Jump to content

Dan Mackay Easter road bound


Recommended Posts

  • tm4tj pinned this topic
  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

A decent sell on clause might be more important in the long run. 

Goal Compilation that I bashed out this evening.  

Esson or Christie? 🙂

2 hours ago, Satan said:

Allan Preston represents him, has been bigging him up on BBC sportsound and probably in a few central belt boardrooms.

Surprised Hearts aren't involved - after this year's love in they might get him for free! 😳

Allan Preston is a massive arsehole. One of the worst pundits on Sportsound and that's saying something.

  • Agree 2
  • Funny 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

A sell on clause could stipulate, say, 10% of the transfer fee but with a minimum to be paid when the player moves on.  So, if 10% of the new transfer fee was less than the minimum, or if the player leaves for free at the end of their, contract then that minimum fee would be payable to us.  That way, we don't lose out as a result of contract negotiations that we have no part in.

Why would a free agent negotiate a sell on clause. What his agent would negotiate would be a % of any future transfer fee to be paid to the player not a club he has had no connection with for years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good luck to the boy despite the fact that our challenge for promotion next season will be much more difficult without him.

I would not be surprised if he goes on to eclipse Ryan as the most successful player to have come through our youth system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry to see Mackay move on, but his performances over the last couple of months inevitably attracted attention, and I wish him well for the future, except in any games against us.

It sounds like we have done a good deal, and it would have been tragic had we lost him for nothing next summer.

Hopefully it inspires our other youngsters to knuckle down and make a name for themselves, just like Mackay has done, as have Harper and MacGregor have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done and good luck Daniel I hope you do well.  And well done to all the coaches that have helped him and the other young ones in the team.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, caleyboy said:

Why would a free agent negotiate a sell on clause. What his agent would negotiate would be a % of any future transfer fee to be paid to the player not a club he has had no connection with for years.

I'm talking about the contracts negotiated between the clubs.  With a decent sell on clause, the original club will still get a payment from the 2nd club if the 2nd club allow the player to leave as a free agent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, DoofersDad said:

I'm talking about the contracts negotiated between the clubs.  With a decent sell on clause, the original club will still get a payment from the 2nd club if the 2nd club allow the player to leave as a free agent.

Maybe I'm missing something here . Club 1 = ICT. Club 2 = Celtic. Celtic agree sell on clause with ICT of x% of fee they receive for Ryan if they sell him. Ryan runs down contract and becomes free agent. Ryan signs for ? club and Celtic receive no fee. If Celtic do not receive a fee we receive Zero. I stand to be corrected.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gutted, as I saw him a big part of a promotion push next season, but it's the way of the world unfortunately, and he deserves it. At least we got a fee, and given how tight finance probably are, that's a good thing, hope it means we can secure Toddy for another year, and Miles

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good personal move for Dan, at least he managed to avoid Pittodrie. 

Any inkling on the deal that has been done, or will I have to wait for the Record or the Sun for the details.

On a separate note seems like the deal was done by the CEO ,absolutely no mention of any input by any of the onfield management team.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, caleyboy said:

Maybe I'm missing something here . Club 1 = ICT. Club 2 = Celtic. Celtic agree sell on clause with ICT of x% of fee they receive for Ryan if they sell him. Ryan runs down contract and becomes free agent. Ryan signs for ? club and Celtic receive no fee. If Celtic do not receive a fee we receive Zero. I stand to be corrected.

Ryan's situation is a good example.  Obviously I don't know what the contract between ICT and Celtic contained, although we have been told there is a sell on clause.  It may be that the sell on clause simply says that we receive a set percentage of any fee Celtic get for selling Ryan on.  But there is no reason why the contract between ICT and Celtic couldn't have specified that if Ryan moves on without a fee being payed to Celtic from Club 3, a payment would be made by Celtic to ICT.  After all, why should ICT lose out just because Celtic fail to get a fee, particularly as sell on clauses will often mean that the initial fee paid is a bit lower?  

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, DoofersDad said:

Ryan's situation is a good example.  Obviously I don't know what the contract between ICT and Celtic contained, although we have been told there is a sell on clause.  It may be that the sell on clause simply says that we receive a set percentage of any fee Celtic get for selling Ryan on.  But there is no reason why the contract between ICT and Celtic couldn't have specified that if Ryan moves on without a fee being payed to Celtic from Club 3, a payment would be made by Celtic to ICT.  After all, why should ICT lose out just because Celtic fail to get a fee, particularly as sell on clauses will often mean that the initial fee paid is a bit lower?  

 

We could certainly try to negotiate such a clause but I doubt very much that the purchasing club, in Ryan's case Celtic, would accept it.

Especially as in almost every case the purchasing club intends to be bigger, wealthier and thus in a better negotiating position, than the selling club.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kingsmills said:

We could certainly try to negotiate such a clause but I doubt very much that the purchasing club, in Ryan's case Celtic, would accept it.

Especially as in almost every case the purchasing club intends to be bigger, wealthier and thus in a better negotiating position, than the selling club.

I agree entirely, Celtic would be crazy paying any fee to ICT for a player moving out of contract. I feel we have lost out on this one but an out of contract Ryan can negotiate better terms for himself. Pity, but that's the football world

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A club with the resources that Celtic have should therefore be prepared to pay sums which are closer to the going rate for a player who has had so much invested in them to get where they are. 

The sell on clause is simply compensation for getting the player cheap in the first place. 

Imagine said player had come through the ranks at Celtic...would they accept half a mill and a loan back til seasons end??

A bit more savvy on our part was and is required to get the best deal.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Jack Waddington said:

Word has it that Dan's gone for a low 6 figure sum and a 20% sell on fee. Not too bad a deal tbf.

Not too bad? Actual figures and substantiated 'word' would be better.

Assuming he has passed the medical ok...

Edited by Satan
Sp
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kingsmills said:

We could certainly try to negotiate such a clause but I doubt very much that the purchasing club, in Ryan's case Celtic, would accept it.

Especially as in almost every case the purchasing club intends to be bigger, wealthier and thus in a better negotiating position, than the selling club.

Just because a club is bigger and wealthier does not necessarily give it more negotiating power.  In fact, being wealthier means the selling club is well aware that the buying club can afford to pay more if they are really keen on securing the player.  There are a range of other factors too, for instance, if a number of clubs are interested in the player then the selling club's negotiating position is strengthened.  

Obviously a big club won't want to pay a fee when a player leaves on a free, but when they initially buy the player they will have the expectation of selling the player on later and not having the player leave as a free agent.  It is a bit of a gamble to pay a little less up front for agreeing to pay up in these circumstances, but more often than not they wouldn't be required to pay and so on balance they are quids in.  The benefit to the smaller club is that there is a guarantee of a minimum follow on fee if the players moves on and this can help with financial stability.  Accepting a smaller initial fee in return for a clause like that is a bit like paying a slightly higher insurance premium for an increased element of cover.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It feels like we only started to see glimpses of what MacKay could do. If you had said to me even back in March that Hibs would be after him there's no way I would have believed you. But whilst it's a shame to see him go after only just getting to see what he could do it's also good in some ways for the club and Robbo to continue to sell us as the kind of side where, if you come up here and do well, you can get a good move after a couple of seasons and hopefully earn us some decent cash as well. 

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Having been reluctant to regularly play more than one academy player in the team at a time over the past decade or so perhaps we should look to blood them more often now we can see their value to a club which (may) be in a position with higher standards of and/or more coaching resources at their disposal.

The scouts aren't looking for a finished product 23 year old from a championship club - they see the potential that enhanced facilities and playing level can bring a player on exponentially. They want raw talent that can still be moulded into something that works best their team.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Given Hibs season isn’t over yet but ours is, can he start training with them immediately rather than wait until the summer?

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

Given Hibs season isn’t over yet but ours is, can he start training with them immediately rather than wait until the summer?

Pretty sure no as the transfer window hasn't opened yet. Hibs have just secured the right to transfer his registration from us to them when it does open in June.

Happy to be corrected.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It appears Dan only signed for Hibs today, with Hibs citing a delay due to factors outwith their control. Could just be something administrative, or could it be that the medical led to something needing checked out more thoroughly?

Edited by Yngwie
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • tm4tj unpinned this topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. : Terms of Use : Guidelines : Privacy Policy