Wayne Bridge sell-on clause?

[dubai_phil]

Rumoured to be subject of a bid from Man City for around 8mil.

 

Can't remember what we sold him for or if we may get a week's worth of cash-flow in as a share of the profit.

 

Anyone know?

[Iowsaintsfan]

im sure our resident googlers will have the answer for us soon!

[WealdSaint]

We did £8 million + Graham Le Seux if memory serves.

 

Don't know if there was a sell on clause. If there is then well done Rupert, praise where praise is due.

[Iowsaintsfan]

We did £8 million + Graham Le Seux if memory serves.

 

Don't know if there was a sell on clause. If there is then well done Rupert, praise where praise is due.

 

If not Burn!

[Fan The Flames]

We did £8 million + Graham Le Seux if memory serves.

 

Don't know if there was a sell on clause. If there is then well done Rupert, praise where praise is due.

 

Isn't it standard to have a sell on clause in a contract. Im not knocking Lowe but giving praise for a sell on clause is like giving praise for getting another club to give us money in a transfer deal.

[beatlesaint]

Isn't it standard to have a sell on clause in a contract. Im not knocking Lowe but giving praise for a sell on clause is like giving praise for getting another club to give us money in a transfer deal.

 

 

It is a pretty standard thing nowadays yes BUT if memory serves didnt we not only get £7 million plus Le Saux didnt Chelsea carry on paying some of Le Saux's wages for the first year ?

 

That might have been instead of a sell on clause.

[dubai_phil]

Isn't it standard to have a sell on clause in a contract. Im not knocking Lowe but giving praise for a sell on clause is like giving praise for getting another club to give us money in a transfer deal.

 

Although I heard a rumour that we didn't put a sell-on clause on our only big sale while he was out - namely Kenwyne Jones - who could be worth some money one day... But it was only a rumour, probably from a Scooby type.

 

But if we sold Bridge for 8mil and Chelsea get the same for him I guess no profit on the deal means nothing for us..

 

Googlers?

[brightspark]

I think it was SIX million and Le Saux. Im pretty sure of that...

[Chez]

I doubt there is a sell on clause, at the time Chelsea were paying in hard cash so we probably took that option rather money down the line, also little point in putting in a sell on clause when the player has already got the big money move, any moe from Chelsea is going to be downwards, oh...

[alexlabibi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Bridge

According to that 7mil + Le Saux. Although from memory we payed 500k for Le Saux and he was only unofficially part of the deal.

[Saint_John]

I don't think there is a sell-on clause.

 

The are a few articles on the OS from 21 July 2003, this is the one that goes into the most details.

IMO if there had been one I think it would have been mentioned, i.e. it trys to "spin" the deal up to £10M as if we would have paid GS wages in full and all the Agent fees etc.

 

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=1263

 

Also RL thought it was a "depressed market" when Roman arrived at Chelsea - just shows what he knows about Football.

[Thedelldays]

didnt chelsea also pay some of le saux wages...???