| Right then ye f..... 19:26 - Aug 4 with 23796 views | TheResurrection |
Have a bit of that.
Young side, trying to play football, dug in and get the rewards.
To the usual fackwits on Planet tvvat, fack you...
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |  |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 14:10 - Aug 5 with 1479 views | E20Jack |
And just a point of order.
Mesa signed for €12.5m and was sold for €6m.
Clucas was signed for £14.75 and is being linked for £8m.
Clucas held his transfer value better in that instance.
Just saying. |  |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 14:11 - Aug 5 with 1472 views | E20Jack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 14:08 - Aug 5 by PozuelosSideys |
Then there is nothing to discuss. Just a flat sign-on fee for Burnley to pay Clucas |
Which was my point from post 1. | |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 14:11 - Aug 5 with 1474 views | PozuelosSideys |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 14:10 - Aug 5 by E20Jack |
And just a point of order.
Mesa signed for €12.5m and was sold for €6m.
Clucas was signed for £14.75 and is being linked for £8m.
Clucas held his transfer value better in that instance.
Just saying. |
£14.75? bargain! Good job Huw |  |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 14:13 - Aug 5 with 1462 views | E20Jack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 14:11 - Aug 5 by PozuelosSideys |
£14.75? bargain! Good job Huw |
Thankfully he went down that route rather than the foreign route, as that £8m we are crying about would probably be a distant dream. | |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 14:15 - Aug 5 with 1461 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:53 - Aug 5 by E20Jack |
The situation was outlined by builth clearly, twice, and was that we have to pay £2m of the transfer fee to Clucas and his agent as a signing on fee.
He called it a signing on fee because that is what he was referring to. You changed it from that as you knew he was wrong and attempted to make a case regarding a shortfall in wages, something highly speculative and is usually (always) remedied by a transfer fee reduction rather than a player lump fee, so again, not even close to being relevant considering the transfer fee is already set in the discussion at £8m.
Your summary has agreed with everything I have stated. Why you are telling me you are explaining y own point clearly is bizarre.
It’s almost 11pm here Lisa, It would seem I have about as much to do on a Sunday night than you do in the day time in London. [Post edited 5 Aug 2018 13:54]
|
Sigh.
No. Again, I referred to the example that Builth gave. I didn’t introduce anything at all. I made it clear I was referring to the example rather than the label.
The point on reduction of transfer fee is incorrect by the way.
If there is a shortfall of wages, there are three or four reasons why it is kept separate from the transfer fee.
One is accounting. Profit or loss on player sale is reported separately from wages and salaries.
Two is sell on percentages. If a player is sold for ‘x’ a club can’t reduce any share of profit on sale because it’s making up salary shortfall.
Three is PAYE and NI legislation. If a club is making up a shortfall in wages, they are responsible for Ers NI on that shortfall.
Fourth is the wage structure in the buying club. If a buying club has a wage structure in place that could be distorted by them ‘paying’ an additional £20k per week (that actually comes from the selling club) they won’t want to do that.
It usually works by a lump sum payment to the departing player (which incurs tax and NI). It can work as a payment to the buying club over the length of the contract to compensate them for extra wages if they don’t have a wage structure that would be affected, or a lump sum to the buying club up front.
The cash flows may have the same effect, but the reporting is different. |  | | |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 14:23 - Aug 5 with 1437 views | E20Jack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 14:15 - Aug 5 by londonlisa2001 |
Sigh.
No. Again, I referred to the example that Builth gave. I didn’t introduce anything at all. I made it clear I was referring to the example rather than the label.
The point on reduction of transfer fee is incorrect by the way.
If there is a shortfall of wages, there are three or four reasons why it is kept separate from the transfer fee.
One is accounting. Profit or loss on player sale is reported separately from wages and salaries.
Two is sell on percentages. If a player is sold for ‘x’ a club can’t reduce any share of profit on sale because it’s making up salary shortfall.
Three is PAYE and NI legislation. If a club is making up a shortfall in wages, they are responsible for Ers NI on that shortfall.
Fourth is the wage structure in the buying club. If a buying club has a wage structure in place that could be distorted by them ‘paying’ an additional £20k per week (that actually comes from the selling club) they won’t want to do that.
It usually works by a lump sum payment to the departing player (which incurs tax and NI). It can work as a payment to the buying club over the length of the contract to compensate them for extra wages if they don’t have a wage structure that would be affected, or a lump sum to the buying club up front.
The cash flows may have the same effect, but the reporting is different. |
Builth gave an incorrect example. He didn’t even get the figures right. He was talking about a signin on fee, like a good solicitor you took his error and gave him a concept to run with. He obviously didn’t take your cue and continued suggesting we have to pay £2m to him and his agent as a signing in fee however - although you choose to ignore that.
The point regarding a reduction of transfer fees is not incorrect at all. It most certainly does not come in the form of a lump payment and is ridiculous to suggest so. That would be assuming that the player is to play to the end of his contract which rarely happens these days. The selling club is only liable for the extra payments for the time he is contracted to that club so to pay it upfront is ludicrous. In fact, when it is directly paid to a player then it is weekly. Lee Trundle told me this first hand I can’t soecifically remember what clubs it was between with him it was years ago.
Finally of course, Clucas is reported to be on 25k a week. To think we would subsidise his move to a PL club that wouldn’t match modest wages is laughable.
Sorry there is absolutely no angle in this nonsense at all. | |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 14:41 - Aug 5 with 1407 views | Shaky |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:11 - Aug 5 by E20Jack |
Ah so you agree that the selling club don’t pay the signing on fee then.
Assuming they won’t agree personal terms and assuming we would offer to cover the shortfall to a Premier League club is speculative at best.
Good we agree then. You don’t half often come into threads agreeing with me and making it sound like you are not.
You can say you don’t care until you are blue in the face Lisa, the opposite is obvious even to the most casual of observers  |
What it is called is irrelevant.
Who pays it is the only thing that matters.
5 pages on from the original point, and you have produced nothing to say he is incorrect in saying that Swansea a paying Clucas an inducement to clear off. |  |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 14:54 - Aug 5 with 1368 views | E20Jack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 14:41 - Aug 5 by Shaky |
What it is called is irrelevant.
Who pays it is the only thing that matters.
5 pages on from the original point, and you have produced nothing to say he is incorrect in saying that Swansea a paying Clucas an inducement to clear off. |
No, it is not irrelevant at all. In fact it is entirely relevant.
Feel free to produce something to claim he is correct.
I will stick with common sense and historical fact to back my posts, be interesting if you can do the same in his behalf? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Right then ye facking kunts on 14:54 - Aug 5 with 1373 views | builthjack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 13:53 - Aug 5 by E20Jack |
The situation was outlined by builth clearly, twice, and was that we have to pay £2m of the transfer fee to Clucas and his agent as a signing on fee.
He called it a signing on fee because that is what he was referring to. You changed it from that as you knew he was wrong and attempted to make a case regarding a shortfall in wages, something highly speculative and is usually (always) remedied by a transfer fee reduction rather than a player lump fee, so again, not even close to being relevant considering the transfer fee is already set in the discussion at £8m.
Your summary has agreed with everything I have stated. Why you are telling me you are explaining y own point clearly is bizarre.
It’s almost 11pm here Lisa, It would seem I have about as much to do on a Sunday night than you do in the day time in London. [Post edited 5 Aug 2018 13:54]
|
I said that the £2m would come out of the £8m. |  |
| Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
|
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 14:59 - Aug 5 with 1348 views | E20Jack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 14:54 - Aug 5 by builthjack |
I said that the £2m would come out of the £8m. |
So you are saying that the transfer fee is going to be £6m?
With £2m going to cover part of the 25k that Burnley won’t pay over say a 3 year period yes?
So what you are suggesting is that Burnley are only offering him 12k a week  | |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 15:03 - Aug 5 with 1338 views | builthjack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 14:59 - Aug 5 by E20Jack |
So you are saying that the transfer fee is going to be £6m?
With £2m going to cover part of the 25k that Burnley won’t pay over say a 3 year period yes?
So what you are suggesting is that Burnley are only offering him 12k a week |
I haven't got the time to argue, I do have a life.
You are wrong on so many things. Just admit it for once in your life. You will feel better.
Right, time to get the chainsaw out to get the wood ready for winter. Bye. | |
| Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
|
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 15:04 - Aug 5 with 1328 views | E20Jack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 15:03 - Aug 5 by builthjack |
I haven't got the time to argue, I do have a life.
You are wrong on so many things. Just admit it for once in your life. You will feel better.
Right, time to get the chainsaw out to get the wood ready for winter. Bye. |
And the realisation of what you are proposing sinks in... | |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 15:08 - Aug 5 with 1319 views | Shaky |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 14:59 - Aug 5 by E20Jack |
So you are saying that the transfer fee is going to be £6m?
With £2m going to cover part of the 25k that Burnley won’t pay over say a 3 year period yes?
So what you are suggesting is that Burnley are only offering him 12k a week |
He is obviously saying that Burnley are prepared to pay Clucas 25k/35k/whatever it is.
And that £12k is a top up to pay clucas what he thinks he is worth, and to get him of Swansea's books.
What is it you don't understand about that? | |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 15:10 - Aug 5 with 1308 views | E20Jack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 15:08 - Aug 5 by Shaky |
He is obviously saying that Burnley are prepared to pay Clucas 25k/35k/whatever it is.
And that £12k is a top up to pay clucas what he thinks he is worth, and to get him of Swansea's books.
What is it you don't understand about that? |
Just the fact that the scenario you describe never happens.
Like ever. | |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 15:13 - Aug 5 with 1300 views | Shaky |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 15:10 - Aug 5 by E20Jack |
Just the fact that the scenario you describe never happens.
Like ever. |
Spoken with the absolute certainty of an idiot. | |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 15:14 - Aug 5 with 1292 views | E20Jack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 15:13 - Aug 5 by Shaky |
Spoken with the absolute certainty of an idiot. |
But a correct one, which is the main thing in this instance.
Feel free to put forward proof to the contrary. [Post edited 5 Aug 2018 15:15]
| |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 15:26 - Aug 5 with 1257 views | Shaky |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 11:51 - Aug 5 by londonlisa2001 |
There are many instances where a selling club will pay a lump sum to a player to cover a shortfall in wages at the next club if they want him out.
It doesn’t really matter what you call it, if a player has 3 years left on a contract and the new club is paying him say £20k a week less than he would have earned, that shortfall is made up by the selling club if they want the player gone.
Not saying that’s the case with Clucas by the way. |
Lisa appears to disagree with you, Dim. | |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 15:32 - Aug 5 with 1237 views | E20Jack |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 15:26 - Aug 5 by Shaky |
Lisa appears to disagree with you, Dim. |
Is this the same Lisa you called a “stupid f*cking cow”? Out of interest?
Anyway, no she doesn’t. She says if he is going to earn LESS at his next club. I am pretty sure she would not say that a club pays a players wages even if the buying club matches his salary, just because he wants more from them.
And if she does say that she would be wrong.
Unless you can provide a single case this has happened in word footballnof course?
Didn’t think so. [Post edited 5 Aug 2018 15:35]
| |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 15:37 - Aug 5 with 1218 views | Shaky |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 15:32 - Aug 5 by E20Jack |
Is this the same Lisa you called a “stupid f*cking cow”? Out of interest?
Anyway, no she doesn’t. She says if he is going to earn LESS at his next club. I am pretty sure she would not say that a club pays a players wages even if the buying club matches his salary, just because he wants more from them.
And if she does say that she would be wrong.
Unless you can provide a single case this has happened in word footballnof course?
Didn’t think so. [Post edited 5 Aug 2018 15:35]
|
No I called her a cheeky fcuking cow. See the difference?
One being that she has actual knowledge of real world transfers.
You? Not so much. | |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 16:23 - Aug 5 with 1135 views | EasternJack |
Do you guys ever get bored of trying to be “right” on the internet? |  |
| |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 16:26 - Aug 5 with 1114 views | Phil_S |
 |  | | |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 16:31 - Aug 5 with 1089 views | Fireboy2 |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 16:26 - Aug 5 by Phil_S |
|
Absolute class phil
Oh yes and spot on as well |  | | |
| Right then ye facking kunts on 16:34 - Aug 5 with 1074 views | Shaky |
Well done to the seconds there, stepping in to scrape Dim off he floor. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.