weeyin

No reason to think we don't have sell-ons as part of the deal. We've done well from them already with the likes of Marvin Johnson and it's a core part of our financial model these days.

Apparently, FIFA requires payment within 30 days of registration. However, remember Hastie only signed a pre-contract - he was still on our books until the end of May at least. He might not have signed a "proper" contract or been registered yet, so the 30 day clock doesn't start ticking until that point in time. I doubt we'll be making any announcement about it, though, when payment is received. Not usually our style.

The moment Celtic started leaking reports about the alleged stalemate in negotiations, it was pretty much a done deal. It's almost like a script they feel they need to follow: - Make a low offer - Selling club rejects it as "insulting" - Make a middling offer - Selling club rejects as "not even close to our valuation" - Make the proper offer - Selling club accepts it - Player offered terms - Player rejects terms - Signing club says "magnificent offer, will walk if he doesn't accept it" - Signing club quietly meets demands - Everything announced as "undisclosed terms"

Digging through the FIFA documentation it seems that the current payments for English teams are €90k for Cat 1 teams, €60k for Cat 2, €30k for Cat 3 and €10k for Cat 4. And it's up to each League to categorize their teams. Then it's multiplied by the number of years a player is with a club between the ages of 12 and 23. So a figure around €300k makes sense if Oxford have been put in the Category 3 band. For the interested reader, details on Training Compensation and Solidarity Payments are here and the FIFA categories are here. (No guarantees these are the most up to date details).

In Hastie's case, the club wants the full value of the tribunal formula. In Cadden's case - if true - they may see more value in a sell-on, extras for number of appearances, international caps or whatever factors into the contracts these days.

I stumbled across a tweet from a Celtic fan a few days ago that said it was unheard of for Celtic to meet another club's asking price and that could only mean when Turnbull and his agent turned up in Lawwell's office they'd be offered £20 quid a week.

No, but it's all about information and contacts. We don't operate in isolation and neither do they. So when Turnbull moves on to, say, Celtic, and Man City are keeping tabs in him, they will keep in contact with people who watch him regularly to get updates. That might be someone at our club that can give them updates or their might be someone at Celtic. Or, it might be both. If we can assist Turnbull's career to progress with updates to EPL teams that might want to buy him in the future, it's worth our while (assuming there are sell ons there that will benefit us).

Or they are monitoring his development and might be more interested in him 3 or 4 years from now. Well funded EPL sides play a long game that we can only dream about.

I certainly wouldn't be surprised if a number of English teams were keeping tabs on the top rated Scottish prospects. It doesn't mean they will be signing them any time soon, but they'd be failing in their scouting set ups if they weren't monitoring all the young talent across Europe. The fact that guys like McGinn and Roberston have made an impact recently has certainly done our game no harm. The Celtic negotation statements are pretty standard negotiation BS, though, and I wouldn't read any more into that than into Sevco's "no longer interested in Hastie" statements.

Only to a different part of the same business. Never heard of an employee being loaned out a competitor for training (at the competitor's expense) and bringing them back in house a year later.

What's weird about it? We're paying a salary to a competitor's employee so we can develop them (on the cheap) for the competitor. And not only do we not get the benefit of playing the loanee against their employer, but we fill a spot in the first team that could have been used to develop one (or more) of our own players; which is a longer term benefit to the club. I can't think of any other business that operates that way.

That would be a terrible idea. Personally not even a fan of being able to loan players to teams in the same division - but would hate to be developing a youngster for the benefit of another team in the Premiership.

No idea. However I'll get my "don't like the collar, but I don't buy them anyway" comment in now to save time.

Then obviously it's a different scenario. Everything Turnbull said last season, however, suggested he is more than happy to play out another season at Fir Park getting regular first team football.

If we didn't sell Turnubll this summer, we'd be just fine financially. (And it's not like we'd get no money for Turnbull in 12 months time). We just need to be careful we don't end up with a model that ships players out after a few games (or no games in some cases) rather than actually provide some benefit to the first team squad. This feels like we're tipping the balance too much to the cashing in side of our business plan. Of course we are a selling club - but the "grow your own" model is supposed to provide the core of our team too. If Cadden moves on in the summer, Campbell is the only regular starter left who came through the system. We might see Maguire, Scott, Semple, Cornelius etc. involved next season, but there needs to be a balance between on the field needs vs off the field finances.

Who's all going to the AGM then?

There was no need to sell him at all this summer. We don't need the money - we do need the entertainment value.

For the rest of his career now he will be referred to in the media as "Celtic's David Turnbull" - followed by "ex-Celt David Turnbull" Personally, I'd have preferred that we kept him for another season (where maybe he helped us to a top 6 spot) and then sold him. Even if we got less for him (and that is debatable if he had kept improving at his current rate), that would would been of more value to the fans that stump up at the turnstiles every week. If we're going to start punting every good youngster before they have played a full season for us, then I can see a few fans walking away.

Could maybe add some minimum criteria for the first round. Cup winners, league winners, number of appearances or similar.

Just after he signed, I saw a Rangers fan predict he'd be loaned out for 18 months before being punted to a League One side. (Not because he was useless - just because that is typically the way Rangers treat the youngsters they sign).

Remember when you used to post on here about how useless Higdon was?

The email about double your money deadlines was sent from The Well Society address earlier in the month. The one from Craig Hughes was more of a personalised end-of-year statement telling you what you had contributed, and how they had been using the funds. The mention of the double-your-money was just a final reminder in case you had intended to throw a few extra quid their way, but hadn't got around to it.

I'm pretty sure if there were any top performing, higher level strikers who wanted to play at Fir Park and that we could afford, Robinson would snap them up. Development fees for youngsters and non-league teams that can offer more money to older players, make that more and more difficult.

The transfer window doesn't close until Sep 2nd - so plenty of time for other business. We won't be signing top-level, on-form strikers any time soon, though,

The more I read this thread the more I feel like I'm the only one who wants Turnbull to stay for another season. We're a fan owned club - we aim to break even and put some entertainment on the park. While I support our business model, I might be reconsidering it if it means we sell all our best players before we get a full season out of them. There has to be a balance here. Keeping Turnbull for another season might decrease his value next summer. If he improves again, it might increase his value. If all we want to do is grab cash as soon as we get a whiff of it, we could sell Fir Park for flats and groundshare with Accies.