lee(lcfc) Posted 2 September 2011 Posted 2 September 2011 well i'm glad we haven't got bate as our owner. any one good would be sold when they have one year lefted on contract
fleckneymike Posted 3 September 2011 Posted 3 September 2011 Bates claims we received 17.5% of the fee, the league got 5% leaving Leeds with a net £1.75 million. "City manager Sven-Goran Eriksson also admitted an interest in Leeds winger Max Gradel. But the club will still benefit from his switch to French club St Etienne. Leeds chairman Ken Bates has revealed that City will pocket 17.5 per cent of the fee because of a sell-on clause inserted by City who developed him through their Academy. "It's not a particularly good deal for us," said Bates. "We bought him for £100,000 from Leicester and they had a 17.5 per cent sell-on clause. "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 the manager's transfer pot. "Sochaux (another French club) 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 never wanted him to go."
shen Posted 3 September 2011 Posted 3 September 2011 Bates claims we received 17.5% of the fee, the league got 5% leaving Leeds with a net £1.75 million. "City manager Sven-Goran Eriksson also admitted an interest in Leeds winger Max Gradel. But the club will still benefit from his switch to French club St Etienne. Leeds chairman Ken Bates has revealed that City will pocket 17.5 per cent of the fee because of a sell-on clause inserted by City who developed him through their Academy. "It's not a particularly good deal for us," said Bates. "We bought him for £100,000 from Leicester and they had a 17.5 per cent sell-on clause. "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 the manager's transfer pot. "Sochaux (another French club) 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 never wanted him to go." Same quote appears in the first post
Izzet is God Posted 3 September 2011 Posted 3 September 2011 I'd sooner have Beckford. Beckford for less than £4m (before the addons) is smart, relatively realistic, business for a proven goalscorer. Totally agree
MPH Posted 3 September 2011 Posted 3 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. better than a kick in the teeth, really...
CupidStunt Posted 3 September 2011 Posted 3 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 Free next season? Wont happen On a freebie, he will have a many more clubs after him, and assuming he didn't really want to come here in the first place, i very much doubt he will be a Leicester player in the near future....otherwise i suspect, like many other players he would have handed in a transfer request a long time ago. Bristol City will learn to regret turning down our offer, and will lose out on a substantial fee, similar to what Leeds did with Beckford. Unless we stupidly put in an inflated offer in January. I hope Maynard turns down any moves,and BC dont get a f u c k i n g penny, and Maynard gets a "massive signing on fee" instead I take my hat off to Maynard,as we havent heard as much of a whisper from him during all this speculation, so good luck to him
davieG Posted 3 September 2011 Posted 3 September 2011 Same quote appears in the first post That's because I merged his topic, if I just deleted it people would wonder where their topic went, just by way of explanation, things aren't always what they seem although I wouldn't call it a conspiracy this time
shen Posted 3 September 2011 Posted 3 September 2011 That's because I merged his topic, if I just deleted it people would wonder where their topic went, just by way of explanation, things aren't always what they seem although I wouldn't call it a conspiracy this time Cheeky
Jollie Posted 3 September 2011 Posted 3 September 2011 I hope Bristol City are relegated and then lose Maynard for nothing. Does Ken Bates think everyone else in the world is stupid
wellyfox Posted 3 September 2011 Posted 3 September 2011 Price of £8.5m was agreed, sticking point was us only offering £4m up front when they wanted £6m. Allegedly!! WTF has this to do with the topic. We all wanted him we did not get him FFS get a life and use the maynard thread. THIS IS ABOUT GRADEL N LEEDS FS. Yes i wanted him but why on every thread is maynard????
Toffee_Fox Posted 3 September 2011 Posted 3 September 2011 is that inside information? From dealing with Everton, I suppose so. Hated the fact we took Beckford on a free, then Luke Garbutt their next new star on a free, all the more sweeter.
The Doctor Posted 3 September 2011 Posted 3 September 2011 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... If I've calculated right they got £2,143,750 for him prior to sell-on fee and league levy.
Jordan Posted 4 September 2011 Posted 4 September 2011 well i'm glad we haven't got bate as our owner. any one good would be sold when they have one year lefted on contract This might be the only way Mister Bates can bring in revenue to his club.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.