Antmanbrooks Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 Masherano has a clause that if he's sold 80% of the transfer fee goes to a 3rd party. If you swap him for another player how would that work? Would the 3rd party now own 80% of the swapped player or would it just mean Liverpool pay £0 to the 3rd party as he's been swapped instead of sold? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOMAS1982 Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 Well I wouldn't of thought the game would be able to make it so the other player is owned by the 3rd party, so i would guess(guess being the main word) that they would just lose out on any fee. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashOverride Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 I believe this clause has been raised in the LFC data issues and MAY be getting removed in a future patch as its no longer accuarte!! Good reason to keep a great player at Liverppol if you ask me though :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kopitelewis Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 it is accurate. kia is sitll owed money for masch as he is tevez. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phnompenhandy Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 I thought it was SI's interpretation of the appalling dodgy 3rd party ownership issue that Mash, Tevez and West Ham are caught up in. IRL Man U have to pay 30M by the end of the season to this shady company to buy Tevez, and Liverpool's ownership of Mash is still questionable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smellfire Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 I think Tevez might go at the end of the season tbh because of this. Don't think he is worth £30m myself, hes good but not that good. Can get Owen whose only 29 and still a 1 in 2 striker for a lot less though dunno if he would go to man utd. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashOverride Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 Im not sure which "clause" this post refers to but I get the impression its the 80% one as you easily sort the release clause with a new contract http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=543 Plus a quick google search gives both: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article3285661.ece http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javier_Mascherano Which imply that he is now owned out right by Liverpool, I remeber it beeing one of the reasons we didnt have much money to spend this summer!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
postal postie Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 massch is owned outright by liberpoolk otherwise they wouldn't have paid 17+mill for him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawsie Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 who is liberpoolk? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheltenhams_biggest_fan Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 I thought Liverpool had to buy him outright last xmas/winter period or that Kia geezer was gonna flog him elsewhere....and thats partly why we had to fork out £17M and also why the premier league took ages to ratify the transfer Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukegjpotter Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 OK Technically MSI (Kia Jorbsian (SP)) is a club which doesn't compete in any league, which loans out players for a length of time with a future deal, (17M + 80% Sell on) these players are good and in high demand, so MSI can hold clubs at ransom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crafty bison Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 Joorabchian. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bored101 Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 i lept geting offers from real madrid for him and when they go up to 20 million its tempting but then you see that you only get 20% of the fee so would only get 4 million and a huge bit of that 4 million spread over 24 months...hmm not worth selling. and surly that cant be right that they would get 80% sell on fee if liverpool payed 17 million for him in the summer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashOverride Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 I think this issue may be getting looked in a future patch, although if it will be in this one or the inevitable february transfer up date Im not sure on!! if you read the link I posted earlier to the liverpool data issues it has been mentioned! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet-Zombie-Jesus Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 Liverpool own Mascherano but the Liverpool researcher forgot to remove the sell on clause from last year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negatrev Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 Liverpool own Mascherano but the Liverpool researcher forgot to remove the sell on clause from last year. Aye, I always check the DB for these things before starting a new game with a club. This was the first thing I removed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reflection22 Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 Mascherano is now fully owned by Liverpool after they paid £18million or something for him last January, so this shouldn't happen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kopsy101 Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 Mascherano is now fully owned by Liverpool after they paid £18million or something for him last January, so this shouldn't happen. correct... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antmanbrooks Posted December 15, 2008 Author Share Posted December 15, 2008 ...liberpoolk ... ROFL!!! Classic typo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.