Darren Bent

[QBVILLA]

Cheers Dave, saved me writing it out again. The only way you'd have a 50 game clause is someone like Bowery or Stevens where you pick them up cheap and pay an extra 100K or so if they reach that mark. Certainly not for an £18million player.

I agree with you that it would be ridiculous that after 50 league games if we had to pay £6m. However,it isn't totally out of the question that after 50 league games we pay say a million? I'd guess those league games were stipulated at premierleague as well given the position we were in at the time he signed. Obviously only speculating but i'd say there are multiple clauses ie England caps, goals, european qualification etc etc.

EDIT: I agree with Rissbert then

I'd be very surprised if it was anything other than goals (an extra million or two for 50 for example), trophies won or European qualification. I doubt England caps as he was already an international when we signed him. Possibly an extra payment the season we signed him based on us staying up but I doubt that as well.

To be honest it could have been anything. I've heard of players in the past having payments triggered by reaching x amount of England caps as it's a profile raiser for the club. I'd have had one stipulating how many of the players birds he would drop anchor in had i been the Sunderland chairman.

[kippaxvilla2]

In this ruthless league you need two things.  1. A good defence.  2. An ability to score goals.  We have neither, but are improving in the defensive side.  The attacking side therefore could not do anything other than benefit from Bents presence in the starting line up.  I really don't think it's any more simple than that. 

[SamTheMouse]

Is he on Twitter? Can't someone just ask him?

[PeterWithesShin]

Cheers Dave, saved me writing it out again. The only way you'd have a 50 game clause is someone like Bowery or Stevens where you pick them up cheap and pay an extra 100K or so if they reach that mark. Certainly not for an £18million player.

I disagree. For a starter, it's a negotiating tool. Instead of paying 'x' upfront, you delay the payment of 'x' until the player reaches 50 games. At that point it may be more, but keeps your cash in your bank account, for in this case, nearly two years.

So why don't more clubs do it? I can't think of any other example off the top of my head where there is even a rumour that a big money transfer rises based on 50 league appearances.

[Chico Hamilton III]

The only way you'd have a 50 game clause is someone like Bowery or Stevens where you pick them up cheap and pay an extra 100K or so if they reach that mark. Certainly not for an £18million player

You might be right, I have no idea, but Curtis Davies cost us £8m (or £11m if you check him on Wiki) and, according to his agent, he had a clause in his contract which would force Villa to re-negotiate his wages once he'd reached 60 games.

[Risso]

Cheers Dave, saved me writing it out again. The only way you'd have a 50 game clause is someone like Bowery or Stevens where you pick them up cheap and pay an extra 100K or so if they reach that mark. Certainly not for an £18million player.

I disagree. For a starter, it's a negotiating tool. Instead of paying 'x' upfront, you delay the payment of 'x' until the player reaches 50 games. At that point it may be more, but keeps your cash in your bank account, for in this case, nearly two years.

So why don't more clubs do it? I can't think of any other example off the top of my head where there is even a rumour that a big money transfer rises based on 50 league appearances.

How many other examples can you think of where the basic fee was £18m, with the maximum being £6m more on top, a whole third of the original price?

[PeterWithe]

We'll lose fucking Kazillions in TV money if we go down, if this is a financial decision then it doesn't look a particularly sound one.

[PeterWithesShin]

Cheers Dave, saved me writing it out again. The only way you'd have a 50 game clause is someone like Bowery or Stevens where you pick them up cheap and pay an extra 100K or so if they reach that mark. Certainly not for an £18million player.

I disagree. For a starter, it's a negotiating tool. Instead of paying 'x' upfront, you delay the payment of 'x' until the player reaches 50 games. At that point it may be more, but keeps your cash in your bank account, for in this case, nearly two years.

So why don't more clubs do it? I can't think of any other example off the top of my head where there is even a rumour that a big money transfer rises based on 50 league appearances.

How many other examples can you think of where the basic fee was £18m, with the maximum being £6m more on top, a whole third of the original price?

That's not answering my question. Regardless of how much of a percentage potential add ons are, how many cases can you name where there is even a rumour that one of the clauses is for 50 league games in a big money move?

[eastie]

Yes, totally agree, and the club have also rubbished these rumours.

Well I didn't know that, when did they rubbish it ?

Kendrick asked the question on Monday and was told it was utter rubbish.

[Chris Smith]

In this ruthless league you need two things.  1. A good defence.  2. An ability to score goals.  We have neither, but are improving in the defensive side.  The attacking side therefore could not do anything other than benefit from Bents presence in the starting line up.  I really don't think it's any more simple than that. 

It isn't though. For example, changing one type of striker for another could mean that the ball comes back on the defence more quickly after clearing their lines, giving them less time to organise and leading to us conceding more. I'm not saying that this is the case here but rather pointing out that changing individuals can impact on the balance of the side.

[dave.woodhall]

One of the clauses might be 50 games, but if it is, it will only be one of several. There hasn't been any problem with the others.

[Monty]

Cheers Dave, saved me writing it out again. The only way you'd have a 50 game clause is someone like Bowery or Stevens where you pick them up cheap and pay an extra 100K or so if they reach that mark. Certainly not for an £18million player.

I disagree. For a starter, it's a negotiating tool. Instead of paying 'x' upfront, you delay the payment of 'x' until the player reaches 50 games. At that point it may be more, but keeps your cash in your bank account, for in this case, nearly two years.

So why don't more clubs do it? I can't think of any other example off the top of my head where there is even a rumour that a big money transfer rises based on 50 league appearances.

How many other examples can you think of where the basic fee was £18m, with the maximum being £6m more on top, a whole third of the original price?

That's not answering my question. Regardless of how much of a percentage potential add ons are, how many cases can you name where there is even a rumour that one of the clauses is for 50 league games in a big money move?

I think it's a classic example of some people playing too much Football Manager.

[glasses]

Cheers Dave, saved me writing it out again. The only way you'd have a 50 game clause is someone like Bowery or Stevens where you pick them up cheap and pay an extra 100K or so if they reach that mark. Certainly not for an £18million player.

I disagree. For a starter, it's a negotiating tool. Instead of paying 'x' upfront, you delay the payment of 'x' until the player reaches 50 games. At that point it may be more, but keeps your cash in your bank account, for in this case, nearly two years.

So why don't more clubs do it? I can't think of any other example off the top of my head where there is even a rumour that a big money transfer rises based on 50 league appearances.

Well all you hear is the term 'add-ons'. It's never fully disclosed as to what the add-ons are. It's all speculative to try and work out what terms are built into any transfer fee/agreement, but I wouldn't say that it would only happen with small transfer fees.

[QBVILLA]

Cheers Dave, saved me writing it out again. The only way you'd have a 50 game clause is someone like Bowery or Stevens where you pick them up cheap and pay an extra 100K or so if they reach that mark. Certainly not for an £18million player.

I disagree. For a starter, it's a negotiating tool. Instead of paying 'x' upfront, you delay the payment of 'x' until the player reaches 50 games. At that point it may be more, but keeps your cash in your bank account, for in this case, nearly two years.

So why don't more clubs do it? I can't think of any other example off the top of my head where there is even a rumour that a big money transfer rises based on 50 league appearances.

How many other examples can you think of where the basic fee was £18m, with the maximum being £6m more on top, a whole third of the original price?

That's not answering my question. Regardless of how much of a percentage potential add ons are, how many cases can you name where there is even a rumour that one of the clauses is for 50 league games in a big money move?

I haven't but there again how many big money signings are being bombed out in a relatively short time. How are most transfers paid? I know i've read Liverpool still owe us a lot on Downing, how true it is I don't know. Who does?

[PeterWithesShin]

I haven't but there again how many big money signings are being bombed out in a relatively short time. How are most transfers paid? I know i've read Liverpool still owe us a lot on Downing, how true it is I don't know. Who does?

Andy Carroll, Bosko Balaban for starters. It's not uncommon to spread a transfer fee over a period of time though.