Hannibal sell-on fee

[ClaretCliff]

Been reading an interesting article in todays Telegraph about how clubs are taking advantage of United’s financial problems by offering to pay United money in return for removing sell-on clauses from players they have bought from United.

One line in the article that caught my eye is “With sell-one clauses, the percentages tend to reduce over time, so Hannibal Mejbri’s 50 per cent will be smaller during the forthcoming windows.”

50% !! Wow, seems very high. I guess that enabled us to buy him for a much lower initial sum.

[Row x]

Been reading an interesting article in todays Telegraph about how clubs are taking advantage of United’s financial problems by offering to pay United money in return for removing sell-on clauses from players they have bought from United.

One line in the article that caught my eye is “With sell-one clauses, the percentages tend to reduce over time, so Hannibal Mejbri’s 50 per cent will be smaller during the forthcoming windows.”

50% !! Wow, seems very high. I guess that enabled us to buy him for a much lower initial sum.

Murics was similar.

[AfloatinClaret]

...50% !! Wow, seems very high. I guess that enabled us to buy him for a much lower initial sum.

That's 50% of any profit (difference between purchase and sale fees) not the whole of the sale fee and yes, the original sale fee will have been reduced by the original selling club to make allowance for this potential income from a subsequent re-sale, they are effectively sharing the risk/reward of the player increasing in value.
I hadn't realised the original club's share of such future profit reduces year on year, but it makes sense: The longer that the player remains with the purchasing club before re-sale, the greater their influence on his value while the lesser influence his original club's will be.
Of course there are many on here who advocate that we should only take up the reduced price with sell on clause option for the less successful purchases, but pay full price with no sell on for the successes. This does of course require the club to identify in advance which are which - a bit of a crystal ball job you'd think, but it seems that they need only ask the opinion of those same posters as they invariably report (after the event) that they knew all along

[ClaretTony]

Been reading an interesting article in todays Telegraph about how clubs are taking advantage of United’s financial problems by offering to pay United money in return for removing sell-on clauses from players they have bought from United.

One line in the article that caught my eye is “With sell-one clauses, the percentages tend to reduce over time, so Hannibal Mejbri’s 50 per cent will be smaller during the forthcoming windows.”

50% !! Wow, seems very high. I guess that enabled us to buy him for a much lower initial sum.

It’s how you have to do it when you’ve no money. We did similar with City in Jan 2012 when we signed Ben Mee & Kieran Trippier.

[ClaretCliff]

It’s how you have to do it when you’ve no money. We did similar with City in Jan 2012 when we signed Ben Mee & Kieran Trippier.

I can see why we do it - just surprised at the percentage. I’ve seen sell-ons quoted but usually 20-30 percent. However, I can now see how it benefits both club. The buyer gets a player they couldn’t otherwise afford and the seller is insured if the player turns out to be a superstar.

[FCBurnley]

Would be wonderful to have Man U over a financial barrel lol

[bodge]

With Celtic and Rangers both keen on signing him, we may well have agreed a large percentage in order to get the deal done.

[Vegas Claret]

The market is completely changing since PSR, most clubs have to be creative to get deals done

[ClaretPete001]

Indeed but it sheds some reality on the figures bandied about when we talk about selling playing assets.

[bumba]

We'll do the same to clubs down the pyramids who buy our younger players