Hourihane went to Villa for £500,000

£100.000 to Argyle

Absolute joke.....

You couldnt make this feckin shit up from the Shyster at the helm. It just shows the utter contempt he shows to Argyle supporters who he regards as complete Mushrooms....

How much Plymouth Argyle are actually set to pocket from Conor Hourihane deal

PLYMOUTH Argyle are expected to receive in excess of £100,000 as part of the deal which took former captain Conor Hourihane from Barnsley to Aston Villa.

The 26-year-old, who has made two appearances for Steve Bruce’s side since arriving last month, signed a three-and-a-half-year deal after the Tykes accepted an undisclosed fee.

In the near-three years the Irishman spent at Home Park from August 2011, he markedly improved and became the Pilgrims’ skipper before departing in May 2014 for League One Barnsley in a deal around £200,000.
However, while that reported fee was scoffed at by fans at the time, the club reiterated it was put in a tight position by want-away Hourihane, but did include a number of sell-on percentages and clauses in the deal.

Those plans have now come to fruition and while estimates of the fee Villa paid Barnsley vary, it is understood Argyle will receive in excess of £100,000 for the set-piece specialist.

The fee adds to what has been an extremely profitable season for the Pilgrims thus far, with at least £200,000 coming from Oxford United for Curtis Nelson, approximately £1m from the two Liverpool matches and reportedly £300,000 for Ben Purrington from Rotherham United.

We are not a click service for Brent Hearld

harvetheslayer wrote:

£100.000 to Argyle

Absolute joke.....

You couldnt make this feckin shit up from the Shyster at the helm. It just shows the utter contempt he shows to Argyle supporters who he regards as complete Mushrooms....

If we got two hundred million from Barnsley, we would still be down the Jobbie signing up the unwanted,tis the Jimmy way.

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

harvetheslayer wrote:

£100.000 to Argyle

Absolute joke.....

You couldnt make this feckin shit up from the Shyster at the helm. It just shows the utter contempt he shows to Argyle supporters who he regards as complete Mushrooms....

If we got two hundred million from Barnsley, we would still be down the Jobbie signing up the unwanted,tis the Jimmy way.

Starnes was clear 3 weeks ago.....20% sell on clause
Clearly Barnsley sold him to Villa for half a million........yeah right !

Villa and Barnsley will publish full accounts.
Argyle may have been screwed by valuation of other player who moved at same time.

Makes no difference what we got for him, the money will go no where near the transfer budget and will no doubt go towards a stupid display thing at a home game before the end of the season.

harvetheslayer wrote:

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

harvetheslayer wrote:

£100.000 to Argyle

Absolute joke.....

You couldnt make this feckin shit up from the Shyster at the helm. It just shows the utter contempt he shows to Argyle supporters who he regards as complete Mushrooms....

If we got two hundred million from Barnsley, we would still be down the Jobbie signing up the unwanted,tis the Jimmy way.

Starnes was clear 3 weeks ago.....20% sell on clause
Clearly Barnsley sold him to Villa for half a million........yeah right !

Shyster from the start and he will be a shyster to the end of his time at argyle, whenever that is, just wish he would piss off up to Sandy Park where he would clearly rather be, but then he would stand more chance of being found out up there without the support of the eternally grateful fuckwits that believe this is the best we can do.

And we don't have any say in a deal between 2 other clubs so nothing we could do.

Does seem odd that 1 of the top 10 midfielders in the Championship is only worth £500K when there is silly money being thrown about. The joys of Bosman I guess.

Tgwu wrote:

How much Plymouth Argyle are actually set to pocket from Conor Hourihane deal

PLYMOUTH Argyle are expected to receive in excess of £100,000 as part of the deal which took former captain Conor Hourihane from Barnsley to Aston Villa.

The 26-year-old, who has made two appearances for Steve Bruce’s side since arriving last month, signed a three-and-a-half-year deal after the Tykes accepted an undisclosed fee.

In the near-three years the Irishman spent at Home Park from August 2011, he markedly improved and became the Pilgrims’ skipper before departing in May 2014 for League One Barnsley in a deal around £200,000.
However, while that reported fee was scoffed at by fans at the time, the club reiterated it was put in a tight position by want-away Hourihane, but did include a number of sell-on percentages and clauses in the deal.

Those plans have now come to fruition and while estimates of the fee Villa paid Barnsley vary, it is understood Argyle will receive in excess of £100,000 for the set-piece specialist.

The fee adds to what has been an extremely profitable season for the Pilgrims thus far, with at least £200,000 coming from Oxford United for Curtis Nelson, approximately £1m from the two Liverpool matches and reportedly £300,000 for Ben Purrington from Rotherham United.

We are not a click service for Brent Hearld

Well played.
Hate that clickbait shit rag

Villa and Barnsley have been naughty and the FA need to look into this dual transfer. Hourihane is obviously underpriced and Bree way overpriced.
CH goes straight into the side whilst the other warms the bench. One is entering his prime years, the other is a 19 year old novice defender with potential.
The fees are probably the wrong way around but who cares, it's only Argyle that suffer.
Brent has been stitched up which makes a welcome change I suppose.

green_genie wrote:

Villa and Barnsley will publish full accounts.
Argyle may have been screwed by valuation of other player who moved at same time.

Yep. Can't see what Argyle can do if valuations are rigged. 'erald did say ''in excess of £100K'' so even at £140K that would make CH valued at £700K ? Still a bit light weight?

Surely £10million is "in excess of 100K". Is this the new contemporary "6 figure sum" quote that actually says very little.

20% sell on fee is the norm, hardly the clubs fault if there's a stitch up between Barnsley and Villa

I will remind the more doddery citizens of ATD of a certain deal involving Paul Mariner, John Pedelty and Mr Austin, a three way valuation.

To be honest, in my mind, the "sell on" clause is a poor substitute for proper prices at the time, and is wide open to abuse.

Hourihane could not have cost Villa £500,000.

If we get 20% of any fee then it is normal in these deals for the transfer fee when originally sold to be deducted first. 20% of £500,000 is £100,000 and we've already been paid £200,000 so there's a net imbalance of £100,000 - we'd be due nothing.

Reverse engineering this we'd only get a fee if that 20%>£200,000.

So if 20% was £200,000 then 100% was £1,000,000.

If 20% was £300,000 (which it would need to be for us to eligible for £100,000). His fee must have been £1,500,000 minimum.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Hourihane could not have cost Villa £500,000.

If we get 20% of any fee then it is normal in these deals for the transfer fee when originally sold to be deducted first. 20% of £500,000 is £100,000 and we've already been paid £200,000 so there's a net imbalance of £100,000 - we'd be due nothing.

Reverse engineering this we'd only get a fee if that 20%>£200,000.

So if 20% was £200,000 then 100% was £1,000,000.

If 20% was £300,000 (which it would need to be for us to eligible for £100,000). His fee must have been £1,500,000 minimum.

Completely and utterly lost me. What we received for the player originally has absolutely no bearing on a sell on clause

harvetheslayer wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Hourihane could not have cost Villa £500,000.

If we get 20% of any fee then it is normal in these deals for the transfer fee when originally sold to be deducted first. 20% of £500,000 is £100,000 and we've already been paid £200,000 so there's a net imbalance of £100,000 - we'd be due nothing.

Reverse engineering this we'd only get a fee if that 20%>£200,000.

So if 20% was £200,000 then 100% was £1,000,000.

If 20% was £300,000 (which it would need to be for us to eligible for £100,000). His fee must have been £1,500,000 minimum.

Completely and utterly lost me. What we received for the player originally has absolutely no bearing on a sell on clause

Yes it does.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

harvetheslayer wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Hourihane could not have cost Villa £500,000.

If we get 20% of any fee then it is normal in these deals for the transfer fee when originally sold to be deducted first. 20% of £500,000 is £100,000 and we've already been paid £200,000 so there's a net imbalance of £100,000 - we'd be due nothing.

Reverse engineering this we'd only get a fee if that 20%>£200,000.

So if 20% was £200,000 then 100% was £1,000,000.

If 20% was £300,000 (which it would need to be for us to eligible for £100,000). His fee must have been £1,500,000 minimum.

Completely and utterly lost me. What we received for the player originally has absolutely no bearing on a sell on clause

Yes it does.

This is illogical.
Barnsley paid Argyle £200,000 for the footballing services of Hourihane. They received them over two and a half years. They then sell him on for a profit.
What has the original fee got to do with it?
It is completely separate.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

harvetheslayer wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Hourihane could not have cost Villa £500,000.

If we get 20% of any fee then it is normal in these deals for the transfer fee when originally sold to be deducted first. 20% of £500,000 is £100,000 and we've already been paid £200,000 so there's a net imbalance of £100,000 - we'd be due nothing.

Reverse engineering this we'd only get a fee if that 20%>£200,000.

So if 20% was £200,000 then 100% was £1,000,000.

If 20% was £300,000 (which it would need to be for us to eligible for £100,000). His fee must have been £1,500,000 minimum.

Completely and utterly lost me. What we received for the player originally has absolutely no bearing on a sell on clause

Yes it does.

This is illogical.
Barnsley paid Argyle £200,000 for the footballing services of Hourihane. They received them over two and a half years. They then sell him on for a profit.
What has the original fee got to do with it?
It is completely separate.

No it isn't.

It all depends on how the contract was drawn up when we sold him.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

harvetheslayer wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Hourihane could not have cost Villa £500,000.

If we get 20% of any fee then it is normal in these deals for the transfer fee when originally sold to be deducted first. 20% of £500,000 is £100,000 and we've already been paid £200,000 so there's a net imbalance of £100,000 - we'd be due nothing.

Reverse engineering this we'd only get a fee if that 20%>£200,000.

So if 20% was £200,000 then 100% was £1,000,000.

If 20% was £300,000 (which it would need to be for us to eligible for £100,000). His fee must have been £1,500,000 minimum.

Completely and utterly lost me. What we received for the player originally has absolutely no bearing on a sell on clause

Yes it does.

This is illogical.
Barnsley paid Argyle £200,000 for the footballing services of Hourihane. They received them over two and a half years. They then sell him on for a profit.
What has the original fee got to do with it?
It is completely separate.

No it isn't.

It all depends on how the contract was drawn up when we sold him.

Sounds like bollocks to me

This was in the press somewhere recently. Not sure where. Possibly about the Mason transfer. The club was pleading relative poverty because they claimed they weren't about to get as much as was being suggested because the original fee had to be subtracted from the %age according to the sell-on fee.

Somebody else must have seen it too...

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

This was in the press somewhere recently. Not sure where. Possibly about the Mason transfer. The club was pleading relative poverty because they claimed they weren't about to get as much as was being suggested because the original fee had to be subtracted from the %age according to the sell-on fee.

Somebody else must have seen it too...

I think you're confusing the buying fee with any outstanding monies owed from that buying fee. Not all transfer fees are paid upfront. It might be that Barnsley still haven't paid all of the instalments due to Argyle. That is what is deducted, not all the transfer fee.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

This was in the press somewhere recently. Not sure where. Possibly about the Mason transfer. The club was pleading relative poverty because they claimed they weren't about to get as much as was being suggested because the original fee had to be subtracted from the %age according to the sell-on fee.

Somebody else must have seen it too...

I think you're confusing the buying fee with any outstanding monies owed from that buying fee. Not all transfer fees are paid upfront. It might be that Barnsley still haven't paid all of the instalments due to Argyle. That is what is deducted, not all the transfer fee.

I don't recall reading anything like that before.

It isn't what I meant at all.

I meant what I said. I think I explained it clearly enough for most to understand.

You may be right and I may be wrong: it depends on what was stipulated in the contract and exactly what I described has been attributed to our transfer business recently somewhere. I wish I could recall where but I can't.

Well therefore I haven't a clue what you're on about.

What I do know, and it's on the record, is that QPR received £12.25 million as there 25% sell on cut of Raheem Sterling's £49 million move from Liverpool to Man City.

Which kinda blows your argument to pieces.