Jump to content

League 1 Thread - 2012/13


G-Man11

Recommended Posts

youd have paid more than 20k for Chris Cohen in the end wouldnt you? paid an undisclosed for for him plus I think 20% of the fee you got off us for him, which i think was technically 200k, so thats 40k right there!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
youd have paid more than 20k for Chris Cohen in the end wouldnt you? paid an undisclosed for for him plus I think 20% of the fee you got off us for him, which i think was technically 200k, so thats 40k right there!

He was a free signing with a 20% sell on clause. Sure, he eventually cost £40,000 but that hardly counts when we never paid that up front.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

Hopefully Northampton can come up from League 2, really should be a very midland heavy league next year. MK Dons, Peterborough, Northampton, Notts, Wolves, Walsall, Shrewsbury, Port Vale, Coventry and Crewe (sort-of).

Everything below Crewe is Midlands. Everything above is North. :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything below Crewe is Midlands. Everything above is North. :p

Which are you then? :D

Tbh I find the idea of Stoke/Port Vale being midlands pretty suspect really. They're very much northern in all but name.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why you've got a sad smiley face for being nowhere near Stoke!

Anyway as I said I don't really consider Staffordshire proper Midlands. But for the purpose of it being a Midlands centric league I think Crewe and Port Vale can be included because the point is they aren't that far away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing wrong with being further away from Staffordshire ;)

Exactly my point :D

Looking forward to a lot more nearby away trips. Hopefully Yeovil go up as well because it's by far the longest southern ground to get to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The report is wrong. Not the first time a journalist gets things wrong, eh?

do you have any proof for him being wrong? either way, the price you agreed with west ham included a sell on fee, thats part of what you paid to get the player ( and would have been more if Forest hadnt agreed to pay you less for Cohen and more for Davies to get around you having to give West Ham more money, not that i have a problem with screwing bigger teams out of money :D )

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are saying if Yeovil signed a bloke on a free transfer with a 50% sell on clause who they later sold for £2 million then their record transfer fee would be £1 million? I wouldn't agree with that at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are saying if Yeovil signed a bloke on a free transfer with a 50% sell on clause who they later sold for £2 million then their record transfer fee would be £1 million? I wouldn't agree with that at all.

It's a tough one, if the clauses are met some people would suggest that's how much a player has cost you.

We spent around £250k on Simon Walton yet by the time he left had cost us around £500-550k and could've cost more, does that make him our record transfer fee or do you count the £250k?

Link to post
Share on other sites

do you have any proof for him being wrong? either way, the price you agreed with west ham included a sell on fee, thats part of what you paid to get the player ( and would have been more if Forest hadnt agreed to pay you less for Cohen and more for Davies to get around you having to give West Ham more money, not that i have a problem with screwing bigger teams out of money :D )

Not that I will disclose on here, no. But I know for a fact he was a free signing.

So you are saying if Yeovil signed a bloke on a free transfer with a 50% sell on clause who they later sold for £2 million then their record transfer fee would be £1 million? I wouldn't agree with that at all.

Thank you, someone gets it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the plus side that might mean we get a more modern set of facilities? Safe to say your away end is a bit of a dump :D

Yes, it'll mean by (And if we're still in League 1) by 2014 (potentially) you'll have 2,500 seats to sit down on. They also want to redevelop the London Road stand, which, personally is a horrific stand to sit in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that the one with a bit of an away end in? I had to go in there once (we sold out the terracing) and the seating was horrific, weren't allowed to stand either because all the standing people were in the terraces :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

And now he's scored!

Probably a toss up between him and Leon Clarke for the opposition forward who caused us the most problems this year. Actually probably chuck in Matt Smith at Oldham and Marvin Morgan at Aldershot as well. In short anyone who can bully our defenders :D

I still reckon we only signed Leon Clarke because he completely mullered us when we played Scunthorpe :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea Im happy we will have Agyemang in L2. Big big lad

Yeah forgot about him, he destroyed us for 2 different teams :D Our CB's really are a bunch of pussies.

I don't rate Marvin Morgan at all, cannot header a ball, it just hits him. Then there's his technical ability...

Oh he's dog turd, he missed about 6 sitters against us and his passing/touch was shocking. But his pure physical attributes caused us a ton of problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are saying if Yeovil signed a bloke on a free transfer with a 50% sell on clause who they later sold for £2 million then their record transfer fee would be £1 million? I wouldn't agree with that at all.

why not? the sell on clause is part of the fee ( although the fee in your scenario is 0 so in fact, the sell on clause IS the fee ), in your scenario, if they hadnt "paid" the sell on clause, they would have made 2 million from the deal, but because they "paid" the sell on clause, they had to pay half off that to whoever they signed the player from in the first place. Now there is the argument to be made, that the club might ask for more money because of the sell on fee, but that doesnt change the fact that the clause is part of the fee.

In the specific scenario i was talking about, Chris Cohen moved to Yeovil from West Ham either for free or a small disclosed fee ( depending on whether you believe Daz has a super secret source or not ) PLUS a sell on clause of 20%, when we signed Arron Davies and Cohen from them, we agreed a deal for 1.2 million, which would ( from what i understand of the deal ) have been roughly of equal value for each player ( so 600k each ) but Yeovil requested that we effectively pay 1 million for Davies and 200k for Cohen so that they would have to pay less money to their previous clubs in sell on clauses ( Davies was at Southampton before, i dont know what his sell on fee was, but it was smaller than Cohens ). They didnt ask for anymore money, they just asked that we restructured the bid, which we did, this means that instead of the 1.2 million we paid, they received 1.195 million and paid the rest to West Ham/Southampton, which makes it part of the fee they paid to sign the 2 players in the first place, imo anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That would have been a brilliant goal if Forrester's volley had gone in at the end there.

+1 for Morgan being crap but always looking like he was about to score (though I saw him in League 2 while he was still at Aldershot)

Link to post
Share on other sites

why not? the sell on clause is part of the fee ( although the fee in your scenario is 0 so in fact, the sell on clause IS the fee ), in your scenario, if they hadnt "paid" the sell on clause, they would have made 2 million from the deal, but because they "paid" the sell on clause, they had to pay half off that to whoever they signed the player from in the first place. Now there is the argument to be made, that the club might ask for more money because of the sell on fee, but that doesnt change the fact that the clause is part of the fee.

In the specific scenario i was talking about, Chris Cohen moved to Yeovil from West Ham either for free or a small disclosed fee ( depending on whether you believe Daz has a super secret source or not ) PLUS a sell on clause of 20%, when we signed Arron Davies and Cohen from them, we agreed a deal for 1.2 million, which would ( from what i understand of the deal ) have been roughly of equal value for each player ( so 600k each ) but Yeovil requested that we effectively pay 1 million for Davies and 200k for Cohen so that they would have to pay less money to their previous clubs in sell on clauses ( Davies was at Southampton before, i dont know what his sell on fee was, but it was smaller than Cohens ). They didnt ask for anymore money, they just asked that we restructured the bid, which we did, this means that instead of the 1.2 million we paid, they received 1.195 million and paid the rest to West Ham/Southampton, which makes it part of the fee they paid to sign the 2 players in the first place, imo anyway.

Aah the same as the good old James Collins and Danny Gabbidon deal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah we did have him as our manager as well btw. I know all about him :(

We sacked our most popular manager since the 80's (after he'd just won a game 5-2) so that we could bring in a 'big name' in Peter Reid. A lot of fans are still very angry about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...