Good for him. Needs to get out and test himself.

UniDundee wrote:

I'm under the impression we don't get cut, as he signed a new contract with Celtic last year which null and voids the previous agreement in place.  

You also say 'another financial boost', whats the first one? 

 

 
The Robertson one we got last summer.

It also depends how the deal was agreed when he left us. We may have written the deal so that we get our cut should he be sold, regardless of whether he’s signed another contract in his time there.

According to transfermarket Armstrong signed his contract extension on Aug 18th 2017 if that's of any relevance.

blackandtangerine wrote:

Whats the betting nae "takeover " happens till armstrongs sold.

 
This 👍

UniDundee wrote:

I'm under the impression we don't get cut, as he signed a new contract with Celtic last year which null and voids the previous agreement in place.  

You also say 'another financial boost', whats the first one? 

 

 
If that were the case, sell on clauses would never be realised. The buying club would just issue a new contract to void it.

Tangy wrote:

Say we got 1.5m for Armstrong now - would that now be seen as a better financial deal?

I thought the fee was too low at the time but with nobody else offering bucks we couldn't get a bidding war going...

 
The chain of events that followed that transfer, leading us to where we are now, means that even if we ended up getting a further £10m as a sell on fee for him, I still wouldn’t see it as a good deal.

We as a fanbase got way too wrapped up in the financial side of the club, what use is having money, when a clueless, self-centred, silver-spooned imbecile like Stephen Thompson is the one spending it.

Last edited by JerryDungle (11/6/2018 7:04 am)

annanarab wrote:

Not sure that "we" got the money or that the fee was income to the club.

Selling Armstrong was never the big issue for me - it was Jackie and the sale of Armstrong went on to prove that Jackie, on his own, without the players inherited from Levein/Houston, was clueless and should never have been appointed.

I think the fact that the board trusted Jackie with replacing important first team players when he wasn't exactly proven in the transfer market was a big failing of the board.

If we had only sold 2 players then waited to see how well they were replaced before going on another spree of selling off more of the silverware then we might have spotted that Jackie wasn't exactly great in the transfer market and we could have maybe held on to the other players until we had developed a considerably better strategy for bringing in fresh faces to replace key players.

Probably not as straight forward as that Tek.  Sell on fees are sometimes based on added value, the difference betwen what Septic bought and sold him for.

If as is the norm Southampton pay in instalments the add ons come in instalments.

Tax and agents cuts will be deducted at source.

If  the Armstrong sell on is 20% I reckon we would get about a tenth of the 1.4m up front.

Bet this is what’s holding up the takeover.

Stephen McGowan says just under £600,000 for us (If you go through his comments he says "10% of the Celtic profit after original £1m fee. So likely to be just under £600k"

But once Jackie and Thompson get their share of the fee, how much to the actual club?  £400-500k?? Not a lot of money to be fair. Gaffer will prob get £50k, rest to cover shortfall, pay debts etc.. 

dyed in the wool wrote:

UniDundee wrote:

Stephen McGowan says just under £600,000 for us (If you go through his comments he says "10% of the Celtic profit after original £1m fee. So likely to be just under £600k"

But once Jackie and Thompson get their share of the fee, how much to the actual club?  £400-500k?? Not a lot of money to be fair. Gaffer will prob get £50k, rest to cover shortfall, pay debts etc.. 

Why do you assume that an Ex Manager will get a cut of a sell on bonus from a player he didn't sign?

 

UniDundee 'assumes' the worst. 'Stephen McGowan says'........ 

Then add in that Thompson gets his 'share of the fee': absolute pish to go along with the rubbish about McNamara.
 

Ex Houston Arab wrote:

UniDundee wrote:

Stephen McGowan says just under £600,000 for us (If you go through his comments he says "10% of the Celtic profit after original £1m fee. So likely to be just under £600k"

But once Jackie and Thompson get their share of the fee, how much to the actual club?  £400-500k?? Not a lot of money to be fair. Gaffer will prob get £50k, rest to cover shortfall, pay debts etc.. 

 
All reports at the time of the sale were £1.6M for Armstrong not £1M
It was also 20%  not 10% at the time
The 20% was also referred to again when we tried to loan ciftci back a couple of seasons ago - deal was if we removed the Armstrong sell on as Celtic figured it was too high an amount.

Where has McGowan got his alternate figures from?
Also, McNamara was sacked - doubt he is still entitled to the bonus scheme

The ginger tim is saying 700k.