No, I said £12.5 as the upfront fee as part of the overall package is too low. That doesn't equate to expecting the entire fee to be paid up front, does it?
It isn’t too low though is it, let’s assume that a further £7.5m is to be paid as instalments then I think you’ll find the vast majority of transfer payments are structured in this way.
Well clearly it is too low, and the club thought so too, as it looks like it's actually £15m up front. Had it been £12.5m up front with £7.5m being in add ons - that aren't necessarily guaranteed - then yes, £12.5m would be too low in my opinion, especially as I think we should be/have been looking for more than £20m total.
I think the issue here is that worth is subjective and, if you need to sell an asset, what it is worth is essentially what the highest bidder is willing to pay.
Sky still going with £12.5 fee plus £7.5 in addons. Depending on the addons (eg Forest needing to stay) that could be a sh&t deal. All depends on what the £7.5 is contingent on (assuming they are not talking rubbish).
"£12.5m + a multipack of Quavers if he scores 10 league goals and a packet of Hobnobs if they stay up. £12.5m up front is utter crap. Any add ons - if there are any - will be stuff like them staying up, which they probably won't, and I'd be amazed if there were enough that they bring the total amount to the minimum £20m we should be looking for. It's just the usual, standard Gino and Duxberry f**k up" ...is what you said
Think this is all caused by someone saying “upfront” when they meant the actual non contingent fee. Nobody was ever talking about instalments which happens in every transfer Sky are reporting the non contingent fee is £12.5m which of course may be fake news.
Ahem "£12.5m + a multipack of Quavers if he scores 10 league goals and a packet of Hobnobs if they stay up" after you were told it was only £12.5m upfront. Why don't you admit it ? We all make mistakes.
Yes confusing. You mean "upfront" meant "upfront" then ? No reason for any poster to think that meant the total fee, though some did......
Why on Earth are you using a very blatant tongue in cheek post to try to make your point? You surely must be joking.
The point is sky are saying it’s £12.5 + £7.5 dependent on player and club performance. Which is obviously worse than £20m with £12.5 up front and £7.5 in instalments. If it’s the former I agree with Nath it’s a poor deal. No idea how reliable Sky are so it may well be moot point.
Because it shows you thought it was £12.5m plus add ons irrespective of the fact the add ons you used were themselves a joke. Maybe it is ? Who knows ? Anyway we've got a match to moan about now....
Er, yeah, that still doesn't mean I said or expect that the entire fee be paid up front. My point was that as part of a supposed £20m package I think only £12.5m being guaranteed is too low. It sounds like it's £15m guaranteed up front, so clearly the clubs agree.
Upfront fee, instalments and add ons are all very separate parts of a transfer fee. I think what others and myself are trying to say is that when something is quoted as “upfront”, that generally means there’ll be further guaranteed payments which aren’t attached to anything performance related. Any add ons would be based on Dennis’ and Forest’s performance this season or across his contract. If we’re getting something around £20m with £12.5m upfront then another guaranteed £7.5m spread across instalments then it’s decent business. If it’s £12.5m with the potential to reach £20m based on performance then it’s poor business.
Exactly. The problem came because Sky reported (wrongly) it was 12.5 + 7.5 of contingent payments. Someone then referred to that as “12.5 upfront” which as you say is more in terms of installment payments.
We only got half what we asked for. Please note that means it was semi-quavers. Nothing to get crotchety over.
