Jump to content

John McGinn


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, pondsman said:

Celtic have a track record of making a good profit on their transfer dealings. Having got £7m for Armstrong, they won't want to part with more than half of that for McGinn.  They might also muddy the waters by offering to include Scott Allan in the deal and paying less cash. If they do that, does anyone know how St. Mirren's share of the deal will be calculated? 

Our 33% is calculated on the cash received by Hibs, therefore a straight cash deal is best for us, while Celtic throwing in a number of players is very bad as that will reduce the cash price and therefore our cut...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Just now, Ayrshire Saints said:

Isn't it 33% of any profit Hibs make not 33% of what they receive ?

 

Hibs have knocked back a straight 1.5m so it looks like it might be 1.5m plus a player. If Hibs paid 100k (for example not sure exactly what they paid) we will get 33% of 1.4m so just under 500k

Seen a couple saying it's the profit - it's normally on the actual fee but I doubt anyone would be able to confirm 100%, expect perhaps the ex-chairman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, elvis said:

over on p/b guy saying he is hearing its 2.5million double deal 2.4 for murray and 100.000 mcginn so only 30.000 to us probably a load of shite right enough but it would be a way out of having to pay us a load of money.

It is a load of shite. It would break trust in other clubs dealing with Hibs in future transfers, show an incredible level of disrespect from both  celtic and Hibs and st Mirren would potentially have a case to take up with football governing bodies about financial fair play. Why would celtic risk that for the sake of a few quid? 

This has come up several times before and is nothing short of rubbish. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

It is a load of shite. It would break trust in other clubs dealing with Hibs in future transfers, show an incredible level of disrespect from both  celtic and Hibs and st Mirren would potentially have a case to take up with football governing bodies about financial fair play. Why would celtic risk that for the sake of a few quid? 

This has come up several times before and is nothing short of rubbish. 

It's not rubbish. It's one of the risks you need to accept if you put a sell on clause onto a deal.

Can you explain how on earth you feasibly expect the value of an additional player onto the deal to be determined? And who would define it?

Edited by LargsBud
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Soctty said:

Our 33% is calculated on the cash received by Hibs, therefore a straight cash deal is best for us, while Celtic throwing in a number of players is very bad as that will reduce the cash price and therefore our cut...

Wouldn't we own 33% of transferred player from Celtic. :whistle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, LargsBud said:

It's not rubbish. It's one of the risks you need to accept if you put a sell on clause onto a deal.

Can you explain how on earth you feasibly expect the value of an additional player onto the deal to be determined? And who would define it?

Yes, easily. If Hibs sell McGinn for £100k and another player for way over value, St Mirren have got the right to complain about financial fair play.

If it’s found Hibs have and Celtic are guilty of undervaluing a player to financially benefit then that’s against football financial fair play rules. It would go to a panel who would make a decision, same as a panel deciding compensation for a young player who’s contract expires, or a contract dispute. 

Also imagine the reputational damage to Hibs and Celtic if they engaged in such practice? Hibs come in for the next John McGinn, ‘we’ll only pay half the comp but how about a 33% sell on?’ They’d be told to F off given this deal. If they did that with McGinn it would be all over the papers and social media. 

It won’t happen and it’s came from paranoia from some fans. Simple 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't expect Hibs or Celtic to try and come up with some dastardly plan to fuck us over, but there is certainly a possibility that Allan could be involved in the deal which would have an impact on us.

End of the day though the opening bid is £1.5m, which they've rejected. Stay cool!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, div said:

I don't expect Hibs or Celtic to try and come up with some dastardly plan to f**k us over, but there is certainly a possibility that Allan could be involved in the deal which would have an impact on us.

End of the day though the opening bid is £1.5m, which they've rejected. Stay cool!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, portmahomack saint said:

Why don't we get involved as well,  1.8mill  minus our 33%   then sell him to Celtic for 2 million, plus Scott Allan with a 20% sell on clause,   800k profit and we have Scott Allan,  how`s that for a bit of business  :guinness

We could use the ring fenced money am sure no one would object  :lol:

I'll chip in my 50 pence worth. :thumbsup

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently with Celtic in Germany for pre-season training, they’ve left the receptionist in charge of transfer negotiations, fortunately Hibs have their best man on the case....

’Are you fcuking kidding love? 1.5 millon? John McGinn? That fcuking ornament is worth 750k, get your fcuking purse open’.

 

CB59D3A5-4A81-4B9C-8038-9E6A11625DCC.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't expect Hibs or Celtic to try and come up with some dastardly plan to f**k us over, but there is certainly a possibility that Allan could be involved in the deal which would have an impact on us.
End of the day though the opening bid is £1.5m, which they've rejected. Stay cool!
If they already bid 1.5m for him alone then it'll be pretty difficult to justify a lower valuation in a combined deal with another player. As it stands we are looking good for approx 500k.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS

From Twatter
Stuart Armstrong
Age: 26
Celtic Goals 2017/18: 5
Scotland Caps last season: 4
Remaining contract: 1 Year
Celtic Valuation: £7 million

John Mcginn
Age: 23
Hibs Goals 2017/18: 6
Scotland Caps last season: 6
Remaining contract: 1 Year
Celtic Valuation: £1.5 million?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, div said:

I don't expect Hibs or Celtic to try and come up with some dastardly plan to f**k us over, but there is certainly a possibility that Allan could be involved in the deal which would have an impact on us.

End of the day though the opening bid is £1.5m, which they've rejected. Stay cool!

Stop speaking sensibly and logically, there's no room for it here :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure the comparisons between Armstrong and McGinn are too valid. Armstrong is a more attacking player than McGinn and attacking players generally cost more money.

 

Some stats:

Scottish Premiership games / goals

Stuart Armstrong 224 / 41

John McGinn 100 / 5

 

Mark Hughes' reason for signing Armstrong is quoted as:

"It is important we add a greater goal threat to the team as a whole, and Stuart's record of scoring and creating makes him an extremely exciting addition in that area".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparisons to Armstrong and McGinn as players are irrelevant. Here’s the only comparison that matters.

1. Armstrong played for ra’ Sellik and attracted serious interest from a cash-rich established EPL side, therefore, lots of millions.

2. McGinn plays for a club that isn’t ra’ Sellik, isn’t attracting serious interest from a cash-rich established EPL side, but a bunch of titghtwad chancer cnuts from the East End, therefore, as little as the cnuts think they can get away with.

 

Moving right along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zico said:

Not sure the comparisons between Armstrong and McGinn are too valid. Armstrong is a more attacking player than McGinn and attacking players generally cost more money.

 

Some stats:

Scottish Premiership games / goals

Stuart Armstrong 224 / 41

John McGinn 100 / 5

 

Mark Hughes' reason for signing Armstrong is quoted as:

"It is important we add a greater goal threat to the team as a whole, and Stuart's record of scoring and creating makes him an extremely exciting addition in that area".

 

 

Good post.

7 minutes ago, pozbaird said:

Comparisons to Armstrong and McGinn as players are irrelevant. Here’s the only comparison that matters.

1. Armstrong played for ra’ Sellik and attracted serious interest from a cash-rich established EPL side, therefore, lots of millions.

2. McGinn plays for a club that isn’t ra’ Sellik, isn’t attracting serious interest from a cash-rich established EPL side, but a bunch of titghtwad chancer cnuts from the East End, therefore, as little as the cnuts think they can get away with.

 

Moving right along.

Pish poor post. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/3/2018 at 10:16 AM, RussellV1 said:

Didn’t we do a “dodgy” deal with Clyde for O’Donnell & Malone to get round a sell on fee to one of their former clubs?

Saints wanted Malone, were willing to pay £30k but St. Johnstone had a 40 or 50% sell on clause on whatever Clyde got for him.

Clyde suggested to Saints that for £30k they could get both Malone and Stephen O'Donnell, putting a value of £28k on O'Donnell and £2k on Malone.

Saints agreed, signed both and the Saintees got he-haw.

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...