John McGinn

[Wilbur]

10 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

Make that  2.25 plus Scott Alan and I think you might be right Mr Zo. 

Just asking.

Would such a transaction give us 1/3 of £2.25 million or would there also be a make-weight value attributed to Scott Allan that would attract 1/3 as well ?

[Wendy Saintss]

A quality comeback. You're quite the master debater aren't you...

 

Be better if you just admitted you made an arse of your latest attempt to gain my attention [emoji177]

 

Yet again

 

Fud

 

 

 

[St.Ricky]

9 hours ago, Wilbur said:

Just asking.

Would such a transaction give us 1/3 of £2.25 million or would there also be a make-weight value attributed to Scott Allan that would attract 1/3 as well ?

Wilbur.  My opinion is that a value would be placed on Scott Allan and we would be due 1/3 of the total. 

[Drew]

8 hours ago, Wendy Saintss said:

 

Be better if you just admitted you made an arse of your latest attempt to gain my attention

 

Yet again

 

Fud

 

 

 

Resorting to personal abuse again, Andy?

Disappointing

[shull]

9 minutes ago, Drew said:

Resorting to personal abuse again, Andy?

Disappointing

When he gets to your levels of giving out unprovoked abuse, then we will start to worry.

[Drew]

I've got shull on ignore (something I imagine he is aware of), so don't know if he was responding to my previous post, but I wouldn't be surprised, given he is a dribbling cretin.

[shull]

See 

[bazil85]

50 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

Wilbur.  My opinion is that a value would be placed on Scott Allan and we would be due 1/3 of the total. 

That wouldn't be how it works. It would be a third of the financial value. We wouldn't get anything for a player moving between two clubs. The way the Scott Allan part would work is Celtic would come to terms on the release of his contract allowing him to sign for Hibs. Can't attach a financial value when there isn't one. 

[Soctty]

1 hour ago, St.Ricky said:

Wilbur.  My opinion is that a value would be placed on Scott Allan and we would be due 1/3 of the total. 

No value would be attributed to Allan, Ricky - we get a third of the actual monetary value only. It's one of the ways Hibs might try to shaft us...

[TPAFKA Jersey 2]

3 hours ago, Soctty said:

No value would be attributed to Allan, Ricky - we get a third of the actual monetary value only. It's one of the ways Hibs might try to shaft us...

How would that be Hibs shafting us Soctty?

Hibs will do their very best to get as much cash as they possibly can. It’s not in their interests to do anything else. Celtic will only pay what they are prepared to pay and Hibs have no control over that. If Celtic choose to throw in a player to the deal, Hibs can only make a decision on the offer proposed to them.

Edited August 2, 2018 by TPAFKA Jersey 2

[ged62]

I think John McGinn will move to Celtic for around £2.5 million before this transfer window closes.
 

Yes Hibs would be stupid losing out on money.

[WeeBud]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

That wouldn't be how it works. It would be a third of the financial value. We wouldn't get anything for a player moving between two clubs. The way the Scott Allan part would work is Celtic would come to terms on the release of his contract allowing him to sign for Hibs. Can't attach a financial value when there isn't one. 

Tribunals attach financial values to players all the time, it's their very purpose.....I'm not saying they will in this case but it's what they do!!

 

[DumboBud]

4 hours ago, St.Ricky said:

Wilbur.  My opinion is that a value would be placed on Scott Allan and we would be due 1/3 of the total. 

We would get Scott Allan every third game. 

[beyond our ken]

4 hours ago, bazil85 said:

That wouldn't be how it works. It would be a third of the financial value. We wouldn't get anything for a player moving between two clubs. The way the Scott Allan part would work is Celtic would come to terms on the release of his contract allowing him to sign for Hibs. Can't attach a financial value when there isn't one. 

think about this for a second.  there would have to be a contract between celtic and hibs for McGinn that ALSO covered Scott Allan.  If he is released then he can go where he pleases without any guarantee to Hibs so they are trusting the player to do what they see as the right thing. (or at least Hibs version of the "right thing").  You would have to be thick, nuts, or both, to agree to that as a Hibs director so the way to tie it down is wth a CONTRACT. 

 

Saints would rightly argue that if it is in the contract then it is compensation, or remuneration, or some other "ation" due to Hibs and we are due a a share of a realistic valu-ation.   If Scott allan is released by Celtic then they would have to pay up his contract and he wouldn't need to go to hibs.  For this to work then celtic need to sign contracts with all parties.

And like the tail on the proverbial donkey, there is never a financial value attached to anything until you attach it.

[bazil85]

4 hours ago, WeeBud said:

Tribunals attach financial values to players all the time, it's their very purpose.....I'm not saying they will in this case but it's what they do!!

 

Wouldn't need to go to tribunals, it wouldn't be a dispute or end of contract for a youngster situation. It would be a transfer deal that involves a player as well as cash. The sell on is for a percentage of a transfer fee. 

[WeeBud]

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

Wouldn't need to go to tribunals, it wouldn't be a dispute or end of contract for a youngster situation. It would be a transfer deal that involves a player as well as cash. The sell on is for a percentage of a transfer fee. 

None of which is what you said and the very reason why I said "I'm not saying they will in this case but it's what they do"...........that said you'll just spin this round in your ever decreasing circles.

 

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, beyond our ken said:

think about this for a second.  there would have to be a contract between celtic and hibs for McGinn that ALSO covered Scott Allan.  If he is released then he can go where he pleases without any guarantee to Hibs so they are trusting the player to do what they see as the right thing. (or at least Hibs version of the "right thing").  You would have to be thick, nuts, or both, to agree to that as a Hibs director so the way to tie it down is wth a CONTRACT. 

 

Saints would rightly argue that if it is in the contract then it is compensation, or remuneration, or some other "ation" due to Hibs and we are due a a share of a realistic valu-ation.   If Scott allan is released by Celtic then they would have to pay up his contract and he wouldn't need to go to hibs.  For this to work then celtic need to sign contracts with all parties.

And like the tail on the proverbial donkey, there is never a financial value attached to anything until you attach it.

It's not a thing I'm afraid. We won't get any additional value if a player is part of the sell on. The contracts of McGinn and Allan would be set up in such a way as to transfer on completion of the deal. Just takes a basic understanding of legislation to know that is legally possible. 

Saints would have no claim on it whatsover to be more financially compensatied. The sell on will very clearly state we're entitled to 33% from cash transfer fees, it will not say cash and additional player movement. 

 

[magnus]

5 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

It's not a thing I'm afraid. We won't get any additional value if a player is part of the sell on. The contracts of McGinn and Allan would be set up in such a way as to transfer on completion of the deal. Just takes a basic understanding of legislation to know that is legally possible. 

Saints would have no claim on it whatsover to be more financially compensatied. The sell on will very clearly state we're entitled to 33% from cash transfer fees, it will not say cash and additional player movement. 

 

Live and learn though hopefully.

[bazil85]

Just now, WeeBud said:

None of which is what you said and the very reason why I said "I'm not saying they will in this case but it's what they do"...........that said you'll just spin this round in your ever decreasing circles.

 

You can put it anyway you like (and I'm not saying you are saying this is the case) as anyone can. If you want it clear then the fact is - We categorically will receive no additional funds if a player is part of the John McGinn transfer. Tribunals or anything else mentioned, it isn't a real thing. 

Not sure how much clearer I could be. 

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, magnus said:

Live and learn though hopefully.

If he goes for £2.5m I guess it's still a lot more than we would of got if it was just comp only. Still a decent payday. 

[Lord Pityme]

Think about it for a minute???

if a club could offer cash plus a player, meaning the selling club could stump up less sell on fees then everyone would be at it. And what is the incentive for hibs to accept less cash when they still have to pass on our fees?

i think the deal would have to be. "We buy McGinn off you for £3.5m and you can buy Allan off us for £1m" therby maintaing a realistic cash value for each player. The papers lazily imo always just call it a ' cash plus player deal'

edit: plus why would the player (Allan) pass up a slice of transfer fee and greater contract negotiating leverage?

Edited August 2, 2018 by Lord Pityme

[beyond our ken]

13 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

It's not a thing I'm afraid. We won't get any additional value if a player is part of the sell on. The contracts of McGinn and Allan would be set up in such a way as to transfer on completion of the deal. Just takes a basic understanding of legislation to know that is legally possible. 

Saints would have no claim on it whatsover to be more financially compensatied. The sell on will very clearly state we're entitled to 33% from cash transfer fees, it will not say cash and additional player movement. 

 

since when did legislation form part of contract law?

BUSTED!

[beyond our ken]

9 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

You can put it anyway you like (and I'm not saying you are saying this is the case) as anyone can. If you want it clear then the fact is - We categorically will receive no additional funds if a player is part of the John McGinn transfer. Tribunals or anything else mentioned, it isn't a real thing. 

Not sure how much clearer I could be. 

And there the problem lies.

[bazil85]

4 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

since when did legislation form part of contract law?

BUSTED!

Are you serious? 

[bazil85]

9 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Think about it for a minute???

if a club could offer cash plus a player, meaning the selling club could stump up less sell on fees then everyone would be at it. And what is the incentive for hibs to accept less cash when they still have to pass on our fees?

i think the deal would have to be. "We buy McGinn off you for £3.5m and you can buy Allan off us for £1m" therby maintaing a realistic cash value for each player. The papers lazily imo always just call it a ' cash plus player deal'

edit: plus why would the player (Allan) pass up a slice of transfer fee and greater contract negotiating leverage?

Only if they had players with an interest going the other way and the club having an interest in said player. Why it's relatively rare. 

The second part just isn't the way it works. Maybe it should but it doesn't. It's because of how subjective transfer fees can be. In saying that though, they couldn't drastically under value J McGinn and over value someone else if say Celtic wanted two players which has been previously mentioned. That could go to the cour of arbitration as unfair practice.