Eunan O'Kane

[SBP]

Can somebody explain what the recent statement regarding Eunan exactly means. So if you have a sell on clause its worthless because thats what it looks like to me.

[Dave]

Quite simple, TUFC can not tell us legally what the deal done between Bournemouth and Leeds entails. The fact that no money is due right now to TUFC, further suggests, that Leeds have not made any up front payments for the Eunan O'Kane, and that the deal done between those two clubs is highly likely to involve stage payments , probably linked to appearances, our club will be due some money, we'll unfortunately have to wait for it.

The deal done between Leeds and Bournemouth, would have been totally out of the control of TUFC.

[SBP]

Thank you Forever dont really understand the mechanics of what happens when you sell a player if its for an undisclosed fee. It just sounds like to me we are going to dip out.

[Dave]

To be fair I don't fully understand either. Undisclosed fee's are normally a way of clubs hiding what level's they are prepared to pay for, or sell players at, and probably a way also of wrapping money's incoming, or out going under perhaps a different label, so to speak.

Think a lot depends on what details are actually in the sell on clause as to when it's triggered and Bournemouth owe TUFC a part of the fee, again it's only a suggestion, but the fact Bournemouth owe nothing right now does suggest to upfront money was paid, or perhaps Bournemouth are receiving no where near the figured believed.

[Jeff]

Could well be that - given the sell on fee was on any profit over the £175k Bournemouth paid for him - any downpayment from Leeds is not greater than that amount. No profit = no sell on fee. I'd assume that once he makes a certain number of appearances, International caps, final league placing etc more money is due and that is when we will start to make some money of it.

Although on face value it does seem like a typical TUFC situation. Sell a star player with a sell on fee, but don't actually get anything when he gets sold!

[SBP]

Why do we have undisclosed fees anyway, hopefully somebody will enlighten me.

[happytorq]

Why do we have undisclosed fees anyway, hopefully somebody will enlighten me.

probably two reasons; first - clubs dont want to tell anybody for competitive reasons (if it became known that torquay had got a 4 million quid windfall, clubs we'd look to buy from might suddenly raise their prices) and second - the fee is contingent upon appearances, performance, etc. So in O'Kane's case the fee might end up being a range - 175k at the low end rising to 3m if he does well, for example.

I mean, I don't like it either, but there you go

[PhilGull]

It's a shame really that Bournemouth have dome quite so well, so quickly. Had they stayed in League 1 for a season or two longer I am sure O'Kane would have gone on to establish himself in the first team and could have been sold for a much bigger sum.

Hey ho. You win some, you Torquay some.

[wivelgull]

No chance of any money whatsoever.

[mogull]

My understanding is purely based on years of playing Football Manager, so there's plenty of scope to this being wrong.

There are a few possibilities as far as I can tell. As mentioned about the initial fee paid was less than the criteria needed for us to receive money. Any future fee would be dependent on extra targets being met - international appearances, promotions, league games, which would then trigger more money being paid to Bournemouth and ourselves.

There is also the possibility that they sold him for essentially nothing - or very little at all, and all fees are dependent on him meeting targets. The fact that it's been stated that we might get fees in the future is good, but it require Eunan to achieve great things - and then the bonus payments might only just trickle over into the realm of where we're owed money.

The point is that clubs usually want a disclosed fee when they've either lost money on a player, spent too much on a player, or if another club is being screwed over in the transfer. The latter could well be a possibility - the fee could be structured in a way to remove us from the equation as much as possible. But that would surprise me as Bournemouth seem to be a decent club. Leeds on the other hand...

[Yellow74]

I'm afraid it looks very much like we have been shafted good and proper with this deal. I would hedge my bets that Bournemouth & Leeds renegotiated the total fee (Installments) which Bournemouth would be due to pay Leeds for Lewis Cook who they signed in the summer. This then allowing Eunan to move either for free or £175000 which would mean we would not get any sell on fee. If this is the case Bournemouth especially should hang their heads in shame given the financial position they were in only a few years ago. Hopefully not the case but the only logical one I can think of.

[Gulliball]

Leeds would not benefit from any deal, they still have to pay the same amount of money. The only club that would gain from any dodgy deal is Bournemouth, and I can't see them going to that trouble just to save a six figure amount.

The more likely situation is that the initial payment received is less than £175k. Transfer fees are often paid over several years, so Leeds could be paying £100k now and then another £100k in 12 months, another £100k in 24 months etc... plus any part of the fee based on appearance or success clauses will not be paid until they are met. We basically receive 15% of anything above £175k that Bournemouth get, so once this goes past £175k, we'll get a share of each installment or activated clause that Bournemouth get.

The only way for us to get something right now would be to cut a deal with Bournemouth, but until the full figure is known it would mean one side taking a gamble as certain clauses might or might not be met.

Unless we did make an enquiry and it was rejected, I think we missed a trick not selling this clause a year ago when we really needed money, Eunan had 2 years to go on his contract and was playing regularly in the Premiership. His value then would have been far more than a million and it could have been win-win to sell the clause then.