fleck21 0 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 will we get the 4 million from spurs then because i have heard that spurs still owe us 4 million Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 14 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 will we get the 4 million from spurs then because i have heard that spurs still owe us 4 million Of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumshie 205 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 What a stupid question of course we would Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam_RFC 238 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 hahahahaha of course we will Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluenose_jr 6 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 I would say definitely & I would imagine we would get a decent amount from a sell on clause. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlCapone 7,678 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 will we get the 4 million from spurs then because i have heard that spurs still owe us 4 million Eh why wouldnt we get it? daft question Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fixxxer 4 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Maybe the OP thinks a lot of the money is based on appearance money? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigshearer1984 1 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 I doubt they owe us any money. We would be after it like a tramp eatin chips if they did. Hope they do though... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlCapone 7,678 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 I doubt they owe us any money. We would be after it like a tramp eatin chips if they did. Hope they do though... I think they do owe us about 4 Million but thats normal in a transfer fee. 99% of fees agreed are not paid up front but usually over 2 - 4 years after the player moves. You'll probabaly find we still owe Burnley a whack for Lafferty , Charlton for Boogie etc. The deal with Spurs will have legally binding payment dates when we recieve the fee and as we agreed the contract we need to stick to the dates. Whether Spurs sell him or not it wont make any difference to when they pay us as they will need to still pay us when the contract stipulates. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 364 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 We are getting £340,000 a month for 3 years , that was the way the deal was structured according to Murray at an AGM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlCapone 7,678 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 We are getting £340,000 a month for 3 years , that was the way the deal was structured according to Murray at an AGM Sounds about right Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DinViesel 399 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 I think the OP means will we still get the £340k p/m or do they have to square us up in full. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlCapone 7,678 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 I think the OP means will we still get the £340k p/m or do they have to square us up in full. So if you buy a car and take out a 3 year bank loan for it , you sell it after a year do you tell the bank you aint paying the last two years of the loan? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 14 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 I would say definitely & I would imagine we would get a decent amount from a sell on clause. I doubt that there would be any sell-on clause given the value of the original fee. even if there was , it may only be based on the excess of the original fee, and the likelyhood is that Spurs will make a loss on the deal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigshearer1984 1 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Ok, but why is this the first time I have ever heard of " they still owe us money " if thats the case why was this never mentioned with Boumsong, Cuellar etc.....? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 14 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 We are getting £340,000 a month for 3 years , that was the way the deal was structured according to Murray at an AGM I don't think that's correct. Do the Math. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 14 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Ok, but why is this the first time I have ever heard of " they still owe us money " if thats the case why was this never mentioned with Boumsong, Cuellar etc.....? It's standard, and probably not worth mentioning, perhaps? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricksen_da_best 2,034 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 All transfers are based on appearances these days, if Hutton doesnt play so many games, then No we wouldnt see the money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DinViesel 399 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 I think the OP means will we still get the £340k p/m or do they have to square us up in full. So if you buy a car and take out a 3 year bank loan for it , you sell it after a year do you tell the bank you aint paying the last two years of the loan? What are you on? If you take car finance over 3 years and you sell after one you must pay off the outstanding finance before you sell the car on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 14 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 All transfers are based on appearances these days, if Hutton doesnt play so many games, then No we wouldnt see the money. I don't believe that's the case. Note 27 of the accounts - "For the Group and Company at 30 June 2008, additional transfer fees payable of £25,000 (2007 - £601,000) and transfer fees receivable of nil (2007 - nil) would arise if certain conditions in transfer contracts are fulfilled." If any cash was due based on games played then it would be detailed in that note. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmico1986 0 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 We are getting £340,000 a month for 3 years , that was the way the deal was structured according to Murray at an AGM I don't think that's correct. Do the Math. so according to that figure hutton was sold for 12.24million pounds. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 14 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 We are getting £340,000 a month for 3 years , that was the way the deal was structured according to Murray at an AGM I don't think that's correct. Do the Math. so according to that figure hutton was sold for 12.24million pounds. hence my "I don't think that's correct." comment Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigshearer1984 1 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Ok, but why is this the first time I have ever heard of " they still owe us money " if thats the case why was this never mentioned with Boumsong, Cuellar etc.....? It's standard, and probably not worth mentioning, perhaps? Why mention it in regards to Cafu then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmico1986 0 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Ok, but why is this the first time I have ever heard of " they still owe us money " if thats the case why was this never mentioned with Boumsong, Cuellar etc.....? It's standard, and probably not worth mentioning, perhaps? Why mention it in regards to Cafu then? why not?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 14 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Ok, but why is this the first time I have ever heard of " they still owe us money " if thats the case why was this never mentioned with Boumsong, Cuellar etc.....? It's standard, and probably not worth mentioning, perhaps? Why mention it in regards to Cafu then? Perhaps because of the size of it? Perhaps because it appeared that it wasn't immediately reinvested unlike the Boumsong and Cuellar transfers? Perhaps there was mention of it with them as well? Can't say for sure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts