Shankland

[Mr Elwood P]

Just now, jambo_74 said:

It would when you consider the type of players that have went for more from our league. The one that springs to mind as proving Shanks worth and then some is Scott McKenna, £6 million.... Shanks is in his prime, a proven goalscorer and let's be honest, goalscorers come at a premium. For comparison, McKenna was twenty three when he left, playing for Aberdeen, and just in case there is any doubt, he is a cart horse, does the heavy lifting, cleans everything out, takes no prisoners, etc, etc...certainly not a ball playing centre half. That's not to say he isn't good at what he does, but he wouldn't be compared or contrasted against a baller. So if that's the kind of figures which can be obtained for a fairly workmanlike defender,  I'd say that helps put some perspective on the expected financials we could receive for Shanks, maybe?

Scott McKenna who has played nearly 100 games for Nottingham Forest, helped them to promotion and now plays in the EPL at the age of 26 is evidence of Shanks being worth more? Would love to know how you came to that conclusion!?

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

It’s a long held tradition that fans think players getting sold by their club should be worth X.

 

Genuinely no idea what the market would value Shankland at. Probably depends on who’s interested and how much they really want him.

 

Aside from that, is he even leaving. I don’t know, there’s all this chat by the window’s not far off closing and has there even been one bid?

[jambo_74]

Just now, Mr Elwood P said:

Scott McKenna who has played nearly 100 games for Nottingham Forest, helped them to promotion and now plays in the EPL at the age of 26 is evidence of Shanks being worth more? Would love to know how you came to that conclusion!?

Most of the games he has played have been in the championship. The team that has been suggested as having an interest in Shanks is a top end of the table championship team. So that's what I am basing it on, why the animousity? Everything else I said is true, yes?

[HeartsandonlyHearts]

4 hours ago, Deevers said:

Getting capped in its self is no measure of how good a player is. That’s been so obvious with Scottish Caps for decades. 
 

Tosh McKinlay anyone?

 

[Mr Elwood P]

24 minutes ago, Go for it 1308 said:

Would you rather Nesbit played for Hearts or Shankland?

 

17 minutes ago, Hackney Hearts said:

 

We've had this debate already yesterday. Are you saying it was right to play Marshall instead of Gordon at the Euros? Clarke is not infallible!

 

As you say, Nesbit (sic) is not even a Hibs player so we can be a bit more objective. But if you gave everybody on JKB (all the Hearts supporters, for clarity) the hypothetical option of selling Shankland now and spending the money on Nisbet as a replacement, how many would genuinely, honestly be happy with that? If it's virtually like for like, as you say? With the added bonus of Nisbet being younger and an 'established' Scotland cap? I'd think it would be close to nil.

I'm actually not saying Nesbit is the better player btw. Just that he's comparable and I think the benchmark for any potential fee. Shanks scores more goals and is a big game player. Nisbet has more caps and is a couple of years younger. Still not seen any persuasive argument for why Shankland is worth Simms / Danilo money rather than Nisbet money?

[Mr Elwood P]

3 minutes ago, jambo_74 said:

Most of the games he has played have been in the championship. The team that has been suggested as having an interest in Shanks is a top end of the table championship team. So that's what I am basing it on, why the animousity? Everything else I said is true, yes?

No, I don't agree. Also not sure where the animosity was? More perplexed. McKenna was 23 and had a high enough ceiling to develop into a bang average EPL player. Shankland likely doesn't have any potential for further growth or future sale. If Shankland was 22/23 and on a 5 year deal he would be worth crazy money. He's isn't though ..

[HeartsandonlyHearts]

3 minutes ago, Mr Elwood P said:

 

I'm actually not saying Nesbit is the better player btw. Just that he's comparable and I think the benchmark for any potential fee. Shanks scores more goals and is a big game player. Nisbet has more caps and is a couple of years younger. Still not seen any persuasive argument for why Shankland is worth Simms / Danilo money rather than Nisbet money?

You’re surely on the wind up calling them comparable. 

[JimmyCant]

9 minutes ago, Mr Elwood P said:

Scott McKenna who has played nearly 100 games for Nottingham Forest, helped them to promotion and now plays in the EPL at the age of 26 is evidence of Shanks being worth more? Would love to know how you came to that conclusion!?

So he’s probably worth double what they paid for him now ?

[Sooks]

There is a place on the spectrum of opinion where you go so far from wearing maroon tinted specs , that you actually start doing the opposite and falling over your self to negatively assess Hearts players versus those of other clubs that are quite clearly inferior . I call it Hearts cringe 

[boag1874]

2 hours ago, Mr Elwood P said:

£4m wouldn't be some kind of derisory offer though. It would be out 2nd largest ever transfer sale and more than the combined fees we've received for all sales during the last decade.

Earlier in the window I'd probably agree, but there's only a week to go to replace him if he does go. 

 

Put it this way, we've a playoff tie starting tomorrow & ending on Deadline day. Say we win tomorrow or even get a draw (even a tight loss) & a £4m bid comes in for him. If he goes, he'll then miss the most important game of our whole season barring if we end up in a cup final or something, with millions at stake when you take into account prize money, TV money, sponsorships, attendances, plus the experience & prestige of European competition & what that means to the support. He's the most likely player to score in that game.

 

Does 4m cover risking all that, keeping in mind he's crucial to our push for 3rd also so will need replaced & we only have a week to do it or we're looking at free agents & loans, no mean feat since it took us 25 odd years to find a striker with his output?

 

I don't think it does.

[jambo_74]

2 minutes ago, Mr Elwood P said:

No, I don't agree. Also not sure where the animosity was? More perplexed. McKenna was 23 and had a high enough ceiling to develop into a bang average EPL player. Shankland likely doesn't have any potential for further growth or future sale. If Shankland was 22/23 and on a 5 year deal he would be worth crazy money. He's isn't though ..

Sorry, I took the !? at the end of the sentence as animosity, apologies, it does read more as being perplexed now you mention it.  However, the suggestion that Shankland would be worth crazy money only if he was 22 /23 but not as the finished article seems a bit odd. Surely the reason any team pays top dollar is when the player comes with a proven record in some capacity or another. What further growth does Shankland require, he scores goals, links the play and reads the game extremely well. He is also a hard working striker, not something that comes as guaranteed with all forward thinking players. 

[Mr Elwood P]

2 minutes ago, boag1874 said:

Earlier in the window I'd probably agree, but there's only a week to go to replace him if he does go. 

 

Put it this way, we've a playoff tie starting tomorrow & ending on Deadline day. Say we win tomorrow or even get a draw (even a tight loss) & a £4m bid comes in for him. If he goes, he'll then miss the most important game of our whole season barring if we end up in a cup final or something, with millions at stake when you take into account prize money, TV money, sponsorships, attendances, plus the experience & prestige of European competition & what that means to the support. He's the most likely player to score in that game.

 

Does 4m cover risking all that, keeping in mind he's crucial to our push for 3rd also so will need replaced & we only have a week to do it or we're looking at free agents & loans, no mean feat since it took us 25 odd years to find a striker with his output?

 

I don't think it does.

Agree with all of that. I actually wouldn't sell him for £4m unless he's going to have a tantrum about it. My only argument is that based on the fees for other strikers recently I think £4m is the market level. His value starts to plummet

when this window closes if we don't agree a new deal. Worth considering.

 

 

[kingantti1874]

3 minutes ago, Mr Elwood P said:

Agree with all of that. I actually wouldn't sell him for £4m unless he's going to have a tantrum about it. My only argument is that based on the fees for other strikers recently I think £4m is the market level. His value starts to plummet

when this window closes if we don't agree a new deal. Worth considering.

 

 

Southampton’s existing front 3 . They havent paid less than £13m for any of them.  They have also secured ludicrous income this summer by milking teams to death.

 

is he worth 7.5m or some other randomly picked number. ? Probably no but then lavia isn’t worth £62m either .  If they want him we should hold them to a premium

Edited August 23, 2023 by kingantti1874

[Mr Elwood P]

3 minutes ago, jambo_74 said:

Sorry, I took the !? at the end of the sentence as animosity, apologies, it does read more as being perplexed now you mention it.  However, the suggestion that Shankland would be worth crazy money only if he was 22 /23 but not as the finished article seems a bit odd. Surely the reason any team pays top dollar is when the player comes with a proven record in some capacity or another. What further growth does Shankland require, he scores goals, links the play and reads the game extremely well. He is also a hard working striker, not something that comes as guaranteed with all forward thinking players. 

No I meant if Shankland was the player he is now, but only 22/23 years old, he would be worth crazy money. He would have loads of room for growth and improvement. He would also have sell on value. I don't think at 28 he really had any of that. It seems unlikely he would kick on a couple of levels now.

 

15 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

So he’s probably worth double what they paid for him now ?

McKenna? Depends on contract length and who bought him. EPL clubs selling a player naturally demand more..

[DS98]

15 minutes ago, Mr Elwood P said:

 

I'm actually not saying Nesbit is the better player btw. Just that he's comparable and I think the benchmark for any potential fee. Shanks scores more goals and is a big game player. Nisbet has more caps and is a couple of years younger. Still not seen any persuasive argument for why Shankland is worth Simms / Danilo money rather than Nisbet money?

1. He has about double the amount of career goals

 

 2. He has double the amount left on his contract. 
 

3. He won’t fail a medical. 

[Mr Elwood P]

2 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

Southampton’s existing front 3 . They havent paid less than £13m for any of them.  They have also secured ludicrous income this summer by milking teams to death.

 

is he worth 7.5m or some other randomly picked number. ? Probably no but then lavia isn’t worth £62m either .  If they want him we should hold them to a premium

That's not how it works though. Van Dijk was worth far more than Celtic got for him. A 28 year old Scottish striker who doesn't start for the National team and has never played in a top league just won't demand the kind of money he's actually worth to us as a club. He could potentially get us back to back 3rd place finishes and £10m UEFA money, before costs. The fees being offered won't reflect that unfortunately. If he's happy we should keep him but he's never had a  contract like the English Championship clubs can offer.

[Mr Elwood P]

Just now, DS98 said:

1. He has about double the amount of career goals

 

 2. He has double the amount left on his contract. 
 

3. He won’t fail a medical. 

How long was on Nisbet's contract when he failed the medical? Career goals doesn't make sense as a comparison when they aren't the same age...

[Pasquale for King]

1 hour ago, jambo_74 said:

It would when you consider the type of players that have went for more from our league. The one that springs to mind as proving Shanks worth and then some is Scott McKenna, £6 million.... Shanks is in his prime, a proven goalscorer and let's be honest, goalscorers come at a premium. For comparison, McKenna was twenty three when he left, playing for Aberdeen, and just in case there is any doubt, he is a cart horse, does the heavy lifting, cleans everything out, takes no prisoners, etc, etc...certainly not a ball playing centre half. That's not to say he isn't good at what he does, but he wouldn't be compared or contrasted against a baller. So if that's the kind of figures which can be obtained for a fairly workmanlike defender,  I'd say that helps put some perspective on the expected financials we could receive for Shanks, maybe?

Spot on

[soonbe110]

1 hour ago, JimmyCant said:

So he’s probably worth double what they paid for him now ?

He would certainly go for a lot more than £6m now that he has proved he is at least bottom half epl standard. 

[Dazo]

1 hour ago, Mr Elwood P said:

Scott McKenna who has played nearly 100 games for Nottingham Forest, helped them to promotion and now plays in the EPL at the age of 26 is evidence of Shanks being worth more? Would love to know how you came to that conclusion!?

 

You’re quoting stats for things that happened after they bought him so completely irrelevant to the posters point in making a case for Shanklands fee. 

[soonbe110]

1 hour ago, Mr Elwood P said:

Agree with all of that. I actually wouldn't sell him for £4m unless he's going to have a tantrum about it. My only argument is that based on the fees for other strikers recently I think £4m is the market level. His value starts to plummet

when this window closes if we don't agree a new deal. Worth considering.

 

 

Haven’t followed the entire debate but I think your point re his value declining from September 2 onwards in terms of potential transfer fee is accurate. Unless of course he gets 20+ goals by Xmas.  Certainly after the Jan 24 window his potential sale value drops by about 50% if not more as he is then into his final year and will be 29 by the start of next season. 
I hope he stays but if we get a decent offer now it would be a tough call to knock it back. 

[soonbe110]

1 hour ago, Mr Elwood P said:

That's not how it works though. Van Dijk was worth far more than Celtic got for him. A 28 year old Scottish striker who doesn't start for the National team and has never played in a top league just won't demand the kind of money he's actually worth to us as a club. He could potentially get us back to back 3rd place finishes and £10m UEFA money, before costs. The fees being offered won't reflect that unfortunately. If he's happy we should keep him but he's never had a  contract like the English Championship clubs can offer.

One player doesn’t get you back to back third places. It takes at least 8/9 of the team as well.  What if he gets injured. 

[luckydug]

3 hours ago, Mr Elwood P said:

This Scotland squad is a wee bit different surely that's obvious?

 

£4m wouldn't be some kind of derisory offer though. It would be out 2nd largest ever transfer sale and more than the combined fees we've received for all sales during the last decade.

 

To dismiss the Shankland v Nesbit debate seems a bit premature? Nesbit isn't a Hibs player so folk can surely be a bit more objective now. I still remember some of the nonsense posted on here about John McGinn. There was a lack of objectivity and more than a hint, of maroon tint, on a lot of posters' specs!

Obviously no danger of you being biased towards Hearts cause 🤔

[Mr Elwood P]

7 minutes ago, Dazo said:

 

You’re quoting stats for things that happened after they bought him so completely irrelevant to the posters point in making a case for Shanklands fee. 

No.

[Mr Elwood P]

6 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

One player doesn’t get you back to back third places. It takes at least 8/9 of the team as well.  What if he gets injured. 

20+ goals might though ...

[Mr Elwood P]

6 minutes ago, luckydug said:

Obviously no danger of you being biased towards Hearts cause 🤔

Objectivity my friend.

[RENE]

Rangers selling Kamara for £5.5 million.   Hardly played last two years.   We surely must be able to get similar for Shankland.  Having said that I'd rather we keep him just now.

[FerryJambo81]

Push comes to shove, players are like houses. They're worth what someone is willing to pay to someone willing to sell.

 

So many are inflated due to market conditions, particularly south of border. Supply and demand economics at its very best.

 

Still, if folks didn't chip in with their opinions / thoughts/ attempts to wind up, forums would be dull places.

 

 

[BelgeJambo]

6 milllion for McKenna is a myth.  I know someone inside Forest and they did not pay 6 million for McKenna

[jr ewing]

For Hearts he's priceless ❤️ ♥️ 💖 

[chrisyboy7]

2 hours ago, Mr Elwood P said:

Scott McKenna who has played nearly 100 games for Nottingham Forest, helped them to promotion and now plays in the EPL at the age of 26 is evidence of Shanks being worth more? Would love to know how you came to that conclusion!?

He would be at 18 million now though 

[Jodami]

The closer we get to end of the window the more I have hope we can keep him for this season.

However, if he goes this now becomes nakedly about supply and demand - as long as there is not a release clause obviously. We control the supply and set the price here, the market environment created by a window that is closing in a week impacts that price. The whole English transfer market seems to have become inflated this close season so I think historical context offers little insight. 8 figures should be the ask but as I say my clear preference is he stays.

Edited August 23, 2023 by Jodami

[Bozi]

2 hours ago, Mr Elwood P said:

 

I'm actually not saying Nesbit is the better player btw. Just that he's comparable and I think the benchmark for any potential fee. Shanks scores more goals and is a big game player. Nisbet has more caps and is a couple of years younger. Still not seen any persuasive argument for why Shankland is worth Simms / Danilo money rather than Nisbet money?

The simple fact I'd the market value of a player and their value to a club are two completely different things.

Shanks market value, given his age, pedigree, length of contract etc is probably somewhere around the £4m mark.

 

The value to Hearts though is that he could, in theory, help us to European group stage football this year, with a very good chance of scoring the goals to take us to a domestic cup final and potentially his goals being the difference between 3rd place and guaranteed European group stage football next season. Factor in the cost to buy one or two players to try and replace his goals and I can see why people are throwing wild valuations about. Realistically his goals could be the difference in about £7m in prize money/European cash. 

 

So while I think the £9m valuations getting thrown about are high I can see why folk are talking up his value 

 

 

[SM Sheffield]

For reference - Conor Washington was sold to QPR a few years ago for £3m after scoring 10 league goals in League 1 for Peterborough.
 

Any Hearts fan that thinks a fee in that range for Shankland is acceptable needs to give their head a wobble. I am sure the management of the club will be aware of this too. 

[Ribble]

3 minutes ago, Bozi said:

The simple fact I'd the market value of a player and their value to a club are two completely different things.

Shanks market value, given his age, pedigree, length of contract etc is probably somewhere around the £4m mark.

 

The value to Hearts though is that he could, in theory, help us to European group stage football this year, with a very good chance of scoring the goals to take us to a domestic cup final and potentially his goals being the difference between 3rd place and guaranteed European group stage football next season. Factor in the cost to buy one or two players to try and replace his goals and I can see why people are throwing wild valuations about. Realistically his goals could be the difference in about £7m in prize money/European cash. 

 

So while I think the £9m valuations getting thrown about are high I can see why folk are talking up his value 

 

 

 

Agreed, not to mention the 'EPL tax' the likes of Southampton will still face and the £150m they have banked this summer would also drive the price up

[Mr Elwood P]

10 minutes ago, Bozi said:

The simple fact I'd the market value of a player and their value to a club are two completely different things.

Shanks market value, given his age, pedigree, length of contract etc is probably somewhere around the £4m mark.

 

The value to Hearts though is that he could, in theory, help us to European group stage football this year, with a very good chance of scoring the goals to take us to a domestic cup final and potentially his goals being the difference between 3rd place and guaranteed European group stage football next season. Factor in the cost to buy one or two players to try and replace his goals and I can see why people are throwing wild valuations about. Realistically his goals could be the difference in about £7m in prize money/European cash. 

 

So while I think the £9m valuations getting thrown about are high I can see why folk are talking up his value 

 

 

Yeah folk are definitely confusing what he's worth to us and what we will get as an offer.

[JayTeeJnr]

3 hours ago, Mr Elwood P said:

Scott McKenna who has played nearly 100 games for Nottingham Forest, helped them to promotion and now plays in the EPL at the age of 26 is evidence of Shanks being worth more? Would love to know how you came to that conclusion!?

McKenna didn’t have any of that experience in the Championship and Premier League when Forest paid a hefty transfer for him. I would expect his current transfer value would be significantly higher than the fee from 2020… unless his contract is about to run out of course.

[JimmyCant]

13 minutes ago, Mr Elwood P said:

Yeah folk are definitely confusing what he's worth to us and what we will get as an offer.

Surely a properly run club with no financial pressure to sell, doesn’t actually sell for LESS than they consider the player is worth. That makes no sense. God knows what figure we’d have in mind as being acceptable. Lots to take into account there, primarily can we replace what we’re losing quickly enough

 

We don’t get offered at least our valuation based on our estimate of his worth to us and we don’t sell. We don’t need to sell. We don’t want to sell. Unless it’s for a huge amount, and in my opinion not less than £5m. Even at £5m I’d question the wisdom and the message it sends 

 

I hope no one at the club is itching to take £3 million I really do because that’s an undersell and there’ll be quite a bit of frustration from the owners (us) regarding the action of those who have controlling custody of the club on our behalf

Edited August 23, 2023 by JimmyCant

[Bazzas right boot]

3 hours ago, BigAlim said:

Gary Kenneth

Lee Wilkie also played 11 times for Scotland at a time when Dominic Matteo managed just 6. Could be here all day with similar examples

 

Horrendous!

[Riccarton3]

47 minutes ago, Mr Elwood P said:

Yeah folk are definitely confusing what he's worth to us and what we will get as an offer.

What's his value then to a Championship club looking  get into the Premiership? How does the potential  income for them impact the level of fee they might be willing to pay?

[sac]

So we’ve got a £9m Shankland on £5k per week, I’d say keep him

[OTT]

4 hours ago, BigAlim said:

Gary Kenneth

Lee Wilkie also played 11 times for Scotland at a time when Dominic Matteo managed just 6. Could be here all day with similar examples

 

Mentioned this before last time his name came up, but Gary Kenneth had such a weird career. Established himself as a very solid (if lacking in footballing ability) CB in our top flight. Got a move down south and then his career was effectively over inside 18 months of that move. 

 

Career finished at 26/27. Mental. 

 

He absolutely had the basics to return to the top flight as a bottom 6 reliable CB (Much like Joe Shaunnessy or someone like that). 

 

Hopefully an example of why Shankland should sign the extension!!! 

[Sub4TiddlerMurray]

4 hours ago, Mr Elwood P said:

Agree with all of that. I actually wouldn't sell him for £4m unless he's going to have a tantrum about it. My only argument is that based on the fees for other strikers recently I think £4m is the market level. His value starts to plummet

when this window closes if we don't agree a new deal. Worth considering.

 

 

 

There's no such thing as a market level. Football isn't a supermarket where everything is priced. It all depends on the strength of the negotiating position.  

 

Supply v demand + leverage + timing = price.

 

The more goals a player scores, for example, the more their price goes up. A club running out of time to bring in a player pressurises the sale. What any other player was or wasn't sold for only affects expectations, not the deal.

 

 

 

(p.s. You're putting way too much effort into talking down a Hearts asset)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 23, 2023 by Sub4TiddlerMurray

[jambo_74]

5 hours ago, BelgeJambo said:

6 milllion for McKenna is a myth.  I know someone inside Forest and they did not pay 6 million for McKenna

Ok, but Aberdeen stated at the time it was their biggest transfer fee for an outbound player. It was widely reported at the time as an initial £3 million up front with a further fee of £3 million based on appearances presumably (it doesn't stipulate in the reports what the second payment would be triggered by). No idea if the final fee has since been paid, but given he has been there for three years, it would seem reasonable to assume it has.

 

From the BBC:

The centre-back, who has 16 caps, joins on a four-year contract in a deal that could be worth a reported £6m.

[gar jambo]

8 hours ago, jambo_74 said:

It would when you consider the type of players that have went for more from our league. The one that springs to mind as proving Shanks worth and then some is Scott McKenna, £6 million.... Shanks is in his prime, a proven goalscorer and let's be honest, goalscorers come at a premium. For comparison, McKenna was twenty three when he left, playing for Aberdeen, and just in case there is any doubt, he is a cart horse, does the heavy lifting, cleans everything out, takes no prisoners, etc, etc...certainly not a ball playing centre half. That's not to say he isn't good at what he does, but he wouldn't be compared or contrasted against a baller. So if that's the kind of figures which can be obtained for a fairly workmanlike defender,  I'd say that helps put some perspective on the expected financials we could receive for Shanks, maybe?

If hearts where to hit the Gtoup stages again and have a good cup run  I think He would stay until the season Ends I would take 4 million then before that 6or 7 million 

[BelgeJambo]

25 minutes ago, jambo_74 said:

Ok, but Aberdeen stated at the time it was their biggest transfer fee for an outbound player. It was widely reported at the time as an initial £3 million up front with a further fee of £3 million based on appearances presumably (it doesn't stipulate in the reports what the second payment would be triggered by). No idea if the final fee has since been paid, but given he has been there for three years, it would seem reasonable to assume it has.

 

From the BBC:

The centre-back, who has 16 caps, joins on a four-year contract in a deal that could be worth a reported £6m.

IIRC it wasn’t even 3 million up front.

 

It will be the usual BBC spin that includes his wages and it’s not 6 million in total going to Aberdeen

[FarmerTweedy]

7 hours ago, jambo_74 said:

Sorry, I took the !? at the end of the sentence as animosity, apologies, it does read more as being perplexed now you mention it.  However, the suggestion that Shankland would be worth crazy money only if he was 22 /23 but not as the finished article seems a bit odd. Surely the reason any team pays top dollar is when the player comes with a proven record in some capacity or another. What further growth does Shankland require, he scores goals, links the play and reads the game extremely well. He is also a hard working striker, not something that comes as guaranteed with all forward thinking players. 

The point about signing a younger player is, to a large extent, sell-on value. If a club did buy Shankland for a sizeable fee now, they would get (probably) his best 2 or 3 years, but there'd probably be very little sell-on value after that given the age he'd be, whereas if a club bought a 22-23 year old, they might have more rough edges to begin with, but in 2 or 3 years time, they might be worth way, way more than the club paid for them.

[1971fozzy]

It’ll come down to what the player wants to do. I really think it’s that simple. Thankfully he seems a decent bloke that won’t shaft us like others have done. 
looking back over the years the likes of Webster, Alan Johnston, Souttar, Hickey all left for nothing / peanuts. 
 

[Debut 4]

1 minute ago, 1971fozzy said:

It’ll come down to what the player wants to do. I really think it’s that simple. Thankfully he seems a decent bloke that won’t shaft us like others have done. 
looking back over the years the likes of Webster, Alan Johnston, Souttar, Hickey all left for nothing / peanuts. 
 

Hearts got money for Hickey, did they not?

[1971fozzy]

Just now, Debut 4 said:

Hearts got money for Hickey, did they not?

not a lot , although we did get a sell on fee but it’s long debated what that was (not great by all accounts).