Confimred - Bindon to Nottingham Forest

[Crusader Royal]

Deserves his chance at a club in the premier league, his development with us has been outstanding.

We've managed a decent deal out of this I think. We were unlikely to get a new contract out of him given his talent and performances plus gets some money in. Heard the fee was nearly £1m, great business if so. Hopefully a 10-20% sell on clause too.

It's 20% sell-on.

Well not get anything in terms of sell on.
He’ll get moved to another team in their portfolio on a free and sold from there meaning there’s nothing for us to get a % of.

[skipper]

Deserves his chance at a club in the premier league, his development with us has been outstanding.

We've managed a decent deal out of this I think. We were unlikely to get a new contract out of him given his talent and performances plus gets some money in. Heard the fee was nearly £1m, great business if so. Hopefully a 10-20% sell on clause too.

It's 20% sell-on.

Well not get anything in terms of sell on.
He’ll get moved to another team in their portfolio on a free and sold from there meaning there’s nothing for us to get a % of.

Portfolio? Who owns Forest again?

[WestYorksRoyal]

Shame but inevitable in our situation. In another world he would've signed an extension in the summer and we'd be looking to take him up to the Championship with us.

I dunno, the being in league 1 of it all maybe, but I don’t think the financial situation has much bearing. Even if we were fully solvent and signing players I think he’d still have gone now to prevent the summer walk. Just a product of being a lower league club with a young talent above our level.

I think had the sale gone through in the summer, extending his contract could have been high up the new owners priority list. Kept him for a few years and then sell him directly from the Chinese to the PL.

[stealthpapes]

This seems like the best of all worlds for us, keep the player for now, ensure we get some compensation both now and in the future, leave on good terms.

[Mr Angry]

Shame but inevitable in our situation. In another world he would've signed an extension in the summer and we'd be looking to take him up to the Championship with us.

I dunno, the being in league 1 of it all maybe, but I don’t think the financial situation has much bearing. Even if we were fully solvent and signing players I think he’d still have gone now to prevent the summer walk. Just a product of being a lower league club with a young talent above our level.

Agreed; who can blame a young player moving from a L1 to a Prem side, and one likely to be in Europe next season (when he will definitely be used by Forest) for bigger exposure, a decent sgning on fee and much better wages. And thats before you throw into the mix the current state of Reading FC, with a concern about getting paid each month..................I wish him all the very best in his future career.

[Snowflake Royal]

This seems like the best of all worlds for us, keep the player for now, ensure we get some compensation both now and in the future, leave on good terms.

Aye, couldn't really be better in terms of Bindon, wouod have been nice if we'd sold Garcia instead of Smith, but hey ho.

[Norfolk Royal]

Today’s Sun says Bindon went for £1-million. Light?

[SCIAG]

Forest and their affiliates now have Bindon, Abbey, and Richards.

Have to say that’s a good back line for Rio Ave.

[Linden Jones' Tash]

Forest and their affiliates now have Bindon, Abbey, and Richards.

Have to say that’s a good back line for Rio Ave.

Does that make us a de-facto Nottingham Forest feeder club?

come on Evangelos, make it official and buy us lock stock and barrel!

[Sutekh]

Forest and their affiliates now have Bindon, Abbey, and Richards.

Have to say that’s a good back line for Rio Ave.

Does that make us a de-facto Nottingham Forest feeder club?

come on Evangelos, make it official and buy us lock stock and barrel!

He’d have to buy on behalf of someone else though given the rules on ownership. Quick, someone give his phone no. to Roger.

[Greatwesternline]

Deserves his chance at a club in the premier league, his development with us has been outstanding.

We've managed a decent deal out of this I think. We were unlikely to get a new contract out of him given his talent and performances plus gets some money in. Heard the fee was nearly £1m, great business if so. Hopefully a 10-20% sell on clause too.

It's 20% sell-on.

Well not get anything in terms of sell on.
He’ll get moved to another team in their portfolio on a free and sold from there meaning there’s nothing for us to get a % of.

This is an astute observation.

[Crusader Royal]

It's 20% sell-on.

Well not get anything in terms of sell on.
He’ll get moved to another team in their portfolio on a free and sold from there meaning there’s nothing for us to get a % of.

Portfolio? Who owns Forest again?

You’ve really missed them moving players between Forest and Olympiacos ?
No idea whether there are any rules that prevent them bypassing sell on clauses this way but it would seem an obvious device to use.

[Stranded]

Today’s Sun says Bindon went for £1-million. Light?

For a player out of contract in the summer who hasn't played a single minute above League 1 - and the deal includes a loan back (with wages covered) and a 20% sell on - 1m feels about right to me.

[RoyalBlue]

Deserves his chance at a club in the premier league, his development with us has been outstanding.

We've managed a decent deal out of this I think. We were unlikely to get a new contract out of him given his talent and performances plus gets some money in. Heard the fee was nearly £1m, great business if so. Hopefully a 10-20% sell on clause too.

It's 20% sell-on.

Well not get anything in terms of sell on.
He’ll get moved to another team in their portfolio on a free and sold from there meaning there’s nothing for us to get a % of.

We need those negotiating the deals to be smart enough to cover off that scenario. Pretty sure a smart lawyer could come up with the right wording.

E.g. IIRC employment agencies have provisions that prevent unscrupulous employers transferring contractors to a sister company in an attempt to avoid placement fees.

[Crusader Royal]

It's 20% sell-on.

Well not get anything in terms of sell on.
He’ll get moved to another team in their portfolio on a free and sold from there meaning there’s nothing for us to get a % of.

This is an astute observation.

How it might work under FFP and loads of other stuff I have no,idea, you’ve also got issues around limits on how many clubs a player can be registered with in a year but in the face of it I’d be worried that there is a loophole there. Hoping more clued up,people can explain why it couldn’t happen.

[Crusader Royal]

It's 20% sell-on.

Well not get anything in terms of sell on.
He’ll get moved to another team in their portfolio on a free and sold from there meaning there’s nothing for us to get a % of.

We need those negotiating the deals to be smart enough to cover off that scenario. Pretty sure a smart lawyer could come up with the right wording.

Pretty sure a richer club than us could employ smarter lawyers ….
These portfolio groups are there for a reason, they will have structures in place tested against international,law. We’re probably using online solicitors….
But if RB is ‘pretty sure’ it can’t happen we can rest easy…..

[rabidbee]

Yeah, but any argument unpicking our sell-on clause might then be used against Forest to unpick sell-on clauses of their own, so it might not actually be to their benefit.

[Crusader Royal]

Yeah, but any argument unpicking our sell-on clause might then be used against Forest to unpick sell-on clauses of their own, so it might not actually be to their benefit.

Not sure it’s a case of an ‘arguement’. It would just be a fact. Obviously all contract negotiations are games of chess and I was just wondering whether this might be a situation where we get out manoeuvred.
In the infamous Murty scenario we tried to argue a point where under the semantics of a contract we weren’t due to pay an additional sum. That was rejected, and so might my thought. But it does appear a risk that no amount of thoughts about unrelated scenarios has alieviated

[Greatwesternline]

Yeah, but any argument unpicking our sell-on clause might then be used against Forest to unpick sell-on clauses of their own, so it might not actually be to their benefit.

Not sure it’s a case of an ‘arguement’. It would just be a fact. Obviously all contract negotiations are games of chess and I was just wondering whether this might be a situation where we get out manoeuvred.
In the infamous Murty scenario we tried to argue a point where under the semantics of a contract we weren’t due to pay an additional sum. That was rejected, and so might my thought. But it does appear a risk that no amount of thoughts about unrelated scenarios has alieviated

Think biggest protection is pure practicalities. If Bindon is a success at Forest and someone like Arsenal comes calling for £50m in 3 years time, they will want to buy him there and then, without him going via Olympiacos for 6 months.

[rabidbee]

Yeah, but any argument unpicking our sell-on clause might then be used against Forest to unpick sell-on clauses of their own, so it might not actually be to their benefit.

Not sure it’s a case of an ‘arguement’. It would just be a fact. Obviously all contract negotiations are games of chess and I was just wondering whether this might be a situation where we get out manoeuvred.
In the infamous Murty scenario we tried to argue a point where under the semantics of a contract we weren’t due to pay an additional sum. That was rejected, and so might my thought. But it does appear a risk that no amount of thoughts about unrelated scenarios has alieviated

Lawyers argue points of law, no? Replace it with ‘case’, if you prefer.