John McGinn

[Eric Arthur Blair]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

 

I heard it could be no more than 25% 

 

From whom?

[kevo_smfc]

I really can't see them selling for anything less than £3m based on our percentage due. 

[div]

53 minutes ago, kevo_smfc said:

I really can't see them selling for anything less than £3m based on our percentage due. 

Will eventually come down to the players contract situation. Hibs won't let McGinn go any less than 2 years remaining on his contract I imagine otherwise the leverage is all his.

They'll either need to persuade him to sign a new deal at Easter Road or they will look at cashing in while they can.

Could yet be the golden ticket the old board left behind, despite all the abuse they got at the time he signed for Hibs for £120K!

[santaponsasaint]

More or less guaranteed now. If Hibs are willing to knock back £1m out of hand, he'll not go for less than £1.5m-£2m you'd imagine. A third of that will be a fantastic boost.

saints wouldn't get a third of the money right away they would get it in instalments cos that's how Hibs would get the money. so don't get to excited.

[pozbaird]

30 minutes ago, santaponsasaint said:

saints wouldn't get a third of the money right away they would get it in instalments cos that's how Hibs would get the money. so don't get to excited.

Surely St Mirren would be due an accelerated payment every time the Proclaimers have a song played on the radio.

[notabuddie]

SG stated we still own a third of John it is was a hibbee that told me that's dropped to 25%.

[bazil85]

From whom?

It was me and a few St Mirren fans talking about it after a game but like I say purely speculation. If it is more than that then so be it. The money will all make its way back to the club anyway.

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Yesterday on Twitter Div asked Stewart Gilmour if the sell on clause was 30% or 33%. I replied that when Div asked SG the same question back in January, the answer was 33%

SG liked my tweet...make of that what you will.

[E=Mc2]

It's 33.333333%

 

 

[buddiecat]

21 hours ago, TsuMirren said:

 

You can't answer that without knowing the fee.

Yes i know, i didn't state it was a low amount, the other poster did, i also didn't say i could answer it, so not sure why your posting this reply to me, i'm not trying to answer it mainly because we will probably never know the exact fee. It all depends on the amount handed over to the club by Hibs, if it's a staged payment then Smisa will pay back a certain amount of each staged payment as and when the club receives the cash in the bank, so a staged payment would be the best for SMiSA to pay what they owe the consortium. I do know that if it was a one of payment and if the transfer fee was in excess of £1.4m then all money due to the consortium will be payable when the club receive their percentage payment.

[buddiecat]

25 minutes ago, E=Mc2 said:

It's 33.333333%

 

 

Naw it isnae it's a third.

[stlucifer]

23 hours ago, TsuMirren said:

 

They'll get it quicker than they would without an accelerated payment, which funnily enough is what was being discussed. Less slowly is quicker, unless teaching has changed dramatically since I left school in the 80's.

 

The point is that the consortium are getting their money slower than would be if SMISA had the cash up front as would be expected in normal transactions. The consortium gave a concession so that the buy out could happen so they are getting their money slower than they would have expected. Hence the subtle difference. Why people are getting their knickers in a twist because the guys are getting money that is, after all, due to them is beyond me.

[buddiecat]

17 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

The point is that the consortium are getting their money slower than would be if SMISA had the cash up front as would be expected in normal transactions. The consortium gave a concession so that the buy out could happen so they are getting their money slower than they would have expected. Hence the subtle difference. Why people are getting their knickers in a twist because the guys are getting money that is, after all, due to them is beyond me.

It's partly due to a lack of understanding of the deal (not surprising as it has not been communicated very well) but mainly due to some posters moaning about the club not getting all the money, then being put right on that, then moaning about it again as if they had not had it explained.

[FTOF]

Nottingham Forest have had a bid for John McGinn rejected.

Forest hopeful that he'll sign before the transfer window closes.

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11792/11008494/nottingham-forest-bid-for-hibernians-john-mcginn-rejected-by-scottish-premiership-club

[Sonny]

Notts Forest have submitted a bit for John which Hibs have rejected but allegedly Forest will increase their bid. Here's hoping Hibs accept the £6M

[munoz]

Would be surprised if Hibs let him go for any less than £3m given that we're due a third . Could be a decent windfall coming our way .

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

Forest having the best start in years could see this going through.

[djchapsticks]

11 minutes ago, munoz said:

Would be surprised if Hibs let him go for any less than £3m given that we're due a third . Could be a decent windfall coming our way .

I think Hibs are holding out for £4m or £5m on the basis that Forest sold Assombalonga to Boro to £15m. They're definitely not letting Forest or anyone get him on the cheap. 

Which is great news for us. 

[David Mc]

Would be surprised if Hibs let him go for any less than £3m given that we're due a third . Could be a decent windfall coming our way .

What did Cummings go for?

[Eric Arthur Blair]

1 minute ago, David Mc said:

What did Cummings go for?

£1.2M.

I suspect that since they got Mackay for £500k, they've probably made a similar opening bid for McGinn.

[Kemp]

2 minutes ago, djchapsticks said:

I think Hibs are holding out for £4m or £5m on the basis that Forest sold Assombalonga to Boro to £15m. They're definitely not letting Forest or anyone get him on the cheap. 

Which is great news for us. 

Potentially.

They may be told to bugger off due to unrealistic valuation.  I'd be surprised if they got more than 1.5m for him.

[munoz]

19 minutes ago, Eric Arthur Blair said:

£1.2M.

I suspect that since they got Mackay for £500k, they've probably made a similar opening bid for McGinn.

I think there are add ons with the Cummings deal also 

McGinn is now a Scotland international, and IMO worth a lot more than Cummings . With any luck , another team will come in for him and hopefully bump up the price a bit .

[17/03/13]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41067065

 

BBC claiming we have 30% sell on. Is it not 33.3%??

[munoz]

13 minutes ago, 17/03/13 said:

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41067065

 

BBC claiming we have 30% sell on. Is it not 33.3%??

Wouldn't be like the bbc to get the facts wrong .

[Eric Arthur Blair]

26 minutes ago, 17/03/13 said:

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41067065

 

BBC claiming we have 30% sell on. Is it not 33.3%??

It's 33% as confirmed in this tweet by Stewart Gilmour

https://twitter.com/StewartGilmour1/status/820403068625973250