Jump to content

John McGinn


Recommended Posts


I thought they also got a wad of cash for McArthur? However if you weren't meaning 2009 to be recent times then I would look at the guy Hamilton sold to West ham (?), the youngster Falkirk sold to a championship club both of whom were very inexperienced and the aforementioned United who sold their talent to celtic.



McArthur is now an established EPL level player, turned out to be a bargain.

The reason we never got fees like that for McGinn and the rest is cause none of them are as good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS



McArthur is now an established EPL level player, turned out to be a bargain.

The reason we never got fees like that for McGinn and the rest is cause none of them are as good.
Thanks for pointing out that McArthur wasn't an established EPL player when he left Hamilton Accies [emoji1303]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Zo said:

Scoring tonight can't have done his proposed move to Celtic any harm. Hopefully Celtic get a deal sorted with Hibs asap and increase our coffers to the tune of a cool £1 million.

come on Celtic get that biscuit tin opened!

From a Hibs point of view , by holding on to J McGinn they have just made a fair whack of cash courtesy of his goal tonight. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Soctty said:

If Hibs can get players to reduce the cash coming in, they pay us less. IT's common sense. IF they get Allan and three other players and Celtic pay £1m less, Hibs save themselves £333k.

It's basic. Hibs would like not far off £5m, as that would leave them with just over £3m. The lower it goes, the less value is in it for them selling for cash, so throw in a few players and they save on the sell on clause.

It's up to you whether you regard that as shafting us - I think it is, and think most clubs in their position would try to do the same.

Sorry mate, genuinely not being obtuse, but I don't follow. 

If Celtic pay Hibs 2.5mm, Hibs get 1.675m

If Celtic pay Hibs 1m and some players (that they may or may not actually want), Hibs get 666k. How is that beneficial to Hibs just because they also got a few of Celtic's cast offs. Genuinely lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said:

Sorry mate, genuinely not being obtuse, but I don't follow. 

If Celtic pay Hibs 2.5mm, Hibs get 1.675m

If Celtic pay Hibs 1m and some players (that they may or may not actually want), Hibs get 666k. How is that beneficial to Hibs just because they also got a few of Celtic's cast offs. Genuinely lost.

In their eyes it will be better to get £3million worth of players than £2million of that value in cash.

What makes them any more "cast offs" than players they would spend the equivalent in cash on?

Obviously thats a case where it would be 100% players which is a difficult deal to make but any deal involving any players is beneficial to Hibs as they split less with us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the current SPFL rules.

45.    When two Football clubs, at least one of whom is a Club, exchange Players with no monetary consideration, and there exists, in a previous transfer agreement relating to one or both Players, a provision that another Club or club is due a percentage or share of an onward transfer fee, the clubs exchanging Players must place a financial valuation on the respective Players. This valuation must be agreed in writing between the Clubs and/or club concerned and Communicated to the Scottish FA in order that a calculation can be made of the percentage of that valuation or amount otherwise calculated due to the other Club and/or club.
 

46.    Should a Club, which is entitled to benefit financially from a Player's onward transfer, dispute the valuation placed on any Player in an exchange situation, or, should the Board consider that any such valuation may not be a true reflection of such Player's worth, a Compensation Tribunal will determine the value of or appropriate Compensation for the Player concerned.

So, my reading of that is that clubs can no longer get away with gerrymandering the values of players.  Comments.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, rabuddies said:

From the current SPFL rules.

45.    When two Football clubs, at least one of whom is a Club, exchange Players with no monetary consideration, and there exists, in a previous transfer agreement relating to one or both Players, a provision that another Club or club is due a percentage or share of an onward transfer fee, the clubs exchanging Players must place a financial valuation on the respective Players. This valuation must be agreed in writing between the Clubs and/or club concerned and Communicated to the Scottish FA in order that a calculation can be made of the percentage of that valuation or amount otherwise calculated due to the other Club and/or club.
 

46.    Should a Club, which is entitled to benefit financially from a Player's onward transfer, dispute the valuation placed on any Player in an exchange situation, or, should the Board consider that any such valuation may not be a true reflection of such Player's worth, a Compensation Tribunal will determine the value of or appropriate Compensation for the Player concerned.

So, my reading of that is that clubs can no longer get away with gerrymandering the values of players.  Comments.

 

That clears that up then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scoring tonight can't have done his proposed move to Celtic any harm. Hopefully Celtic get a deal sorted with Hibs asap and increase our coffers to the tune of a cool £1 million.
come on Celtic get that biscuit tin opened!

You kidding? When it comes to Celtic they want to steal Scottish teams players for next to nothing. They have history.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

in my opinion, it is looking like Celtic will buy John McGinn before the end of this transfer window with Scott Allan going the other way in part exchange....probably not for as much combined value as we would hope, and likely not in time for us to spend some of our windfall. I think that is what will transpire.  I will meet a Hibs fan farmer at the bar at the Kintyre Agricultural show later today and he will confirm or debunk this.

There you are now.

And, getting a bad feeling about Stephen if the situation above plays out as described......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said:

Sorry mate, genuinely not being obtuse, but I don't follow. 

If Celtic pay Hibs 2.5mm, Hibs get 1.675m

If Celtic pay Hibs 1m and some players (that they may or may not actually want), Hibs get 666k. How is that beneficial to Hibs just because they also got a few of Celtic's cast offs. Genuinely lost.

I can't see Lennon taking players he doesn't want. If that were the case I think the deal would already be done. If Hibs want Allan - who starred for them before - how is Celtic's view of him related to Hibs'? The cash price would still have to make sense on top of the player/players.

Genuinely can't see how this is so difficult for you to grasp...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, buddies1877 said:

IMG_1533249264.761737.jpg

It appears I - and others - stand corrected. This is a welcome inclusion in the SPFL rules, and one that would've been very welcome in the years goneby where clubs fudged transfers to weasel there way out of sell on clauses.

Very happy to be proved wrong. 

:clapping

Edited by Soctty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, beyond our ken said:

Name that legislation

you can’t because there is none 

you clearly misunderstand the very narrow definition that the word legislation carries 

it refers to acts of parliament not all things related to the law 

I absolutely don't, legislation is the process of enacting laws through parlament. There isn't one single element of legislation that ties into contract law, there are several. The process to legislate allows us to confirm if a contract is legally binding or not.

As LPM has elluded to, if you and me sign a contract saying you'll pay me £500 for pushing someone off a building, it wouldn't be legally binding as there is previously passed legislation against murder. 

This is unbelievable you're still trying to debate this :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, buddies1877 said:

Did you write this contact out and keep it from Stuart Gilmour because I remember him tweeting few weeks ago he thinks it would go to a tribunal if any players were involved in the transfer of mcginn

You mean the tweet where he said he's not sure and took a guess? We will only get value of the cash. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I absolutely don't, legislation is the process of enacting laws through parlament. There isn't one single element of legislation that ties into contract law, there are several. The process to legislate allows us to confirm if a contract is legally binding or not.

As LPM has elluded to, if you and me sign a contract saying you'll pay me £500 for pushing someone off a building, it wouldn't be legally binding as there is previously passed legislation against murder. 

This is unbelievable you're still trying to debate this :blink:

you are 100% wrong, legislation is the accumulation of written laws and the legal definition is that pieces of legislation are the written acts of parliament, such as the misuse of drugs act or the health and safety at work act.  These are actual laws and contracts are agreements.  Legally enforceable through the courts, but only by interpretation and precedent and not by act of parliament.

It's unbelievable that you refuse to accept that you were flying a kite by saying that a knowledge of legislation would explain how a contract works.  they are two different branches of law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, pod said:

The wonders of the web.

I did use the web as a resource in my studies, which armed me with a basic understanding of legal principles, but I would never portray myself as an expert in the law as my knowledge is only good enough to let me do my job and also to understand where my limitations are.  It goes no further.

In the context of this argument, I didn't need to browse for any material as I know the basics.  To be fair to Bazil, he clearly hasn't googled for info to support his argument. if he did he would have stepped away from the keyboard by now

Did you notice that Bazil is now arguing with me rather than purporting the thoroughly debunked idea that any makeweight in a deal for McGinn has no impact on the sum SMFC receives if he is sold by Hibs?

Edited by beyond our ken
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, pod said:

The wonders of the web.

Scary to read 2 posters arguing about things most of us know nothing about and don't care about at this time in the morning  :o   We will get what we get when McGinn moved, and all we should hope is to get some money rather than nothing in 12 months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...