|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Dec 11, 2007 18:19:57 GMT
News just in, pretty fair I reckon. Also the possibility of more to come so decent deal really.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bang Bang Cauliflower on Dec 11, 2007 18:39:48 GMT
Sounds reasonable - I reckon 750k was a little hopeful to say the least!!
|
|
|
|
Post by crewepotter on Dec 11, 2007 18:40:39 GMT
Jamo where have you got that from mate, i would be pretty happy with that
|
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Dec 11, 2007 18:55:28 GMT
Any added extras?
That's quite a lot closer to their valuation than ours, but I'm fairly happy with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Dec 11, 2007 18:57:51 GMT
Seems like we're pretty much guaranteed £425,000 by the end of next season
PATERSON FEE DECIDED
Posted on: Tue 11 Dec 2007
The Professional Football Compensation Committee today determined the compensation payable by Scunthorpe United to StokeCity for Martin Paterson.
The compensation ordered was:
£275,000 initial payment
£30,000 after 15, 30, 45, 60 and 75 games.
20% sell on
£250,000 if promoted to Premiership within 2 years.
Stoke had sought compensation of:
£750,000 initial payment
£250,000 based on games played
£100,000 based on a specified number of goals scored
£75,000 on first full international caps.
£75,000 on 5 full international caps
Subject to all conditional elements being achieved this would result in a total sum of £1,250,000.
In addition a 25% sell on provision was to apply.
SUFC had offered £125,000 + 15% sell on.
Given that Martin had very limited Championship League experience prior to joining SUFC, the award is considerably more than we would have anticipated.
We have been promised a full written explanation of the reason for the award and until that's received we are unable to comment further.
|
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 11, 2007 19:01:12 GMT
£275,000 initial payment
£30,000 after 15, 30, 45, 60 and 75 games.
20% sell on
£250,000 if promoted to Premiership within 2 years.
Good fucking going that is!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Dec 11, 2007 19:10:25 GMT
I reckon that the full package is more than fair TBH £425k by end of next season plus 20% of what they get is more than I ever expected. Crewepotter, I'd love to claim to be first with the news but I happened to be logged on here when I got the text from my mate who is signed up the text package from Stoke  |
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Dec 11, 2007 19:27:28 GMT
Excellent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Dec 11, 2007 19:33:57 GMT
We can't really gob off at that fee, and I don't know why Scunthorpe are moaning either, considering the fee they got for Billy Sharp who has hardly any experience at Championship level.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Dec 11, 2007 19:38:31 GMT
As for the £250k if they go up it may as well be £250M  |
|
|
|
Post by stokebill on Dec 11, 2007 20:08:07 GMT
Speaking to stokecityfc.com immediately after the outcome was announced, Scholes said, "I think the nature of these things is that you always end up being a little disappointed at the fee received.
"We argued the fact that as we had brought Martin through the ranks at the Club, we should be compensated appropriately as we had helped to develop him for ten years.
"That said, the tribunal made the decision and we have got to accept it."
Director of Football John Rudge added: "We are very disappointed with the verdict, as we feel it falls well short of our valuation of him.
"We had Martin at the Club since he was nine years old, and played a significant role in helping him become the player he is today.
"This season he is one of the top scorers in the Championship, so to receive the verdict we have is very disappointing."
|
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Dec 11, 2007 20:10:11 GMT
Think that's pretty standard stuff from us, you never say you're hapopy in these things but I reckon they've just about hit middle ground which is all you can ever ask for to be honest.
|
|
|
|
Post by Top Stopper on Dec 11, 2007 20:16:34 GMT
Subject to all conditional elements being achieved this would result in a total sum of £1,250,000
What did we sell Hoefkins for? Not a lot considering their valuation of Pato!
|
|
|
|
Post by soicowboy on Dec 11, 2007 21:46:48 GMT
Way more than I thought we'd get
1 goal at this level prior to him leaving us!!!! Can't argue with that
|
|
|
|
Post by Thank you from Moorlander1 on Dec 11, 2007 22:22:46 GMT
We can't really gob off at that fee, and I don't know why Scunthorpe are moaning either, considering the fee they got for Billy Sharp who has hardly any experience at Championship level. When I see the likes of Pericard & Parkin on the bench it just makes me wonder how shrewd a move it was to let him go. ??? |
|
|
|
Post by mumf14 on Dec 11, 2007 22:27:49 GMT
Personally when one compares his record to Parkin and Percard you would consider a fee of £500,000 minimum.
|
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Dec 11, 2007 23:26:46 GMT
Given that Our Leader rates Bucko and Ant three times better than Patto (they got three times better deals than Patto was offered) then we are sitting on over a million smackers worth for each.
I say cash em in now. We just need to be careful we don't get buried in the rush!
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Dec 11, 2007 23:29:00 GMT
Very good Mark have a Karma point ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2007 23:34:40 GMT
I think thats a pretty darn good deal myself, now we await the Vass deal I think?
|
|
|
|
Post by eriksson74 on Dec 12, 2007 8:31:39 GMT
If it hadn't gone to tribunal, we would have let him go for circa £170k anyway!
|
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Dec 12, 2007 8:59:14 GMT
bit disapointed that there is nothing for international caps.
sell on is a bit low as well
otherwise fair do's.
|
|
|
|
Post by stokiemac on Dec 12, 2007 10:12:08 GMT
it was daylight robbery really  how dare our club pretend they always knew he was this good  scunthorpe just did some really good scouting and id be annoyed if i was them |
|
|
|
Post by Widget123 on Dec 12, 2007 11:12:14 GMT
i'm happy with that deal. the club can never come out and say it was good business because it would weaken there stance at future tribunerals.
|
|
|
|
Post by bogus on Dec 12, 2007 11:32:03 GMT
Pulis is on the "it's not enough" bandwagon too.
12/12/2007 - Scunnie's Pato fee too low, says Pulis
Stoke manager Tony Pulis has criticised the initial £305,000 awarded to City for the transfer of Martin Paterson to Scunthorpe.
A transfer tribunal ruled yesterday that Scunthorpe must pay Stoke £275,000 and then £30,000 for each 15 appearances Paterson makes for them up to 75 games.
The 20-year-old Tunstall-born striker has made 17 starts and four sub appearances since leaving the Britannia in the summer, shoving Stoke's initial fee up to £305,000.
Stoke had attended the tribunal in Manchester arguing for an initial fee of £750,000, while Scunthorpe had offered to pay just £100,000.
While they will also receive 20 per cent of any future transfer fee for Paterson, plus £250,000 if Scunthorpe are promoted to Premier League within two years, Pulis was far from happy.
He said: "It's fair to say the club is a bit disappointed because this is a player Stoke City developed for 10 years and who has since gone on to prove himself in the Championship.
"If someone came in for Martin now, how much would Scunthorpe ask for him?
"But this has nothing to do with Martin himself, of course, and we wish him all the best because he's a super kid."
Paterson has netted eight goals since leaving Stoke at the start of the season and has also won a call-up to the full Northern Ireland squad.
The club were represented at the hearing by chief executive Tony Scholes and director of football John Rudge.
Scholes told the Stoke City website: "The nature of these things is that you always end up being a little disappointed at the fee received.
"We argued that as we had brought Martin through the ranks at the club, we should be compensated appropriately.
"That said, the tribunal made the decision and we have to accept it."
Rudge added: "We are very disappointed with the verdict, as we feel it falls well short of our valuation of him.
"We had Martin at the club from when he was nine-years-old and played a significant role in helping him become the player he is today.
"This season he is one of the top scorers in the Championship, so to receive this verdict is very disappointing."
|
|
|
|
Post by Vestan Pance on Dec 12, 2007 11:48:11 GMT
What i can't understand is, if he's that good, why did we let him go?
Oh, because he's not 6'3". Of course. Sorry.
Shut up Pulis, and best wishes Martin. Wonder if they are still pleased about him going when he looks at fat cunt Parkin and Lukewarm (Pericard) sat on the bench.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Dec 12, 2007 11:51:19 GMT
I can't see the FA investigating this one for bungs.  If Stoke valued him so highly, why did they let him go? They get rid of a promising youngster and keep the likes of Pericard. OS. |
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Dec 12, 2007 12:38:02 GMT
I said on the original Pato thread 250-300 so I suppose it could have been worse.
H
|
|
|
|
Post by sirpineapple89 on Dec 12, 2007 13:27:51 GMT
Why would it matter what your estimate was? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by knowingeye on Dec 12, 2007 14:52:48 GMT
Why let him go then?
|
|
|
|
Post by dadofsam on Dec 12, 2007 15:54:50 GMT
Should have kept him and sent Pericard out on loan in the first place.
Mind there was the little matter of loaning out a player who was due to do a stretch.
|
|
how dare our club pretend they always knew he was this good 
scunthorpe just did some really good scouting and id be annoyed if i was them 
