dennyc

And maybe Celtic went the extra million on the basis of no sell on. It was a huge leap from £2m to £3m. Money up front and all that in a once and for all settlement? Or maybe Alan Burrows is just a great negotiator. I do agree we should insist on such a clause but unless the Club confirm it in some way then the doubt exists. Even a bland statement as has been done in the past ......” Protecting our future interests” . Weeyin, would the lack of a sell on clause change your view about how good a deal has been agreed? As a comparison ....Aberdeen got £440k for Gary Fraser joining Bournemouth. Talk of them getting an additional £6m if he goes to Arsenal for £30m. Even half that sum nets them £3m. That’s why I think the sell on is almost as vital as the original fee. My opinion only, But just watch Celtic sell Turnbull for a massive profit in 3 years. That’s their operating model. I wonder how much Dundee Utd received when Armstrong joined Southampton ? I hope I am wrong though.

The Scottish transfer window only opened on June 11. So Rangers have had a week to register Hastie assuming his contract with us has expired. Registration requires some sort of payment to us......either any fee agreed between the Cubs or 50% of any offer refused. If Rangers want to play Hastie in their Europa games or even loan him out then they will need to set the ball rolling fairly soon. But it’s in their hands. Not sure if they can play him as A Trialist in pre season friendlies. I did hear Gerrard wanted to have a good look at him before deciding whether to loan him out. Although they do look to be after yet another wide player. They are fairly active in the transfer/ loan market at the moment so I don’t think we will have to wait too long. I think both Clubs would prefer to agree terms so hopefully we will not have to suffer the lottery of a Scottish Transfer Tribunal.

The only doubt is that Celtic don’t usually include them as part of any deal with Scottish clubs. In that way they maximise their profit when they cash in. I don’t recall Burrows or anyone from within MFC confirming a sell-on clause in any statement or on Twitter. Normally he is shouting it from the rooftops. As in the Johnson deal you highlight. And the question has been asked. All speculation of course but I’ll believe the existence of such an arrangement when Motherwell announce it formally.

Wonderful though it would be to rebuild completely several areas of Fir Park, I guess we would have to sell another dozen or so David Turnbulls to be able to afford that. I think the best we can hope for is more patching up although maybe to a better standard if we do coin it it from transfers. Don’t forget the relaying of the pitch annually will also cost a fair sum. Nice to dream though.

MFC already declared that it would take an offer significantly above our current record to buy DT, so its a simple answer “No thanks”. Until his contract has run down a bit we are in the driving seat. “Meet our valuation or go away.” Unless we are desperate for the cash that is ....which we shouldn’t be. Also David has earned the right to make his own decision if the valuation (or agreed figure) is met after he signed on in January. Isn’t it strange how most of the media and long forgotten players with Celtic connections are slamming Turnbull’s agent and telling David to grab the offer quickly. Also that it was not David’s decision ...so that if he does sign their deluded fans might not give him a hard time. Celtic’s PR machine is very good but very obvious. In fact blatant.

I note you picked out the only negative bit in the post. All in all, the right player on loan at the right time will be of benefit to any Club.

I think that if you can bring in the right player on loan , then he can also develop our own young players. Not only on the pitch but also in things such as attitude, what the football world is all about including the pitfalls to avoid. The only bit that irks me is that a loanee is not allowed to feature against his parent club per Scottish rules. So you could have an essential part of your team missing a really important match. In some other countries whether he can play or not is left up to the clubs. Anybody who improves Motherwell is welcome in my eyes.....well almost anybody but certainly Morgan and the other Celtic players mentioned.

Good money. But the rumour is McGinn went to Villa for £28k a week. A bit more advanced in his career admittedly but shows what can be achieved. And guess who missed out there! If Turnbull’s Agent can get strong interest from Championship or Premier League Clubs there is no reason David cannot get more than Celtic are offering. I do get the feeling with David though that money is not everything. He is looking for the right fit for his ambitions. If he is strong he can get both

I actually meant negotiation wise. Of course Alan Burrows should not have been open about the plans for spending the cash. I do thinkhowever he only did that to try and justify the sale and appease fans like us.

Put simply nobody has done anything wrong. Motherwell agreed whatever terms with Celtic. David said “No thanks I think I can do better”. He might still end up there if those terms are improved but the seethe at present is marvellous. Celtic always try it on so this might not be the end of it. The Club have their valuation and if somebody else meets that valuation then he can speak to them. If nobody meets that valuation, then he stays. David did his bit for us by signing a new contract, perhaps against his Agent’s wishes. Think Hastie. He owes us no more. No way should anybody at Motherwell, fan or Official, give him a hard time for now looking after his own best interests. I would be disgusted if anybody tried to force him out the door to a Club offering him terms he was not happy with. Even for £3m. I do think his Agent must have spoken to other Clubs and all this publicity regarding the Celtic offer can only help. In any case, when he eventually does go the overall package to Motherwell might be better long term even if the initial fee is under £3m. Not that I’m suggesting it but £2.5m plus a 20% sell on will bring in far more long than £3.25m that has been quoted for the Celtic offer. Now, who is taking donations for that statue.

That is the concern I have. Could we really turn down a bid of £3m from anybody? No, even from Celtic. But in David’s case a sell on clause could well net us the same amount again in a few year’s time. And selling on at a vast profit is the way Celtic operate. VVD, Armstrong and soon to be Ntcham and Mcgregor as examples. And they rake it in as well through their own sell on clauses... again VVD and soon to be Dembele as examples. But Celtic also have a policy of refusing sell-on clauses when they buy from the Scottish market. Given that both Alan Burrows and Andrew Wilson ( who chipped in with his reasons why it was a great deal) actively respond to questions via Twitterland I contacted both with the question “ Is there a sell on clause? Never mind %, just a straight yes or no”. Despite them answering other questions before and after mine, I have had no response. The silence is deafening and I fear Celtic may well have stuck to their Policy. But I just don’t know for sure. In the past any transfer , particularly unpopular ones, has been accompanied by a Club Statement along the lines of “ We have ensured the Club is protected in the event of ??? being sold on”. Maybe I have missed it, but in all the Club comments regarding this potential sale I have seen no such reassurance. Even though Terms have been fully agreed. I believe it is a legitimate question to pose. To clarify, I think the Club acted correctly in accepting a negotiated fee of £3m, but it does hurt that he will likely be heading to Celtic. He has been a delight to watch and I wish him well in his future career, which will undoubtedly include Scotland and an EPL Club. I just hope we are not selling ourselves short when he moves on from Celtic. If a decent sell on clause is included, then I think a good deal turns into a great deal.

Oh, I think they have confirmed quite a lot.......Deal or no deal They have confirmed that Celtic met the Club's valuation. They have confirmed they have given Turnbull permission to speak to Celtic. They have confirmed they turned down unacceptable offers of around £2m. They have confirmed "achievable" add ons totalling £250k. They have confirmed that the sale is with a view to securing a future without debt . They have confirmed funds will be utilised to create a stronger base for development under fan ownership. . Confirmation that the deal would also provide additional income if Celtic cash in would not be amiss. And if it is all just about geeing up other interested parties, then suggesting add ons including a sell on clause had been agreed with Celtic would be a good move.

Thanks Superward. A good sell on % could make a decent deal exceptional and make a transfer to Celtic a bit more palatable. It would be nice to hear confirmation officially though, rather than via media outlets which speculate almost as much as folk on football forums.. I'm certain the Club have confirmed sell on clauses being part of other recent transfers even if they do not quote % level.. And unlike the initial fee paid that is something that will not be confirmed in our next set of Annual Accounts. My concern is that Celtic are often reported as unwilling to include such agreements in purchases from Scottish teams. Different story when they are selling of course. I have no doubt they will move him on in a few years for a massive profit. Just like they are about to do with NtCham and McGregor. That's their operating model. Same as us but on a bigger scale.

Can someone just clarify once and for all whether the proposed deal includes a sell on %? To me that is almost as critical as the fee agreed. Seems to be mixed info out there. Celtic have benefited massively from such agreements so I see no reason why we should not have insisted on the same type of protective arrangement.

£3m is a decent price for a player who could quite easily have done a "Hastie" resulting in us getting much less via a Tribunal/Development Fee. Credit to Turnbull for that. Gutted its Celtic , but it sounds like we have been negotiating with various clubs for weeks and this is the highest offer. My worry is that Sky are quoting add ons totalling only £250k. And no mention at all of a sell on % which is even more concerning . Like us, Celtic have a strategy of buying low and selling high, just on a bigger scale. So lets hope that when they cash in we get a nice wee pay off. To me that is the issue that needs clarified as Celtic are usually resistant to such an arrangement. If we have no sell on Agreement, I would not rate the agreed package as a good deal