford Prentice]

On another thread SMJ_1874 says the fixed fee is £150,000. That would be less than 1%.

 

No idea if it's true but since Joe Savage is on record as saying a percentage was due, then if it's a fixed fee he needs to explain what's going on.

 

I see no reason for waiting 12/18 months to see accounts. This is a fan owned club and I think we have the right to know the truth about this now.

[Waterboy]

43 minutes ago, Ford Prentice said:

On another thread SMJ_1874 says the fixed fee is £150,000. That would be less than 1%.

 

No idea if it's true but since Joe Savage is on record as saying a percentage was due, then if it's a fixed fee he needs to explain what's going on.

 

I see no reason for waiting 12/18 months to see accounts. This is a fan owned club and I think we have the right to know the truth about this now.

 

You see no issue with clubs knowing exactly how much money we have to spend on transfers as we try to buy their players off them?

 

I'd love to know how much we're getting for Hickey, but it doesn't matter a jot whether I do or not, what does matter is Hearts being able to use the money effectively, which they can't do if everyone knows how much it is.

[Ronald Villiers]

I'm pretty sure that it was JS that confirmed a few weeks ago that we were due a percentage of any transfer fee.  He also stated that this was more than 10% but did/would not disclose what the percentage was.

[Ford Prentice]

18 minutes ago, Waterboy said:

 

You see no issue with clubs knowing exactly how much money we have to spend on transfers as we try to buy their players off them?

 

I'd love to know how much we're getting for Hickey, but it doesn't matter a jot whether I do or not, what does matter is Hearts being able to use the money effectively, which they can't do if everyone knows how much it is.

It's common for clubs to reveal how much they get/pay for transfers. It's also common for third party clubs to know even when fans don't. Agents talk.

 

I don't see how any advantage from being secretive overrides accountability and transparency to the owners of the club i.e. us.

[Tiger]

Why are we still debating this fixed amount and percentage. ffs its a percentage 

[Sooks]

29 minutes ago, Ronald Villiers said:

I'm pretty sure that it was JS that confirmed a few weeks ago that we were due a percentage of any transfer fee.  He also stated that this was more than 10% but did/would not disclose what the percentage was.

 

i am the same that is what I remember too

[RobNox]

15 hours ago, Sooks said:

I am almost certain Savage confirmed at least ten per cent at questions and answers at Tynecastle around about the same time and that there were kickback posters present who shared that on here

I was there and he did not quote a %age sell on clause.  His exact words when responding to the question were 'we will receive a percentage of any fee'.

 

The cynic in me at the time though that was just clever wording.  He didn't say we had a fixed % sell on clause, but that we would receive a percentage.  Basically, any money we received would be a percentage, only the more Hickey was sold for, the smaller our percentage would become.

[Ford Prentice]

12 minutes ago, Tiger said:

Why are we still debating this fixed amount and percentage. ffs its a percentage 

Because Barry Anderson wrote that it's a fixed six figure amount and SMJ_1874 is claiming it's only £150,000.

[Sooks]

1 minute ago, RobNox said:

I was there and he did not quote a %age sell on clause.  His exact words when responding to the question were 'we will receive a percentage of any fee'.

 

The cynic in me at the time though that was just clever wording.  He didn't say we had a fixed % sell on clause, but that we would receive a percentage.  Basically, any money we received would be a percentage, only the more Hickey was sold for, the smaller our percentage would become.

 

Yes I expect you are right it is starting to look that way

[Mikey1874]

Just now, Sooks said:

 

Yes I expect you are right it is starting to look that way

 

In the world of rumour and speculation it might 'look that way'.

 

Unless Hearts confirm it, its speculation. It's also not true that all fees are made public. Clubs like to keep a lot of information secret.

 

Currently its certainly not in our interests for clubs we're negotiating with for players to know we've just received £2 million plus.

 

On the other hand I suppose if we all say it's only £100k then it helps the club. 

[Sooks]

Just now, Mikey1874 said:

 

In the world of rumour and speculation it might 'look that way'.

 

Unless Hearts confirm it, its speculation. It's also not true that all fees are made public. Clubs like to keep a lot of information secret.

 

Currently its certainly not in our interests for clubs we're negotiating with for players to know we've just received £2 million plus.

 

On the other hand I suppose if we all say it's only £100k then it helps the club. 

 

Kickback is the world of rumour and speculation

 

Perfectly plausible and I really hope you are correct and that this is the case

[JimmyCant]

9 minutes ago, Ford Prentice said:

Because Barry Anderson wrote that it's a fixed six figure amount and SMJ_1874 is claiming it's only £150,000.

There is no danger you sell a player for £1.2 million and accept a sell on of £150k. A fixed fee in itself would be bloody stupid but £150k would be corporate incompetence of the highest order.

 

A fixed fee would be pretty rare and seriously disappointing and a huge mistake on the part of whoever agreed to it IMO. It’s a worse mistake than forgetting to order seats.

 

I think it’ll be a percentage

Edited July 6, 2022 by JimmyCant

[cosanostra]

23 minutes ago, RobNox said:

I was there and he did not quote a %age sell on clause.  His exact words when responding to the question were 'we will receive a percentage of any fee'.

 

The cynic in me at the time though that was just clever wording.  He didn't say we had a fixed % sell on clause, but that we would receive a percentage.  Basically, any money we received would be a percentage, only the more Hickey was sold for, the smaller our percentage would become.

 

That does not sound positive.

We may just have made an arse of this.

[feej]

2 minutes ago, cosanostra said:

 

That does not sound positive.

We may just have made an arse of this.

What a bizarre deal, the more they sell him for the less we get.

[kingantti1874]

30 minutes ago, RobNox said:

I was there and he did not quote a %age sell on clause.  His exact words when responding to the question were 'we will receive a percentage of any fee'.

 

The cynic in me at the time though that was just clever wording.  He didn't say we had a fixed % sell on clause, but that we would receive a percentage.  Basically, any money we received would be a percentage, only the more Hickey was sold for, the smaller our percentage would become.

the more he was sold for! The smaller the % would become. 
 

that would be the stupidest sell on clause I’ve ever heard off. 
 

Only an absolute  moron would have accepted that. 

[cosanostra]

2 minutes ago, feej said:

What a bizarre deal, the more they sell him for the less we get.

 

I think he meant the less the % We get for him would be, not the actual amount.

Unbelievable that we would agree to that sort of deal.

[feej]

13 minutes ago, cosanostra said:

 

I think he meant the less the % We get for him would be, not the actual amount.

Unbelievable that we would agree to that sort of deal.

Agreed, nuts if true. 

[RobNox]

1 hour ago, kingantti1874 said:

the more he was sold for! The smaller the % would become. 
 

that would be the stupidest sell on clause I’ve ever heard off. 
 

Only an absolute  moron would have accepted that. 

The point I was making is that if we agreed a fixed sum, then that sum will become a smaller percentage of the fee as the fee becomes larger, as opposed to agreeing a fixed percentage which means the higher the fee the more we get.

[GYL]

9 minutes ago, RobNox said:

The point I was making is that if we agreed a fixed sum, then that sum will become a smaller percentage of the fee as the fee becomes larger, as opposed to agreeing a fixed percentage which means the higher the fee the more we get.

Hobonomics.....

[RobNox]

Just now, GYL said:

Hobonomics.....

eh?

[aberhill jambo]

16 hours ago, TurboT said:

I remember being at the Hearts Shareholders meeting with Budge and McKinley and they were asked what the sell on fee as for Hickey and McKinley confirmed it was a six figure sum.

 

I'll see if I've still got the notes from the meeting.

Got told last night at east Fife the figure is £150,000 

 

the guy was told this at a sponsors dinner.

 

 

[FarmerTweedy]

4 hours ago, Ford Prentice said:

On another thread SMJ_1874 says the fixed fee is £150,000. That would be less than 1%.

 

No idea if it's true but since Joe Savage is on record as saying a percentage was due, then if it's a fixed fee he needs to explain what's going on.

 

I see no reason for waiting 12/18 months to see accounts. This is a fan owned club and I think we have the right to know the truth about this now.

We don't have a right to know that at all.  

[Sooks]

12 minutes ago, RobNox said:

eh?

Weird eh I am finding it a bit North Korea on here actually 

[colinmorewasgash]

So if this is right and rather than get a percentage off the transfer we agreed to a set sell on fee whose bright idea was this. Craig Budge McKinley seems stupid we all knew he had potential to move to bigger club the incompetence off the board when levein was about seems to be more and more horrific. I bet when savage came he must have looked at things and went wtf. The board no matter what is generated seem to not go that extra bit for players and they end elsewhere and I understand wanting to balance books but it would not surprise if they are holding back money for this training centre seems to be first stand lots of money went into it and team suffered till recently. Others teams seem to want to spend the money with certain players we are linked with but we hum and haw when we are financially in good place or so we think. We had head start on recruitment in april compared to other teams if we  really wanted Ronan in april as Bob said why are we are now waiting somethings going on behind scenes financially and when ross co sign a Southampton striker so easily why if we cant afford Simms dont we look elsewhere and would it surprise me if utd or sheep end up with Shankland not really. Its always been same following us thru 50 years I have when we are strong we don't spend the extra dosh to really challenge we play safe instead or board keep the pennies to themselves. We didn't want to bring in extra in jan 98 lost a few players after cup win and we struggled and nearly got relegated. We won't pay money for good players that others go for and get then sell on for profit to save initial few quid. Cosgrove Simms Moult and Shankland are only 4 strikers we have been linked with Boyce again showed yest why hes not an out and out striker we desperately need one or 2 with more games. As Savage says he gives Bob a list of players its up to him to pick who he wants and board to back us. I ll be back in August hopefully we will still not be looking for 2 strikers.

[DETTY29]

Dear God.

[Pans Jambo]

The utter pish on here is rotten!

 

Its a fixed percentage FFS!

[Jambo dans les Pyrenees]

4 hours ago, Ford Prentice said:

On another thread SMJ_1874 says the fixed fee is £150,000. That would be less than 1%.

 

No idea if it's true but since Joe Savage is on record as saying a percentage was due, then if it's a fixed fee he needs to explain what's going on.

 

I see no reason for waiting 12/18 months to see accounts. This is a fan owned club and I think we have the right to know the truth about this now.

 

How would we tell 8k FOH members - and therefore in reality, put the info in the public domain - without alerting clubs and players we are negotiating with how much Wonga we have got in the bank?

[Ford Prentice]

4 minutes ago, Queensland Jambo said:

 

How would we tell 8k FOH members - and therefore in reality, put the info in the public domain - without alerting clubs and players we are negotiating with how much Wonga we have got in the bank?

I'd imagine other clubs, players and especially agents will know or can find out. Don't see why the owners of the club should be the least informed about what is an important business decision with significant consequences.

[Randy Marsh]

3 hours ago, JimmyCant said:

There is no danger you sell a player for £1.2 million and accept a sell on of £150k. A fixed fee in itself would be bloody stupid but £150k would be corporate incompetence of the highest order.

 

A fixed fee would be pretty rare and seriously disappointing and a huge mistake on the part of whoever agreed to it IMO. It’s a worse mistake than forgetting to order seats.

 

I think it’ll be a percentage

I agree.  A fixed fee is the sort of crap deal that Levein might have negotiated.  Thankfully he had left the club by the time Hickey was sold so I doubt its true.

[The Treasurer]

Not ITK but I'm guessing that we will have agreed to a percentage OR a fixed fee, whichever is the highest 

[RustyRightPeg]

2 minutes ago, The Treasurer said:

Not ITK but I'm guessing that we will have agreed to a percentage OR a fixed fee, whichever is the highest 

with a name like that you’re bound to be bang on

[DETTY29]

Git the impression from SATF it is a fixed figure and across the panel that we weren't in a great bargaining position due to Covid and certainly in Laurie's view Hickey had only played well in a few games of the season.

[Sooks]

1 minute ago, DETTY29 said:

Git the impression from SATF it is a fixed figure and across the panel that we weren't in a great bargaining position due to Covid and certainly in Laurie's view Hickey had only played well in a few games of the season.

Hate to say it because I like Laurie but any one who could not instantly see how good a player Hickey was is best not giving ratings 😄 

 

Obvious from the very start that he was a top top player 

[GavK1012]

1 hour ago, Sooks said:

Hate to say it because I like Laurie but any one who could not instantly see how good a player Hickey was is best not giving ratings 😄 

 

Obvious from the very start that he was a top top player 

Mr Magoo could see he had potential higher than most right from the offset...anyone unsure say, well, clearly wouldn't know a player at anytime agreed...

[CostaJambo]

Not buying this £150K chat at all. I find it hard to believe a businesswoman of Ann Budge's ability would settle for such a poor deal.

[RustyRightPeg]

Just now, CostaJambo said:

Not buying this £150K chat at all. I find it hard to believe a businesswoman of Ann Budge's ability would settle for such a poor deal.

She delegated those duties to Jeffries I’m afraid for these types of things. He did the deal. 

[CostaJambo]

4 minutes ago, RustyRightPeg said:

She delegated those duties to Jeffries I’m afraid for these types of things. He did the deal. 

Not doubting you, you may well be right, but money is money and surely she would have had to sign off on the deal? Irrespective of the industry, if you are selling an asset which is likely to appreciate in value significantly in the future and you do not secure as large a slice of that as possible I find that hard to reconcile with how successful she has been in her other business activities to date. 

[SUTOL]

6 hours ago, Ford Prentice said:

I'd imagine other clubs, players and especially agents will know or can find out. Don't see why the owners of the club should be the least informed about what is an important business decision with significant consequences.

 

 

If you have a pension or some other investment in stocks and shares, then you are an "owner" of the businesses invested in. 

 

Do you get information from them all the time informing you of all the latest employee contract or other business deals? 

[RustyRightPeg]

12 minutes ago, CostaJambo said:

Not doubting you, you may well be right, but money is money and surely she would have had to sign off on the deal? Irrespective of the industry, if you are selling an asset which is likely to appreciate in value significantly in the future and you do not secure as large a slice of that as possible I find that hard to reconcile with how successful she has been in her other business activities to date. 

I get that but she passed the duties over because she admitted herself she didn’t have a clue on that side of the fence.
 

Would she be able to tell that Hickey was going to go any further than any other youngster in the academy? People would’ve been talking Hickey up but how could she determine his potential? 

[jager man]

I can't see what the problem is with regards to the sell on % or fee. Obviously i would have loved a 20% sell on clause but lets think back to September 2020 when the deal went through. He had one year left on his contract so could have and would have signed a pre contract with someone in the January. Therefore Hearts were limited to what we could demand with the transfer and sell on clause. Look what just happened with Souttar who was a Scottish International.  1.5 million was very good for a player who had 24 games for Hearts and no Scotland honours above u17's. 

[Ford Prentice]

1 hour ago, SUTOL said:

 

 

If you have a pension or some other investment in stocks and shares, then you are an "owner" of the businesses invested in. 

 

Do you get information from them all the time informing you of all the latest employee contract or other business deals? 

Missed this as was at Ainslie Park. You may have a point but major business decisions should I think have some transparency. There have apparently been conflicting statements from the club and it would be reasonable to expect some clarification.

 

Probably academic as I suspect once the Brentford transfer goes through the details of our cut will come out. Would hope the club will make a statement rather than let it leak out.

[Newton51]

 

[Boyces beard]

2 minutes ago, Newton51 said:

 

Hope Aaron continues to progress as he did during his time in Italy, Good luck lad.

[This is My Story Podcast]

Now we wait and see if it’s the lump sum or % fee that was agreed. I am 99.9% sure it’s going to be the lump sum, 6 figures rather than the % 😭

 

Great move for Hickey, am sure he’ll smash it. 

[Tom Hardy’s Dug]

It’s a valid debate because a few of us are certain that savage mentioned a % sell on in some interview or at some event:

 

It is entirely possible (as we don’t have to openly tell the truth) that we have wanted to keep that under wraps hence the fixed figure side of things. Equally Savage may have said it was a % to keep the heat off the club for getting a bad deal.

 

I’d say the former is more likely than the latter. But it is what it is. Thems the breaks as they say.

[RustyRightPeg]

9 minutes ago, Newton51 said:

 

👏🏼 👏🏼 👏🏼
 

Congratulations to the lad, career going from strength to strength. Hope he hits the ground running.

Edited July 9, 2022 by RustyRightPeg

[Bungalow Bill]

Brentford, Bologna for Brentford, appreciate they’re in the EPL now but I’d choose Bologna every time over Brentford if all things were equal.