Dirty Leeds v Frank Lampard’s Derby County

Andy Stroud

Level: Dave Langan
(136 Apps, 3 Gls)
What a cracking game!
Leeds going 2-0 up on aggregate, then concede a goal a minute either side of half time, followed by a penalty to go 2-3 on aggregate. Now they’ve pulled it level.
End to end stuff
 
I thought DE didn't deal with sell on clauses, preferred some extra cash. Even if there was a sell on, it would probably go to his bank account!

Thats why it a promotion clause not a sell on clause, and no it wouldnt unless we decided to pay it off sooner meaning we get the other listed monies
 
I meant any clauses, promotion, appearances etc...

The money that daryl gets was listed very clearly and related to specific transfer money that was due to oufc. If we get additional money which roofe’s promotion clause would have been, we could if we choose use it to pay off daryl before the pre agreed dates, it would then mean though that the club would then take the other money. Roofes promotion clause wouldnt have been included because by its very nature, it may never happen
 
There are four named contracts in the charge. Marvin Johnson and John Lundstram, both from 2017 and Callum O'Dowda and Kemar Roofe, both from 2016.

It is interesting that the O'Dowda and Roofe contracts are there, as often transfer fees are paid in two instalments, the initial payment and then the balance 12 months later. This would mean that the O'Dowda and Roofe monies had already been received by the time of the charge, so it is reasonable to assume that the reason they are mentioned is that there are sell-on/performance payments in their contracts. To my knowledge there is a sell-on clause in O'Dowda's and a promotion bonus in Roofe's. It could, of course, be that the O'Dowda and Roofe fees are due in more than two instalments?

What all of this means, in simple terms, is that a set amount of £4.2m is owed to Ensco and the club have certain stage payments to make (which interestingly add up to exactly £1m less than the sum due). The club can choose to pay these from their normal bank account, or any other bank account for that matter, on or before the due dates. However, the receipts from the four transfers named are to be paid into a separate account and, if the club do not pay the stage payments at the agreed dates, Ensco has access to this separate account ONLY, to take it's money. The very precise amounts and dates suggest that these are amounts that equal the amount due to Ensco, so it's therefore a form of insurance by Ensco that they get their money.

They CANNOT take any more than the agreed amounts and once the amounts are paid then the charge is cancelled. As far as I'm aware the three stage payments were made on the due dates, leaving the amount of £1m outstanding, which is why the charge has not been cancelled. Ensco are only due what they're due, they cannot hoover up all transfer money above this amount, although there is a caveat in the charge that says "any other contract of any other player"

In short (as I've typed far more than I intended) Eales does not get any more money if Leeds go up, Oxford United do. But he could have got the balance of his money sooner if they'd have gone up. But for all I know Erick, Anan and Horst could have agreed to pony up the last payment and it's about to be settled, meaning all future transfer money comes directly to the club anyway.
 
There are four named contracts in the charge. Marvin Johnson and John Lundstram, both from 2017 and Callum O'Dowda and Kemar Roofe, both from 2016.

It is interesting that the O'Dowda and Roofe contracts are there, as often transfer fees are paid in two instalments, the initial payment and then the balance 12 months later. This would mean that the O'Dowda and Roofe monies had already been received by the time of the charge, so it is reasonable to assume that the reason they are mentioned is that there are sell-on/performance payments in their contracts. To my knowledge there is a sell-on clause in O'Dowda's and a promotion bonus in Roofe's. It could, of course, be that the O'Dowda and Roofe fees are due in more than two instalments?

What all of this means, in simple terms, is that a set amount of £4.2m is owed to Ensco and the club have certain stage payments to make (which interestingly add up to exactly £1m less than the sum due). The club can choose to pay these from their normal bank account, or any other bank account for that matter, on or before the due dates. However, the receipts from the four transfers named are to be paid into a separate account and, if the club do not pay the stage payments at the agreed dates, Ensco has access to this separate account ONLY, to take it's money. The very precise amounts and dates suggest that these are amounts that equal the amount due to Ensco, so it's therefore a form of insurance by Ensco that they get their money.

They CANNOT take any more than the agreed amounts and once the amounts are paid then the charge is cancelled. As far as I'm aware the three stage payments were made on the due dates, leaving the amount of £1m outstanding, which is why the charge has not been cancelled. Ensco are only due what they're due, they cannot hoover up all transfer money above this amount, although there is a caveat in the charge that says "any other contract of any other player"

In short (as I've typed far more than I intended) Eales does not get any more money if Leeds go up, Oxford United do. But he could have got the balance of his money sooner if they'd have gone up. But for all I know Erick, Anan and Horst could have agreed to pony up the last payment and it's about to be settled, meaning all future transfer money comes directly to the club anyway.
Thanks Colin. Really useful.
 
There are four named contracts in the charge. Marvin Johnson and John Lundstram, both from 2017 and Callum O'Dowda and Kemar Roofe, both from 2016.

It is interesting that the O'Dowda and Roofe contracts are there, as often transfer fees are paid in two instalments, the initial payment and then the balance 12 months later. This would mean that the O'Dowda and Roofe monies had already been received by the time of the charge, so it is reasonable to assume that the reason they are mentioned is that there are sell-on/performance payments in their contracts. To my knowledge there is a sell-on clause in O'Dowda's and a promotion bonus in Roofe's. It could, of course, be that the O'Dowda and Roofe fees are due in more than two instalments?

What all of this means, in simple terms, is that a set amount of £4.2m is owed to Ensco and the club have certain stage payments to make (which interestingly add up to exactly £1m less than the sum due). The club can choose to pay these from their normal bank account, or any other bank account for that matter, on or before the due dates. However, the receipts from the four transfers named are to be paid into a separate account and, if the club do not pay the stage payments at the agreed dates, Ensco has access to this separate account ONLY, to take it's money. The very precise amounts and dates suggest that these are amounts that equal the amount due to Ensco, so it's therefore a form of insurance by Ensco that they get their money.

They CANNOT take any more than the agreed amounts and once the amounts are paid then the charge is cancelled. As far as I'm aware the three stage payments were made on the due dates, leaving the amount of £1m outstanding, which is why the charge has not been cancelled. Ensco are only due what they're due, they cannot hoover up all transfer money above this amount, although there is a caveat in the charge that says "any other contract of any other player"

In short (as I've typed far more than I intended) Eales does not get any more money if Leeds go up, Oxford United do. But he could have got the balance of his money sooner if they'd have gone up. But for all I know Erick, Anan and Horst could have agreed to pony up the last payment and it's about to be settled, meaning all future transfer money comes directly to the club anyway.
Looking at the 30 June 2018 accounts OUFC again, trade debtors which I assume are transfer instalments due, were £2,240,877.
The loan notes due to Ensco were £2,391,634 + £1,103,294 = £3,494,928 (some interest factored in).

So something doesn't add up as there aren't enough transfer instalments to pay off the loan notes. As June falls between the two instalment dates of April and September, is it possible a transfer instalment has been received but not yet paid to Ensco? But if so, why isn't it shown in a secured bank account as cash at bank is low? Or has Ensco allowed OUFC to take the money from the bank account and OUFC has missed an instalment?
Or was Eales hoping for extra transfers/ sell ons / promotion clauses on players like Nelson, Roofe, O'Dowda?
 
Pardon me. I thought the charge was for 4.2m (ish) and Slippery could take it between / after set dates from any balance in the club's account above set amounts. If that's the case the Roofe money could have been part of the 4.2m.

I may not be right.

That money could have been used for that purpose but that would have meant the transfer payments of equal value secured to pay DE that would have stayed with the club instead. The Roofe money, if we had got it wouldn't have been in addition to the amount owed to DE.
 
Or was Eales hoping for extra transfers/ sell ons / promotion clauses on players like Nelson, Roofe, O'Dowda?
But DE can have no legal claim to these 'extra' monies because they relate to events happening after he'd sold the club.
As such he is now deemed a 'third party' and Third Party Ownership of a player or players financial rights was strictly outlawed several years ago.
So the monies would surely have to go the club, However, the club could then choose to use the monies to pay off Ensco should they so wish.
 
Back
Top Bottom