Dirty Leeds v Frank Lampard’s Derby County

[Leysboy]

Roofe not going up affects Oufc not DE.

I thought all deals that were under Daryl’s leadership went in his back pocket.

 

[Cass63]

Great to see frank and the team singing the lampard song back to dirty Leeds.

 

[Marked Ox]

I thought all deals that were under Daryl’s leadership went in his back pocket.

No, there is charges against certain transfer monies which are listed to ensure a given amount is paid to DE.

The Roofe promotion clause isn't one of them.

 

[Paul Cannell]

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.

 

[Sarge]

any promotion £ linked to Roofe aint coming our way for now

 

[Colin B]

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.

 

[Foley]

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.

 

[MarkG]

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?

 

[Marked Ox]

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.

 

[warksox]

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.

 

[Colin B]

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?

I don't think there ever have been enough KNOWN transfer instalments to clear the loan notes Mark, hence the last payment of £1m (now increased due to interest) shown in Creditors: amounts due after more than one year.

I think it's Eales' way of giving Tiger time to find the extra £1m whether it's from his, or others, pockets or whether it's from future (unknown at the time) transfers or performance payments.

 

[mooro]

The inevitable red card (two yellows)

It is interesting quite how important discipline has been in what have proved to be very tight Championship playoff scene so far.
Albion get Robson-Kanu suspended for both legs of semi, Gayle is then also suspended for the second leg, so two key strikers down and then lose Brunt on the night too when they appeared to have the upper hand - stunted their forward approach, left them holding out for penalties, and losing a shootout in which all three could well have featured if on the pitch.
Leeds lose Bamford for first leg, and get a defender sent off last night prior to Derby snatching a winner.
We now just await to see how significant the suspension picked up last night for Malone will be to Derby....

 

[MarkG]

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.

I think that is why they have gone down the route of the charged bank account into which any player related money gets paid. The player ownership still belongs to the club, and Eales/Enco have no control over whether the club sells a player so presumably doesn't count as third party. However they are I presume allowed to set up this bank account into which transfers and sell-ons get paid, and have first dibs to repay Ensco debt up to certain amounts and by stated dates.

 

[MarkG]

I don't think there ever have been enough KNOWN transfer instalments to clear the loan notes Mark, hence the last payment of £1m (now increased due to interest) shown in Creditors: amounts due after more than one year.

I think it's Eales' way of giving Tiger time to find the extra £1m whether it's from his, or others, pockets or whether it's from future (unknown at the time) transfers or performance payments.

Looking at the transfer history.
Roofe and O'Dowda sold July 2016.
Sartori takover rumours started March 2017 and bid called off June 2017 when Tiger's higher bid came in.
Summer 2017, Lundstram and Johnson sold for some £3.5million.
Ensco dreamt up the loan notes as a way of deferring payment in respect of known transfer instalments coming in (and potential future ones) as part of a squad valuation.
Tiger takeover finally happened Feb 2018.
Summer 2018, Ledson, Hemmings, Carroll all sold. Nelson ended up running down his contract, rather than the club cashing in.

 

[Gary Baldi]

Looking at the transfer history.
Roofe and O'Dowda sold July 2016.
Sartori takover rumours started March 2017 and bid called off June 2017 when Tiger's higher bid came in.
Summer 2017, Lundstram and Johnson sold for some £3.5million.
Ensco dreamt up the loan notes as a way of deferring payment in respect of known transfer instalments coming in (and potential future ones) as part of a squad valuation.
Tiger takeover finally happened Feb 2018.
Summer 2018, Ledson, Hemmings, Carroll all sold. Nelson ended up running down his contract, rather than the club cashing in.

Plus Rothwell moved for some money too.

 

[Paul Cannell]

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.

M'yep. We agree, the Roofe money could have been part of the total sum, it could not have been extra.

 

[Colin B]

Looking at the transfer history.
Roofe and O'Dowda sold July 2016.
Sartori takover rumours started March 2017 and bid called off June 2017 when Tiger's higher bid came in.
Summer 2017, Lundstram and Johnson sold for some £3.5million.
Ensco dreamt up the loan notes as a way of deferring payment in respect of known transfer instalments coming in (and potential future ones) as part of a squad valuation.
Tiger takeover finally happened Feb 2018.
Summer 2018, Ledson, Hemmings, Carroll all sold. Nelson ended up running down his contract, rather than the club cashing in.

And I'd say that those three plus Rothwell would equate to roughly the extra £1m that would be needed to cover the charge.

2019 accounts will be interesting, although we've a while to wait for those!