 |
View Full Version : Kightly Wulfhere 14-06-2007, 15:59 In last weeks issue of the Non-League paper there was an article about Kightly and it describes the deal. The £25,000 was an initial fee that could rise to £125,000 depending upon unspecified performance add-ons. It goes on to say that Grays insisted upon a 20% sell clause in the deal. If we did sell Kightly then a fair slice of the money would go to Grays. milfordian 14-06-2007, 16:01 125k? Do you think we paid over the odds? Del Woppio 14-06-2007, 16:02 I'm amazed that sellers don't insist on sell-on clauses for every deal, to be honest. If you think of the massive increases in transfer fees for some players it's incredible. wolf of sedgley 14-06-2007, 16:03 20% sell on is pretty standard, especially for young players. You'd have to be an idiot not to include one in a transfer deal... Del Woppio 14-06-2007, 16:04 <cough>JohnRichards<cough> Nashie 14-06-2007, 16:08 In last weeks issue of the Non-League paper there was an article about Kightly and it describes the deal. The £25,000 was an initial fee that could rise to £125,000 depending upon unspecified performance add-ons. It goes on to say that Grays insisted upon a 20% sell clause in the deal. If we did sell Kightly then a fair slice of the money would go to Grays. I'm actually pleased that some money will go to Grays. He's been an absolute steal and that money will keep the club going for a few years. brummywolf 14-06-2007, 16:14 Grays could be in for a few windfalls in the near future then- I think Eastwood has a 30% or 40% sell on as well. JAIRDUCOCHET 14-06-2007, 16:17 Look at Ipswich and Darren Bent , they stand to cop for almost £3 million fro m Charlton when he goes to West Ham Anglian Wolf 14-06-2007, 16:58 I'm actually pleased that some money will go to Grays. He's been an absolute steal and that money will keep the club going for a few years. Agree entirely Nasher Oxford Wolf 14-06-2007, 17:00 It's a shame for Grays we are not going to ever sell him :) paddingtonwolf 14-06-2007, 17:02 And if say Alex Ferguson came knocking with 10 million reddies tomorrow you don't think we'd sell him then? kennyB 14-06-2007, 17:09 Or even 10 million readies paddington! paddingtonwolf 14-06-2007, 17:19 doh - my bad wanderer24 14-06-2007, 18:45 Look at Ipswich and Darren Bent , they stand to cop for almost £3 million fro m Charlton when he goes to West Ham They need it, there 36m in debt. Akaman 15-06-2007, 03:56 It was blatantly obvious that when we signed him permanently, Grays would have a sell-on clause. Because don't forget, Man U were sniffing yet the Grays Chairman stuck by his word to sell to Wolves. Knowing full well that Kightly had made a good impression, his value was only going to go up, and selling to Man U for a one off fee of 400k or so would come nowhere near to what they might get should he move from Wolves in the future. Akaman 15-06-2007, 03:59 I'm amazed that sellers don't insist on sell-on clauses for every deal, to be honest. If you think of the massive increases in transfer fees for some players it's incredible. John Richards didn't for a 19 year old Robbie Keane D'OH:eek: N1GHTFALL 15-06-2007, 08:19 John Richards didn't for a 19 year old Robbie Keane D'OH:eek: Bet he made sure he got a cut of the sell on from the old Molineux turf though. O.W.E.I 15-06-2007, 09:36 John Richards didn't for a 19 year old Robbie Keane D'OH:eek: The board wouldn't let him. This one has been done to death. |
