[Archived] Bentley

[rover6]

Dave Prutton looked wonderful as a teenage member of England under-21s.

I think you'll find that the only one who thought that was David Platt. Prutton was promising but never exceptional and he only played so many U21 games for England because his former Forest boss, Platt, had some grotesque infatuation with him.

Just like, as England U21 boss, Platt developed an infatuation for John Welsh, convincing himself that because he played for Liverpool reserves, he was a genius in the making.

[waggy]

on the bentley PAY-ON -CLAUSE i heard on tv,a rovers supporter off some repute,stating arsenal have a 50% stake in our man.looked through loads off sites and bentleys transfer is always undissclosed.think we might get a wee bit dissapionted next month

[unleaded]

If that is the case with Arsenal having a 50% or any % Rovers should go for "players swap" deal............................................. that way Arsenal will be cut from the equation.............Lennon + Huddlestone will do for me...........if Rovers take the straight cash deal like Villa are offering then Rovers will not get the full benefit........

[leftfooter]

Dave Prutton looked wonderful as a teenage member of England under-21s.

Back to the sell-on clauses or lack of them, nicko suggested that the original sub-GBP1 million fee for Bentley would now be over GBP3 million with lots of add-on clauses being triggered by Bentley's achievements.

The only problem with that hypothesis is that the contingent liabilities are pretty well accounted for by transfer deal clauses that were disclosed and there is little spoace in the amounts Rovers have paid for transfers for Bents to have run up an extra GBP2.5 million.

So we are left with a mystery:

- did Rovers really sign Bentley for GBP600K all up?

- or are there some mystery payments yet to be triggered which Bents has not already triggered?

- or is there a sell-on clause?

It depends on how stupid we think Arsenal are- they did muck up on Flamini.

Does anybody know from previous transfers of this ilk, whether the percentage sell-on clause declines as the add-ons start to kick in?

[thenodrog]

Does anybody know from previous transfers of this ilk, whether the percentage sell-on clause declines as the add-ons start to kick in?

Would the content of any deal not be individual?

[leftfooter]

Would the content of any deal not be individual?

Indeed.

I wasn't seeking a specific answer, as the details of this particularly transfer deal remain enigmatic at best.

I was wondering about customary practices within the industry.

[greggyk]

HELP!

Who was the guy on here that took photos of the players arriving at the Rovers end of year award from 2 seasons ago.....there was a pic of dave Bentley posing....is it possible for it to be posted on here again........too random to explain..haha

[AggyBlue]

HELP!

Who was the guy on here that took photos of the players arriving at the Rovers end of year award from 2 seasons ago.....there was a pic of dave Bentley posing....is it possible for it to be posted on here again........too random to explain..haha

Have you checked the Gallery?

[Hi Mack]

my mates got a video of bentley singing"were s**t an we know we are"

and singing "Europe your havin a laugh" when he was in manchester after

the fulham game last season!

[Fife Rover]

If that is the case with Arsenal having a 50% or any % Rovers should go for "players swap" deal............................................. that way Arsenal will be cut from the equation.............Lennon + Huddlestone will do for me...........if Rovers take the straight cash deal like Villa are offering then Rovers will not get the full benefit........

Assuming there actually is a sell-on clause in Arsenal's favour (yet to be proved), then I don't think it will work as you have suggested Unleaded.

Again assuming that Rovers were to agree to a straight swap deal with Spuds, let's say Lennon plus Huddlestone for Bentley with or without cash adjustment, then IF the Arsenal 50% (or any %age) is correct and Rovers try to wriggle out of paying anything, or simply offer only 50% of the cash part of the deal, then Arsenal will simply take the whole case to an appeal tribunal, who will then formulate what they see as the cash equivalent value of the deal to Rovers, and order Rovers to cough up 50% of that cash value. We would do the same if the situation was reversed.

[BlueMonday]

Assuming there actually is a sell-on clause in Arsenal's favour (yet to be proved), then I don't think it will work as you have suggested Unleaded.

Again assuming that Rovers were to agree to a straight swap deal with Spuds, let's say Lennon plus Huddlestone for Bentley with or without cash adjustment, then IF the Arsenal 50% (or any %age) is correct and Rovers try to wriggle out of paying anything, or simply offer only 50% of the cash part of the deal, then Arsenal will simply take the whole case to an appeal tribunal, who will then formulate what they see as the cash equivalent value of the deal to Rovers, and order Rovers to cough up 50% of that cash value. We would do the same if the situation was reversed.

Agreed.

Its quite possible that Rovers agreed to a sell on clause. I can't, however, believe they would agree to 50%. Rovers are making a niche[sp] out of taking on players and improving them and seeing their worth increase. It wouldn't make sense.

However as you say it's still to be proved.

[RevidgeBlue]

Just to depart from the realms of speculation and get back to reality for a second, there is no hard evidence there is ANY sell on clause and the only time a figure of 50% has been mentioned was when philip's fevered imagination was working overtime, and some people seem to have taken this figure on board.

[American]

Actually, I don't think Philip ever mentioned a number. I know I sarcastically put 50% in a post one time, maybe that's where the number comes from?

Still think if Nicko is correct about the add ons (and one of those could have been an England cap, which wouldn't have appeared on the books for last season) there likely isn't much, if any of a clause.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

Actually, I don't think Philip ever mentioned a number. I know I sarcastically put 50% in a post one time, maybe that's where the number comes from?

He hs mentioned the absurd '50% figure' several times.

[BRFC1995]

Surely there is a time limit on a sell on clause if one ever existed. If there is somthing that means in real terms we get no more than say £7m, there is simply no point in selling. May as well get another year from him then get him to pay us £5-6m to buy his contract out. Arse can't get half of that if we don't sell. Rather keep an unhappy player than make arse richer!

[waggy]

when the fee is undisclosed there is always add ons,i hope the arse only have a 10% clause on bentleys transfer fee,i heard 50% from a tv pundit.

[BiggusLaddus]

when the fee is undisclosed there is always add ons,i hope the arse only have a 10% clause on bentleys transfer fee,i heard 50% from a tv pundit.

When the fee is undisclosed it is because neither the buying or selling clubs are listed and have to disclose it to the stock market. No one discloses the fee if they can help it so that other clubs don't know how much money you've just spent/recieved.

[joey_big_nose]

when the fee is undisclosed there is always add ons,i hope the arse only have a 10% clause on bentleys transfer fee,i heard 50% from a tv pundit.

Im not sure thats true. Undisclosed fees just mean that both parties in the transfer decide that it is in their interests to not say how much the player has been sold for. Reasons for this include:

The selling club not wanting other clubs to know how much they got so they have a better bargaining position for buying replacements.

The buying club not wanting others to know how much they spent so that others can guage this as a marker for future transactions.

In Bentleys case I suspect that the reason it was undisclosed as Arsenal did not want to get a reputation of selling off young talent on the cheap as the fee was so low.

You could be right about the clause though. I hope not.

[Hughesy]

IF - which im sure there isnt - a 50% sell on clause then our best option is Tottenham - Swap for Lennon & Huddleston/ Bent

[gazsimm]

i don't blame Bentley wanting to leave us for a top 4 club, but Tottenham, he's got to be kidding!!!

[Bazzanotsogreat]

THERE IS NOT A 50% sell on clause. It was a randomly chosen figure by PhilipL to try and suite his flawed argument.

Arsene Wenger admitted after Rovers played Arsenal that he regretted not bothering to negotiate a re-sale (or first option buy-back) clause when sold Bentley to Rovers. If Arsenal had such disdain not to even negotiate; what is usually a commonplace agreement on young players, you can guarantee that any potential sell-on clause will be nowhere near the 50% mark, if there is a clause at all.

50% would represent virtual co-ownership of a players contract, which is common in Italy but unheard of in the Premiership & is probably against Premiership rules.

[LeChuck]

50% would represent virtual co-ownership of a players contract, which is common in Italy but unheard of in the Premiership & is probably against Premiership rules.

If you're going to slate Philipl then at least get your own facts right. Ugo Ehiogu had a 50% sell-on clause attached to his transfer when he moved from West Brom to Aston Villa, so it can't be against the rules.

Regardless of that, there will definitely not be a 50% sell-on fee with Bentley, Arsenal have no such record of putting figures in as high as that. Bentley's stock wasn't very high when we signed him, he'd failed at Norwich on loan and hadn't looked very good for us, plus he was very unhappy at Arsenal...I suspect they would have just been happy to get him out of there.

Other good young players to have left them didn't leave with 50% sell-on fees (Pennant, Upson, Sidwell, Harper etc) so why would they start with Bentley?

[Bazzanotsogreat]

If you're going to slate Philipl then at least get your own facts right. Ugo Ehiogu had a 50% sell-on clause attached to his transfer when he moved from West Brom to Aston Villa, so it can't be against the rules.

Regardless of that, there will definitely not be a 50% sell-on fee with Bentley, Arsenal have no such record of putting figures in as high as that. Bentley's stock wasn't very high when we signed him, he'd failed at Norwich on loan and hadn't looked very good for us, plus he was very unhappy at Arsenal...I suspect they would have just been happy to get him out of there.

Other good young players to have left them didn't leave with 50% sell-on fees (Pennant, Upson, Sidwell, Harper etc) so why would they start with Bentley?

??

Youre preaching to the converted, as for Ehiogu how many years ago was that transfer ? the transfer laws in the Premiership have Completely restructed since then

Im not the one suggesting there is such a clause, its our resident accountant that honour lies with

[LeChuck]

You can't criticise Philipl for guessing there is a 50% clause, then wildly assume that a 50% clause would be against the rules without evidence. A tad hypocritical don't you think? I've heard/seen nothing to suggest such a rule exists, and I don't see why it would because it's nothing like the 'joint ownership' scenario they have in Italy, the selling club would just be entitled to some of the future fee as opposed to owning 50% of the player's contract.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

You can't criticise Philipl for guessing there is a 50% clause, then wildly assume that a 50% clause would be against the rules without evidence. A tad hypocritical don't you think? I've heard/seen nothing to suggest such a rule exists, and I don't see why it would because it's nothing like the 'joint ownership' scenario they have in Italy, the selling club would just be entitled to some of the future fee as opposed to owning 50% of the player's contract.

Is PhilipL related to you or something youre a tad defensive of him. This is the same poster that makes up so much bunkum that its difficult to take him seriously any longer.

Back on topic - their is no evidence either way- although their has been complications on the Jo deal which is related to sell-on clauses.

What is for certain is that the 50% figure is not correct.