Braundjoh Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 I was wondering, having just completed a deal for Kevin Doyle, with £10 million paid after 50 games, whether if I sold him before the 50 games was completed I would not have to pay the money? Sorry if that sounds grammatically stupid, I'm tired Thanks for bearing with me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arsenal_2111 Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 No, if you sold him before he had played 50 games for your team he would not have to pay the money (regardless of what happens at his new club). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braundjoh Posted June 5, 2009 Author Share Posted June 5, 2009 Thanks for the quick reply I'll have to consider selling him then, if I can get a good enough offer next season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigAmzz Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 you paid 10 mil for kevin doyle? are you insane? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
satanasangel Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 you paid 10 mil for kevin doyle? are you insane? Lol I was going to say the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter-evo Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 I thought this was discussed before and the conclusion that we arrived at was the club would have to pay all of the clauses as soon as the player leaves the club? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roooonaldooo Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 I did this with Huddersfield, bout Kierreson for 40 mill after 50 games, played half a season then sold for 40 mill to Man Utd Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cityull Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 If this works it could be a great way of getting loads of free players Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braundjoh Posted June 5, 2009 Author Share Posted June 5, 2009 I didn't think that Reading would accept less after 50 games. I wouldn't pay it up front for him, be serious And if I do sell him, it will all be profit! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polar Bear Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 "I thought this was discussed before and the conclusion that we arrived at was the club would have to pay all of the clauses as soon as the player leaves the club?" Only if the rules have changed in the last few years. I recall a couple of cases around the turn of the millennium where players were sold specifically to avoid triggering such an additional fee (I'm pretty sure one involved an ex-Luton player, sorry I can't remember more details). Understandably, the clause diminished in popularity. In real life I think add-on fees tend to be more complex affairs nowadays, linked to club success where the player is involved (e.g. Rooney, Walcott), and with a decent amount guaranteed plus a sell-on percentage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phnompenhandy Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 If this works it could be a great way of getting loads of free players Yeh, but you have to balance that with the feeling of flogging your star player when he's bringing you so much success. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
medo24 Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Rangers didn't play Michael Ball because if he played one more game they would have had to pay some money to Everton and sold him. This is the only case I know if at the moment. I'd imagine the game works in the same way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gauvner Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Craig Gordon at Sunderland is another case of owing money after a number of appearances. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidbowie Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 I'm pretty sure you don't pay in FM unless the limit is triggered. I've missed out on 30 million once because the player only played 9 internationals and missed on 2 before his transfer because he got injured. That was annoying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
theking1 Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Rangers didn't play Michael Ball because if he played one more game they would have had to pay some money to Everton and sold him. This is the only case I know if at the moment. I'd imagine the game works in the same way. Apparently this is the case with Bentley at Tottenham at the moment,which is why Redknapp didn't give him a sniff of action in the last month or so of the season Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hershie Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Apparently this is the case with Bentley at Tottenham at the moment,which is why Redknapp didn't give him a sniff of action in the last month or so of the season I can think of better reasons for not playing Bentley. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubey84 Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 I can think of better reasons for not playing Bentley. Because he's utter ****, right? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
x42bn6 Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Obvious exploit is obvious... It's also hilarious how many clubs accept these silly bids. Like 100 million after 50 games - then sell him for a profit by not playing him in 50 games. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Werderdona Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 Or to buy your rivals best player and never play him? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.