I’d guess there’s no sell-on clause seeing as we got all the money up front for him iirc so they probs didn’t want to be doing any further deals.
I’d guess there’s no sell-on clause seeing as we got all the money up front for him iirc so they probs didn’t want to be doing any further deals.
We sold Brennan and Elanga for over £100M between them, both seem to have the same problem of playing with possession. I'm with tricky on this, let's not make good deals worse.
Yes, if West Ham went for both I could see Nuno saving the Wet Hams this season.
Saw somewhere we had a 10% sell on, another thing to annoy Palace fans
Sell on fees generally only apply to profit, given Spurs will be selling him for less than they paid it won't have an effect.
Can't remember his contract length but if 6 years or less then at 47m fee to us his value on their books is less than 35m currently. I don't know if sell-ons relate to the amortised value or the original cost?
Tricky will be pleased we are back on accounting.
Isn’t that Bowens position? Or is he playing more central?
I highly doubt they could afford either. They will get Traore from Fulham.
Can't remember his contract length but if 6 years or less then at 47m fee to us his value on their books is less than 35m currently. I don't know if sell-ons relate to the amortised value or the original cost?
Tricky will be pleased we are back on accounting.
Pretty sure it's the original purchase price that's used to calculate profit, after all depreciation is still a cost. If you bought a car for $50K on finance and sold it three years later for $20K with $15K still owing you wouldn't consider you'd made $5K on the deal.
In other transfer news, West Ham are supposedly willing to pay 40M for Strand Larsen from Wolves. I don't understand what people see in this guy.
In other transfer news, West Ham are supposedly willing to pay 40M for Strand Larsen from Wolves
He was OK last season. You are taking a gamble on him being dragged down by wolves general shitness
Id happily see Forest in for him, but not at £40million.
Sell on fees generally only apply to profit, given Spurs will be selling him for less than they paid it won't have an effect.
Yes, but not necessarily. Depends on the contract.
@JRs_Cigarette has written:Can't remember his contract length but if 6 years or less then at 47m fee to us his value on their books is less than 35m currently. I don't know if sell-ons relate to the amortised value or the original cost?
Tricky will be pleased we are back on accounting.
Pretty sure it's the original purchase price that's used to calculate profit, after all depreciation is still a cost. If you bought a car for $50K on finance and sold it three years later for $20K with $15K still owing you wouldn't consider you'd made $5K on the deal.
In other transfer news, West Ham are supposedly willing to pay 40M for Strand Larsen from Wolves. I don't understand what people see in this guy.
If I was them I'd buy Johnson, loan Elanga and play Bowen central.
If I was them I'd buy Johnson, loan Elanga and play Bowen central.
Fuck that. We should loan Elanga back and sell them McAtee and Hutchinson. That should keep the gap where I'd like to see it.
I doubt Elanga is available on loan to anyone.
Why would you sell them Hutchinson? He's about our best player at the moment.
He's about our best player at the moment.
With the ball, or without the ball?