Tino Livramento

[spyinthesky]

According to an article on the BBC website relating to Chelsea's financial challenges, there is a suggestion that the club received £22.4m for Tino.
Presumably this figure consists of the original transfer fee paid by Saints (£10m-£15m) plus a proportion of the reported £40m sale to Newcastle.
This would leave Saints with a net benefit of £17.6m.
Puts a bit of a different slant on the financial benefit to the club, if correct.

[Barsiem]

Think it's fairly clear we needed the money.  Both him and JWP had their prices reduced hugely in order to facilitate a sale

[Bad Wolf]

Just now, Barsiem said:

Think it's fairly clear we needed the money.  Both him and JWP had their prices reduced hugely in order to facilitate a sale

I think you also have to factor in that there isn't really room for Tino and KWP. Either way the club were going to have the best right back in the league so it was probably a case of which one will generate more money. 

[Lighthouse]

1 minute ago, Barsiem said:

Think it's fairly clear we needed the money.  Both him and JWP had their prices reduced hugely in order to facilitate a sale

Eh? JWP I agree was on the cheap side, although it was largely paid up front, but £40m for a player who had 2/3 of a decent season before a very serious injury was excellent business. I thought it was common knowledge that Chelsea had a decent sell on chunk, £10m or so (25%) is probably not far off.

In short, I don’t think there’s anything particularly surprising here.

[CB Fry]

5 minutes ago, Barsiem said:

Think it's fairly clear we needed the money.  Both him and JWP had their prices reduced hugely in order to facilitate a sale

Jesus wept.

[Barsiem]

8 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Eh? JWP I agree was on the cheap side, although it was largely paid up front, but £40m for a player who had 2/3 of a decent season before a very serious injury was excellent business. I thought it was common knowledge that Chelsea had a decent sell on chunk, £10m or so (25%) is probably not far off.

In short, I don’t think there’s anything particularly surprising here.

£40m would have been.  £17m not so much.  Chelsea took a huge chunk of the cash, and for the talent he showed I would have kept him

 

12 minutes ago, Bad Wolf said:

I think you also have to factor in that there isn't really room for Tino and KWP. Either way the club were going to have the best right back in the league so it was probably a case of which one will generate more money. 

I dunno, kwp & tino up the right flank would have been worth a try.  Or kwp at left back. We'll never know sadly

[CB Fry]

5 minutes ago, Barsiem said:

£40m would have been.  £17m not so much.  Chelsea took a huge chunk of the cash, and for the talent he showed I would have kept him

You understand if we didn't agree to a sell on we wouldn't have signed him in the first place?

[AlexLaw76]

56 minutes ago, Barsiem said:

Think it's fairly clear we needed the money.  Both him and JWP had their prices reduced hugely in order to facilitate a sale

It is documented (by Karen Brady anyway), that Saints went back to West Ham to get the deal done (for JwP) and lowered the asking price and other demands....He apparently did not want to stay and we needed his wages off the books.

[Fan The Flames]

So JWPs price wasn't reduce because we needed the money, it was to get the deal done. Nothing to see here.

[S-Clarke]

JWP was on 100k p/w, apparently no relegation clause in that. You cannot carry 100k p/w in the Championship, unsustainable.

[Saint Garrett]

26 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

JWP was on 100k p/w, apparently no relegation clause in that. You cannot carry 100k p/w in the Championship, unsustainable.

He had the clause, we offered him the full salary to keep him. He didn’t want to go to WH but ended up there because he wanted to play in the premier league and no-one else came in with a decent enough offer, hence why it ended up such a low fee in the end. 

 

[Tamesaint]

3 hours ago, Barsiem said:

 

 

3 hours ago, Barsiem said:

£40m would have been.  £17m not so much Chelsea took a huge chunk of the cash, and for the talent he showed I would have kept him

You are confusing profit with the sum that we received on his transfer. When he left we recieved our  £17m profit plus our initial £10 - £15m transfer fee. ie In total when he was sold we picked up c £ 30 million. 

Edited February 2 by Tamesaint

[Bad Wolf]

13 hours ago, Saint Garrett said:

He had the clause, we offered him the full salary to keep him. He didn’t want to go to WH but ended up there because he wanted to play in the premier league and no-one else came in with a decent enough offer, hence why it ended up such a low fee in the end. 

 

Also, we got Downes as part of it. Though I know they wern't officially in the same deal - You can't say that if we'd screwed them around over JWP they'd have let him come here.