I read that also and saw no mention of the PFA. Poor show.

http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article...51202?irpc=932

Club hits the big time only to become a petty smalltime outfit. Piss poor from Swansea and should be rules against this.

May help push transfer fees for players moving into the PL even higher if sell on clauses can be ignored this easily.

He's in good nick for 65 (sight aside, obviously).

This sounds like the kind of stunt we'd try and pull. Shameful.

I'm I miss understanding this:

Swansea bought him for £1.5m with a sell on clause.

Swansea transferred him to Spurs along with another player as part of a deal to get siggy.

They didn't receive a fee for him as such, merely got a better deal on the player they want?

So they didn't actually receive a fee for him, did they?

Seems to me that they are clutching at straws if that's the case.

Edit - does the buy in clause state they can't loan the player out - unless it's to them as that sometimes happens in transfer. Buy a player and another player goes on loan to them. Or they can't use the player as part of a deal?

Celtic have 25% sell on clause on Wanyama.....Spurs wants to pay 30m for him....Southampton have 22 year old player with 6 months left on his contract that spurs will also take as part of the bundle.....they decide to transfer the 22 year old with 6 months on his contract for 30m and let Wanyama move for free/far less than his true worth......Celtic out of pocket roughly 5m.

Wasn't there a case already like the example above?? Thinking it hurt Spurs tho may have had nothing to do with them at all.

KW, Swansea are saying that Vorm had no value in the deal that took him and Davies to Spurs with Siggy going the other way.

Utrecht are arguing, reasonably imo, that a player with two years left on his contract - particularly one who was a member of Swansea's first team squad - would not be let go on a free transfer, so he must have had a value in the deal and therefore they are entitlted to a sell on fee.

Marty, I'm pretty sure it happened (albeit on a much smaller scale and nobody cared because small clubs were involved) when Eagles and Mears were sold to Bolton by Burnley. I do seem to remember a couple of higher profile cases, but can't recall the specifics.

That's how business works though, there is nothing wrong with playing the system to your own advantage. It works in the benefit of the all the parties involved in the deal and at the end of the day that's all that matters.

Celtic must be thankful that youre not their accountant or they'd already be out of pocket by 2.5m!

My understanding is that you've only got a 10% sell on clause fwiw.

I agree that if we're going to have sell on clauses then you need some independent body that stops this sort of thing from happening. Although I don't think we've shown any signs of doing this.

Was just using that as an example, no idea what % we have if any.

25% of the profit would be the norm KW, so much for being a smart arse.

No, that isn't all that matters and there is plenty wrong with it. If that was all that mattered then it wouldn't end up in court. What is being done are that the players in the transaction are being assigned off-market prices in order to screw the club with the sell-on clause out of what they are owed.

Gary Neville appointed Valencia manager. Wut?

He was assistant there before the previous coach got fired, makes sense to save on some money and use the number two that also comes with a familiar name.

Haha wut indeed, and Phil was already assistant manager

Gary, not Phil

Strange

It does matter. It is exactly the only thing that matters.

Its up to the owner of an asset to decide when and how much to sell an asset for. If the buyer and seller can work out a better deal for both of them, then they are going to do it every single time. Regardless of whether it screws the previous owner or not. You look out for number 1.

--

Anyone think JFH is making a mistake if he is going to go to QPR?

--

Re Gary - he's been appointed head coach, not manager, until the end of the season. Owner of Valencia is also 50% owner of the club the class of 92 own. Phil remaining on the coaching staff.

No it is not.

In the Wanamaya case, they have worked out what to sell a bundled pair of assets for. They have then attributed deliberately misleading values to those two assets (because they know that they would get a fee of more than £0 for Wanamaya in the open market and that nobody would pay £30m for the 22 year old with six months left on his contract).

Put it to arbitration or a court and I'll bet that they'll be making an award to the selling club, no matter how much D grade accounting that masquerades as being clever anyone attempts to smother it in.

My first thought was that I'll really miss his analysis.

Best of luck to him anyway...will be super interesting to see how he does. Not a bad first head role.

glad im not phil neville

Try telling that to HMRC.

Gary Neville GÖAT OAT

The transaction was approved by the Premier league.

HMRC wouldn't have any issues as long as the correct amount was paid to them.

I'm not talking about that particular transaction, I'm talking about your general point that it's entirely up to the owner of an asset how much to sell it for.

While this is true, when the sale is made at a price below market value, it's treated by HMRC as if it was made at market value.

I'm saying the same should apply here to avoid screwing the third party with an interest in the deal.

Okay maybe that did came across as a general statement but I was referring to football transfers. It's the owners who decide the fee/value (unless things get complicated), if they don't get what they want for the player they're very likely to say no. Get an offer they like, they'll sell.

Regrading Joe independent panel/your HMRC market value:- Who can decided these market values on football players? Surely it is purely down to the seller and the buyer there and then? A player might have a huge buy out clause but no long be in the team and thus sell for way lower than his buy out clause. There are hundreds transfers where players have went for way more or less than what there 'market value' would be.

The way I look at it, is Swansea have wanted Siggy. Spurs want to sell, siggy prolly wanted a move as well. Swansea have valued that player at X amount, Spurs have valued him at Y amount.

Swansea may not want to pay Y amount so offer X, refused, so they throw in a couple of players so they don't pay more than what they want in terms of cash.

Spurs have weighed up the new deal and are happy enough with it. Deal goes through.

As soon as those parties are happy, that's it. The buyer and selling have both agreed how much that assist or assists are worth to them. They aren't going to go, wait a minute, previous owner is going to lose money on this, no deal. Are they?

We don't know how much of a value he was to Swansea.

1) Similar things happen when players under the age of 24 and are out of contract move to another English club - Danny Ings, for example. It isn't beyond the will of man.
2) You can appoint an expert or experts to determine the value - while it may not be perfect, it's a reasonable way to assess things and far better than pretending that the "valuations" (lol) arrived at by Swansea are in any way accurate.