Darren Bent hands in transfer request

BERBA

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

I don't think they will be due much to be honest, and would have thought any clauses would finish with Sunderland as he did, but I don;t really know to be honest.

Bet Daniel Levy knows , and if i know him we'll be due a few quid

Paully D

Oh, and Niall Quinn has said we've got a ''little bit more than £24m'' for Bent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPw2OpL5if8

Bent has actually cost Aston Villa over double what Quinn and Drumaville originally paid for the club which is testament to the job they've done and (Quinny and Short) now continue to do.

ctrl-alt-delete

Paully D wrote: »

'Don't be surprised' if we've passed the clauses onto Villa.

'Spurs will definitely see £4m' from either Sunderland or Villa. It doesn't matter to them who pays it as long as they receive it.

I don't see the logic in a deal like that though,

Ok we'll pay you £1million a year for every year of his contract he sees out, because that is beneficial to both clubs,

but why would there be a clause like that based on the amount of years of a contract he signs? and further to that if there was, surely that would be due when he signed the contract.

yahoo_moe

Paully D wrote: »

'Don't be surprised' if we've passed the clauses onto Villa.

So the clauses in the contract between Spurs and Sunderland live even though the contract between Bent and Sunderland is dead? Never really thought about that but I suppose they are two separate contracts.

Although it'd make the extra £1m per year more of an 'instalment' than an 'add-on' in that case.

Paully D

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

I don't see the logic in a deal like that though,

Ok we'll pay you £1million a year for every year of his contract he sees out, because that is beneficial to both clubs,

but why would there be a clause like that based on the amount of years of a contract he signs? and further to that if there was, surely that would be due when he signed the contract.

Spurs are difficult to deal with in the transfer market and Sunderland absolutely hate doing business with them because of this so as Levy knew we were desperate to get Bent he called the shots.

Essentially the clause we're discussing is a £4m over 4 years deal. The majority of transfers nowadays are conducted in such a way that clubs want to pay out as little of big fees in one lump sum as they can get away with and a way of ensuring that they can still pay the money but not all at once is to break it down over a few seasons. We obviously weren't happy to pay £14m up front (which Spurs asked for, along with a couple of what they'd see as bonus payments for England apps and Sunderland reaching Europe which all added up to £16.5m) for Bent so we negotiated a deal in which we paid £10m up front and would pay £1m each year for the next 4 years, thus guaranteeing Spurs at LEAST £14m for the deal regardless of what we decide to do with Bent after he signs for us.

ctrl-alt-delete

Paully D wrote: »

Spurs are difficult to deal with in the transfer market and Sunderland absolutely hate doing business with them because of this so as Levy knew we were desperate to get Bent he called the shots.

Essentially the clause we're discussing is a £4m over 4 years deal. The majority of transfers nowadays are conducted in such a way that clubs want to pay out as little of big fees in one lump sum as they can get away with and a way of ensuring that they can still pay the money but not all at once is to break it down over a few seasons. We obviously weren't happy to pay £14m up front (which Spurs asked for, along with a couple of what they'd see as bonus payments for England apps and Sunderland reaching Europe) for Bent so we negotiated a deal in which we paid £10m up front and would pay £1m each year for the next 4 years. It adds up to the same fee but is much kinder as it leaves an extra bit of cash in the transfer kitty for that particular window and doesn't feel like such a harsh blow on finances.

I totally understand them slitting the transfer fee over a number of years, and understand that is how many are done these days, from that Sunderland would still owe Spurs money.

However add on's are a bonus in a sense, that are not always due,

When Quinn says in that interview, Villa paid 1/4 of £18 million, we will call that £4.5million just enough to pay off what they owe Spurs - I still see that as being part of the initial fees.

They won't recieve european qualification add on, unless him playing part season counts towards it. They won't pay International add on as I don't think it would usually be based on the small amount of games Bent has played,

The bit I have trouble with, is that I see the other as £1million a year, for each year of his contract - but normally these are done as years completed. If it was £1million a year for the 4 years, surely it would be just part of the transfer fee, what is the logic of having it separate?

Helix

yahoo_moe wrote: »

So the clauses in the contract between Spurs and Sunderland live even though the contract between Bent and Sunderland is dead? Never really thought about that but I suppose they are two separate contracts.

i assume we would have "bought" the clause payments from them, in that we said "right hes got 2 1/2 years left, so we'll add £2.5m onto what we've agreed and you give it to spurs", which wouldve been part of the £18m initial payment

BERBA

Helix wrote: »

i assume we would have "bought" the clause payments from them, in that we said "right hes got 2 1/2 years left, so we'll add £2.5m onto what we've agreed and you give it to spurs", which wouldve been part of the £18m initial payment

it'll pay for pienaar anyhow i suppose:D

Paully D

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

I totally understand them slitting the transfer fee over a number of years, and understand that is how many are done these days, from that Sunderland would still owe Spurs money.

However add on's are a bonus in a sense, that are not always due,

When Quinn says in that interview, Villa paid 1/4 of £18 million, we will call that £4.5million just enough to pay off what they owe Spurs - I still see that as being part of the initial fees.

They won't recieve european qualification add on, unless him playing part season counts towards it. They won't pay International add on as I don't think it would usually be based on the small amount of games Bent has played,

The bit I have trouble with, is that I see the other as £1million a year, for each year of his contract - but normally these are done as years completed. If it was £1million a year for the 4 years, surely it would be just part of the transfer fee, what is the logic of having it separate?

Sorry mate but I can't explain it any clearer than I already have. The best way for me to try and distinguish it for you is to say that the £4m is a clause which will have to paid regardless, and take the other £2.5m (which won't obviously won't be paid as we didn't qualify for Europe and I can't see a few England apperences as meeting requirements) as a performance related bonues specific to his time at Sunderland.

The logic of having it seperate as it allows managers to have more money free to use on their transfer budget in that particular transfer window and it doesn't feel as much of a strain on the club financially.

In theory we could have just paid all the £4m off with the money we got when we got we sold Waghorn and Fulop in the Summer but Steve Walton our Chief Executive would be the man to ask about this.

ctrl-alt-delete

Paully D wrote: »

Sorry mate but I can't explain it any clearer than I already have. The best way for me to try and distinguish it for you is to say that the £4m is a clause which will have to paid regardless, and take the other £2.5m (which won't obviously won't be paid as we didn't qualify for Europe and I can't see a few England apperences as meeting requirements) as a performance related bonues specific to his time at Sunderland.

The logic of having it seperate as it allows managers to have more money free to use on their transfer budget in that particular transfer window and it doesn't feel as much of a strain on the club financially.

In theory we could have just paid all the £4m off with the money we got when we got we sold Waghorn and Fulop in the Summer but Steve Walton our Chief Executive would be the man to ask about this.

What was the official transfer fee paid for bent by Sunderland then,

£14million, did they pay £10million up front?

I just got the impression some Spurs fans thought that they were getting more money, that is all. I do understand what you are explaining.

BERBA

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

What was the official transfer fee paid for bent by Sunderland then,

£14million, did they pay £10million up front?

I just got the impression some Spurs fans thought that they were getting more money, that is all. I do understand what you are explaining.

10m up front and some more ....:rolleyes::rolleyes:

ctrl-alt-delete

BERBA wrote: »

10m up front and some more ....:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Well how much then? you seem to know everything and nothing at the same time.

Paully D

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

What was the official transfer fee paid for bent by Sunderland then,

£14million, did they pay £10million up front?

I just got the impression some Spurs fans thought that they were getting more money, that is all. I do understand what you are explaining.

£10m up front, with £6.5m in add-ons (which I've broken down into £4m worth of clauses and £2.5m in performance related bonus) so the official transfer fee goes down as a fee of UP TO or THAT COULD RISE to £16.5m (of which we know £14m will definitely have to be paid to Spurs.).

Most clubs think they get more money but when the deal is broken down that isn't the case. For instance with us selling Waghorn to Leicester, could you have seen them paying out the quoted £3m up front for him? There's not a cat in hell's chance that will have happened and we'd be lucky to have seen half that transfer fee so far IMO.

yahoo_moe

Lads, it's just a language issue.

BERBA was mentioning 'add-ons', which I don't think are what's at stake here. Paully D is terming them 'clauses' but I'd be with ctrl-alt-delete in thinking of a clause as a conditional that depends on something.

It's just the terminology we're each using. The money Sunderland owe Spurs is instalments on a transfer where the basic fee was £14m, which we all know is fairly standard practice. It's the same way Spurs got 'a great deal' buying Kaboul back from Portsmouth as they'd never been paid fully for him in the first place.

Which all means that for Spurs to break even on Bent, they need a sell-on fee of £2m.

Paully D

yahoo_moe wrote: »

Which all means that for Spurs to break even on Bent, they need a sell-on fee of £2m.

£2.5m to be precise (;)) but yes, what you've said is correct.

Mr.Crinklewood

Any truth that there is a £6M relegation release clause?

Helix

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

Any truth that there is a £6M relegation release clause?

wouldnt surprise me, its unlikely itll ever be triggered so if it was asked for i doubt we'd have had a problem putting it in

pickarooney

BERBA wrote: »

piss away 15m on keano , it was 12m after selling him to pool for 20m

Wow. It's hard to believe someone could go through even primary education and have such a poor grasp of figures.

Selling a player you don't need for a lot of money = good business
Buying a player you don't need for a lot of money = bad business

If you somehow think that the second bit is negated by the first, then I don't know how you understand the world.

he bought lennon for 1m , carrick for 2m and sold him for 18.6m,made a 20m profit on berb , made a 3m profit on mido , sold kevin prince boateng to pompey for 4m and got krancjar for 2.5m....list goes on and on

oh yeah and bought vdv for only 8m :eek:

Sure, most of those are good business deals, although I'd argue Boateng was a missed opportunity but they in no way erase the fact that as far as Keane and Defoe were concerned their transfers were calamitous.

BERBA

pickarooney wrote: »

Wow. It's hard to believe someone could go through even primary education and have such a poor grasp of figures.

Selling a player you don't need for a lot of money = good business
Buying a player you don't need for a lot of money = bad business

If you somehow think that the second bit is negated by the first, then I don't know how you understand the world.

we bought keano back in 2001/2002 for 7m , sold him many years later for 20m , bought him back for 12m ( completely disagree with you on the buying a player back we dont need bit). we needed him badly for those 6 months ..remember 2 pts from 8 games!!!

anyhow we'll sell him in the next 2 weeks again for 6m

we done well outta keano in the last 10 years.

Think your the one with the poor grasp of figures:rolleyes::rolleyes:

basillarkin

mdwexford wrote: »

As i said Drogba had one outstanding season, thats it.

How about the one before where he had 5 goals in 24 games.

1 in 2 is what id expect from a top class striker.

92 goals in 185 apperances in the premier league for Chelsea but he also gets a lot of assists.

Helix

mdwexford wrote: »

1 in 2 is what id expect from a top class striker.

and bent is pretty much that, yet youre saying hes not a top class striker?

Iago

steelcityblues wrote: »

Presuming Wiki isn't bulling with the charts:

Jermain Defoe - Games/Goals 411/147: 35.8%

Darren Bent - Games/Goals 362/153: 42.3%

I know Bent has the better percentage, but remember he spent several seasons in the Championship with Ipswich where it's easier to bang in goals, thus helps bring up the percentage.

Therefore, both men are pretty much on the same level imo!

EPL Record (up to the start of this season)

Defoe 294 games, 202 starts, 98 goals
Bent 191 games, 160 starts, 82 goals

Last two seasons

Rooney 62 games 38 goals
Bent 71 games 36 goals
Drogba 56 games 34 goals
Anelka 70 games 30 goals
Torres 46 games 32 goals
Agbonlahor 72 games 25 goals
Gerrard 64 games 24 goals

Bent is a player that scores goals in this league. Money well spent imo, although the Torres stat is a bit sick to be fair.

ctrl-alt-delete

EPL Record

Last two seasons, plus this season so far:

Rooney 74 games 40 goals ................1.85
Bent 91 games 42 goals....................2.16
Drogba 77 games 42 goals.................1.83
Anelka 89 games 34 goals..................2.61
Torres 67 games 39 goals..............1.71
Agbonlahor 85 games 25 goals............3.4
Gerrard 80 games 28 goals.................2.85

Just to follow on Iago, for the past 2 seasons and bringing us up to now, just to add in the rough time Torres has been having, still puts him ahead in the games per goal ratio, a true mark of the marksman!

Bent for me, has been the best striker playing outside the big clubs which is the best Villa could hope for. With the wingers they have in the squad, i expect him to excel.

pickarooney

BERBA wrote: »

we bought keano back in 2001/2002 for 7m , sold him many years later for 20m , bought him back for 12m ( completely disagree with you on the buying a player back we dont need bit). we needed him badly for those 6 months ..remember 2 pts from 8 games!!!

anyhow we'll sell him in the next 2 weeks again for 6m

we done well outta keano in the last 10 years.

Think your the one with the poor grasp of figures:rolleyes::rolleyes:

12-16 million rising for 10 goals, half of them against Burnley... we should all be so thrifty!