John Matrix Posted 2 September 2011 Posted 2 September 2011 http://www.skysports.com/story/0,,11715_7144152,00.html Chairman Ken Bates has conceded the transfer fee Leeds received from St Etienne for Max Gradel was not a particularly 'good deal'. The Whites accepted the bid from the Ligue 1 club on Tuesday evening with the Ivory Coast international finalising his four-year contract on transfer deadline day. Leeds were against letting the talented 23-year-old leave Elland Road, but the fact that he only had a year left on his deal and following his transfer request they reluctantly accepted. Leicester also pocketed 17.5 per cent of the fee due to a sell-on clause inserted after he left the Foxes while the Football League were also entitled to five per cent of the deal. Forced hand "We never wanted Max to go," commented Bates. "In fact, towards the end of last season, we started talking to him about signing an extended contract. "(But) his agent came to see (chief executive) Shaun Harvey and said: 'Max has got a chance to play in the European Champions League or Europa League football'. "Sochaux offered us €1.8m with £500,000 added on but we told them to shove it, as we wanted to keep Max. "But that brought the matter to a head and Max put in his transfer request. We had to let him go (in the end). It's not a particularly good deal for us; we bought him for £100,000 from Leicester and they had a 17.5 per cent sell-on. "There's (also) a five per cent levy which goes to the league. But we've still got a substantial sum which is about £1.75m net over a year and that goes into Simon's Grayson's (transfer) pot."
Joe. Posted 2 September 2011 Posted 2 September 2011 We might have sold him for pennies but we've managed to get ourselves a reasonable deal in the end. Probably pushes it to nearer the million mark, not too sure exactly how much he went for in the end. Ken Bates is a joke.
Brown Fox Posted 2 September 2011 Posted 2 September 2011 I don't do maths so can anyone tell me a rough figure of how much he went for? I had heard rumours of 7.5 million but this article tells a different story!
FoxesFan123 Posted 2 September 2011 Posted 2 September 2011 So from the transfers we'd get around £350k?
John Matrix Posted 2 September 2011 Author Posted 2 September 2011 http://www.skysports.com/story/0,,11712_7144245,00.html we also put a massively improved bid for maynard according to this
Spiritwalker Posted 2 September 2011 Posted 2 September 2011 This gives us just over £390k, as part of the sell on.
Master Fox Posted 2 September 2011 Posted 2 September 2011 http://www.skysports.com/story/0,,11712_7144245,00.html we also put a massively improved bid for maynard according to this Fools. They'll regret that.
ozleicester Posted 2 September 2011 Posted 2 September 2011 Ken Bates to leeds supporters... "we had to let him go, and they paid us 7.5 million Ken bates to tax man ........ "oh we only got 1 .75 million" Ken Bates to Leicester city... " oh no, they only paid 175 thousand, heres your 1 pound 75 we owe you"
themotivator Posted 2 September 2011 Posted 2 September 2011 "We will continue to work on getting him signing a new contract but in any event we didn't want to be selling to another club." good luck with that. with zero financial risk i'm sure he will be snapped up for free by either a premiership side or any one of the promoted teams from the championship by the end of the season.
topharry123 Posted 2 September 2011 Posted 2 September 2011 This gives us just over £390k, as part of the sell on. 395,161.28 to be precist plus the 100k, so not far off a half million in the end which isn't bad for how he was at the time.
Babylon Posted 2 September 2011 Posted 2 September 2011 http://www.skysports.com/story/0,,11712_7144245,00.html we also put a massively improved bid for maynard according to this Price of £8.5m was agreed, sticking point was us only offering £4m up front when they wanted £6m. Allegedly!!
morris1234 Posted 2 September 2011 Posted 2 September 2011 does that mean we get 17.5% of 1.75m or is the 1.75m after our and the football leagues cut? i can't tell from the way its worded, i think the latter so our cut is perhaps slightlty bigger than stated above?? :)
MrSpaM Posted 2 September 2011 Posted 2 September 2011 does that mean we get 17.5% of 1.75m or is the 1.75m after our and the football leagues cut? i can't tell from the way its worded, i think the latter so our cut is perhaps slightlty bigger than stated above?? :) If they let him go for 1.75 million, Ken Bates is even more of a dumbass than i thought possible
MPH Posted 2 September 2011 Posted 2 September 2011 395,161.28 to be precist plus the 100k, so not far off a half million in the end which isn't bad for how he was at the time. If they let him go for 1.75 million, Ken Bates is even more of a dumbass than i thought possible I read it as saying AFTER all the sell ons and money to the league they ended up with 1.75m... so the fee ( any mathmeticiains out there? ) was probably closer to 2.4m or something...
Itsthejoeker Posted 2 September 2011 Posted 2 September 2011 He probably got the conversion rates wrong...
Libertine Dream Posted 2 September 2011 Posted 2 September 2011 As much as I like Maynard, 8.5 is ludricous and confirms there isnt an ounce of intelligence in Bristol especially when we got a match winner in schmechel for just over 1. Well get him on a free next year
LCFC_FAN_1995 Posted 2 September 2011 Posted 2 September 2011 http://www.skysports.com/story/0,,11712_7144245,00.html we also put a massively improved bid for maynard according to this Don't know why Bristol wanted to keep him so much, one year left on his contract yet they reject bids around £6m, not like he will sign a new deal with little Bristol. He will go to a premiership club for free next season.......A team called Leicester City
Bryn Posted 2 September 2011 Posted 2 September 2011 I'd sooner have Beckford. Beckford for less than £4m (before the addons) is smart, relatively realistic, business for a proven goalscorer.
ajthefox Posted 2 September 2011 Posted 2 September 2011 It worries me how much we tried to get maynard and how much we were willing to pay for him when Beckford is a better and more proven player.
Clazie Posted 2 September 2011 Posted 2 September 2011 If 1.75 mill was the amount that they got after the cuts, and they recieved 77.5% of the transfer, then 1.75mill = 77.5% Therefore the value of the deal before the cuts (1.75 divided by 77.5 and then multiplied by 100) was 2.25 to 2.26 million. That means that our cut was £395,161.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.