Clubs not paying after buying player

Dortmund & Feyenoord (who had 50% of Ebi's transfer rights) still get millions from Racing Santander. This transfer was ages ago. UEFA is about to judge the case. It's a bloody disgrace. UEFA & the Spanish league should act.

We need our freaking money (including 25% interest & a fine) NOW! we had to borrow money to pay our players.

About time UEFA acts against clubs run by hooligans too.

The way foreign clubs are allowed to mass debt, is competition fraud anyway

WHAT?

Or what about the 1,5M Sparta gets from some kind of Arab club.
FIFA takes ages to deal with these kind of problems.

Yep, not need to get your money to. Bloody disgrace those billionaire towelheads can get away with not paying in time.

Just out of interest, does anybody know if within the agreement there is a specific timeframe set out as to when the club must pay the percentage fee.

I know if i were drawing up the contract i'd set a time frame, with additional financial penalties should the payment not be made on time, perhaps with an incentive to deduct a certain amount for paying the fee early.

Axeslammer wrote:The way foreign clubs are allowed to mass debt, is competition fraud anyway

Valencia still haven't paid for Joaquin apparently. There are rumours that they might actually have to "return" him to Betis next season.

I think we did the same thing with Stam and Mendieta (hence we sold Fiore and Corradi to them).

How many weeks have Valencia gone without paying their players?

We got Almunia for a reduced fee after Celta still owed us money for Silvinho.

I think it's been 2 months now.

Well, so what they gonna do? Clubs developing players deserves their share.

This is fair imo.

Chelsea used to do it too...

£6m for Glen Johnson, and £6.6m for Joe Cole (ripped off)...and they didn't pay it all up front.

When Johnson was leaving...there was talk of us getting him for just £2m, because they'd only paid us £3m of it...and about £3m of the Cole deal.

The 20 clubs in La Liga (2006-2007) managed to have a total debt of 2.8 billion....so you could have seen this coming, the Spanish cheats simply don't have any money

GianDeano Zola wrote:Chelsea used to do it too...

£6m for Glen Johnson, and £6.6m for Joe Cole (ripped off)...and they didn't pay it all up front.

When Johnson was leaving...there was talk of us getting him for just £2m, because they'd only paid us £3m of it...and about £3m of the Cole deal.

Hardly anyone pays upfront.

DS wrote:

GianDeano Zola wrote:Chelsea used to do it too...

£6m for Glen Johnson, and £6.6m for Joe Cole (ripped off)...and they didn't pay it all up front.

When Johnson was leaving...there was talk of us getting him for just £2m, because they'd only paid us £3m of it...and about £3m of the Cole deal.

Hardly anyone pays upfront.

So a newly rich team, who had just been taken over by a billionaire, couldn't pay a relegated team £12.6 for two players who were worth alot more than that.

They got a bargain, and still only paid about half of it up front. Ridiculous...

It's not ridiculous, it's perfectly normal as DS says. Do you know for sure that the deal itself was for a one-time payment? Because most deals have the payment plan built into the terms - for example, the Henry deal was for Barça to pay 12m euros up front, and 12m the following summer (which means Arsenal got a bit more than 16m pounds because of the exchange rate changing by summer 2008).

If the deal was for a one time payment but they didn't pay it all, then West Ham would have taken legal action against them, no?

Erm, well obviously it wasn't...I'm not saying it was.

I said it's ridiculous that a team with billions has to have a payment structure to avoid paying the whole amount at once...which wasn't much anyway.

That's a completely different point to what you are arguing against.

Just because you have "billions" doesn't mean you should be silly with your money. And it doesn't necessarily mean that they have cash sitting in a bank account which they can just wire across as and when required. Considering they're (generally, maybe not in this particular case) going to be ripped off on the original price itself, they have every right to at least spread out the payments.

Even outside of football, most deal are the same, structured.

Our board recently stated that we are only going to pay for players upfront from now on - we won't pay for the players we bring in via installments, we will pay the lump sum for them immediately. The board feel that they've been wronged in having to pay final installments on players bought under the previous regime; and they argue that, by paying upfront, we will 'own' the players we buy. On the other hand, we won't be asking or demanding that clubs pay us upfront when they buy our players - we will still accept the money for players via installments (in fact, because this seems standard practice, I doubt we'd be able to sell players in any other way - but we've made it clear that we don't expect to sell them in any other way than via installments).

I don't see the logic to any of this; this seems to me like the opposite of sound business practice. And it could potentially put us on the back foot in the transfer market, leaving us playing catch up. I imagine the board have only stated this so as to dupe the fans in future transfer windows - they will emphasise how much money we are paying out in every window, but they will try to muddle the money we are getting in, either hoping it is overlooked, or implying that the money is still to arrive or arrived long past and so, either way, isn't available to spend now. They've already played this game regarding the Milner money - saying the Milner money wasn't available for transfer spending either in the summer or in January, because we don't have it yet.

And I presume this straightforward approach to player purchases won't apply when there's a player, like Gutierrez, who we can try and grab for nothing, even if this means going through a compensation process at a later date.