An Ipswich mate has just e mailed me to say that Ipswich are due more money from us if we sell him on. Anyone heard likewise?

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001

Answers

I think it would've been mentioned before if we'd heard of that Dougs....I think your mate is probably wrong...

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001

Wouldn't surprise me at all - Ipswich are a well managed Club.

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001

As soon as all these Dyer rumours started, one Ipswich web site was saying Ipswich would get some money as part of any deal. Given the sums of money being mentioned it will be like selling the player twice for Ipswich. As Clarky says they appear to be so well managed I wouldn't be surprised if they insisted on the clause.

They are not uncommon and these sort of monies will be taken into account in the dealings if the deal goes ahead to ensure that Newcastle get their money's worth from the deal. Shepherd has many critics but at least he knows the ins and outs of transfer dealings.

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001

Good grief, it gets ludicrouser and ludicrouser. If that turns out to be the case, and the rumours turn out to be true, we're going to be hardly any better off financially.

It would nearly be worth just swapping him for players and nee cash at all, although that's probably been taken care of in Ipswich's paperwork.

How much more of this crap are we going to have to put up with before somebody who can do something about it gets the message ? On second thoughts, is there anybody left in football who cares enough to want to do anything ?

Signs of the times I suppose. Why should sport be any different from any other industry ? Except sport isn't primarily an industry, or am I too naive for my own good ?

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001

Actually, it would account for why it is always Dyer in a swap plus cash deal - to minimise what we have to give to Ipswich..I'll mail this mate and try to get some more info.

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001

Pit Bill, if we swap him for Yorke then me might have to give Ipswich one of his legs...

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001

So if a swap deal really is the way forward. Who do we want from Manure that they would realistically let go? Presuming they want Dyer that much, they should be prepared to let some decent players go. Apparently Robson doesn't want Yorke, so that leaves? Nicky Butt?
Quinton Fortune?


-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001

Sudden - I'm sure he get by with other two!

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001

DeB - I'd accept Giggsy.

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001

I'd take Fortune, Butt, Solskjaer and Johnsen plus 10 million cash and I would be quite happy to pay Ipswich if that was the case.

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001

Johnsen's too injury prone and not the big fella we need.

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001

The built in clauses in major tranfers have just added to the general malaise affecting football, for instance Viduka flung his boots off in the dressing room ,put on his sulky face, Celtic sell to Leeds for 6 million (Flo 12 million - ouch), the Spanish teams are expressing interest at approx 16 million , inbuilt tho that if he goes for that sum Celtic will receive 4 million . What does this achieve in the long run ,I am genuinely interested to know the logic behind it ,or has the fear factor entered the transfer market, Clarky, anyone?

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001

George Burley has confirmed that Town would get a percentage of any fee played for Kieron Dyer in the summer. Manchester United have long been favourites to land Dyer for a fee somewhere in the region of £20 million.

At the time of Dyer's transfer to Newcastle, Town said they would get an undisclosed percentage of any profit made on a later sale by the Tynesiders.

Burley said: "There is a percentage to be paid which would give Ipswich a substantial sum if any such transfer was made."

How substantial substantial is will be the subject of much speculation over the summer.

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001

Buff,
I think it's simply what the Americans call "shmuck insurance".

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001

Well then it's obvious. We insist that Dyer is simply a sweetner on a Marcelino deal. All cash pertains to the classy Spaniard but Ipswich could take him as their cut if they wish to persue it.

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001

I don't really see the "sell on" clause of being all that important. It probably represents perhaps 15-20% of any subsequent profit on the transaction. So, if we sold KD for £20 million, we would pay Ipswich £2.1 - 2.8 million.

The real issue here is why we would be selling him, and what we would hope to gain by doing so.

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001

I believe that the % in the Dyer contract sell-on clause is 5%, ie £1million at the currently predicted transfer fee. How about we say £950,000 plus Farcelino (or should that be £1,050,000 plus Farcelino!?) Terry

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001

There was a dodgy case which I think nearly got Everton into trouble in the mid/late 80s.

Everton bought Wayne Clark and Joe Bloggs from Birmingham. Clark valued at £300k , Bloggs at a slightly surprising valuation of £200k. Clarke has a sell on clause which was say 10% of the profit made by Birmingham. The profit at £300k was £100k, therefore previous club received £10k as their cut.

6 months later Everton gave Joe Bloggs a free transfer, cos in reality that was what he was worth. If Everton had paid a straight £500k for Clarke, then his old club would have got £30k, or Birmingham £20k less.

Allegedly.

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001

I heard there was no sell on cut for Ipswich. There was a bonus when Dyer got his first England cap (which was straight after we signed him) where Ipswich got a further half million.

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001