Brentford have requested that the Premier League investigate the transfer of former defender Michael Turner from Hull to Sunderland.
There has been some confusion over the exact fee paid by Sunderland to Hull for Turner this summer and a result the percentage in sell-on fees owed to former clubs Brentford and Charlton.
"We have previously written to the Football League requesting that they ask the Premier League to carry out a review of the transfer fee following the transfer of Michael Turner from Hull to Sunderland," said Brentford director and acting CEO David Heath.
"Hull and Sunderland have to present to the Premier League Board at a board meeting on November 20."
Heath continued: "We have a disagreement with Charlton Athletic concerning the sell-on clause and a percentage of the sell-on fee in question is being held by the Football League.
"Both clubs have previously received their percentages of the sell-on fee that were not in dispute. Brentford FC have submitted their Statement of Claim to the Football League and the matter will be resolved at a Football Disciplinary Hearing during the week commencing November 30."
Comment 1 - 6 of 6
Apparently Bruce bought Turner for a Bargain Basement £4m with no 'add-on' clauses to increase the price later. This means that, under their agreement with other clubs, Hull get £2.8m. Any agreements made by Hull when they bought Turner are nothing to do with the Black Cats.
Apparently Bruce bought Turner for a Bargain Basement £4m with no 'add-on' clauses to increase the price later. This means that, under their agreement with other clubs, Hull get £2.8m. Any agreements made by Hull when they bought Turner are nothing to do with the Black ats.
If ANY parties are to be found guilty of dodgy dealings, and/or conspiracy then relegate them, at least TWO divisions!
well I guess sell-on clauses mean nothing if you are top of the tree..if that's the case why not do away with transfer fees altogether? why not? beause it compensates 'lower' clubs for the work they do in developing players and compensates them when, argueably, a bigger, or 'predatory' club lures away talent that might otherwise benefit the club in their cause, ie reaching a higher league. Sunderland have benefited from this in the past, and remember Mackems...Brentford knocked you out of the FA Cup a few seasons ago...and remember you haven't always been at the top table yourselves...sell-ons give a lot of clubs survival finances....football isn't all about the Premier League, and some clubs have abandoned reserve and youth development because, frankly, they can just look round and buy.
So?
Why should the Mackems have to "present at a meeting" Quinny should tell them to go and ferk themselves.We agreed a fee with Hull city which they found appropriate and acceptable at the time whatever the circumstances.We paid at the top of this alleged complexed chain an agreed fee with Hull, surely we should not have to explain diddly.The problem might well lie with Hull,Charlton and Brentford but we should not have to disclose anything.
It's rumored we did mug Hull on the price of MT because of their current circumstances, but I say this metaphorically, we did not physically drive down the A1M toting machine guns. Hull city's board are an approved "Fit an proper persons" has deemed by the FA Vetting committee, who approved the current set up two years ago.
"Quinny tell them ta garn ferk the-sells"
These sell on clauses are riddiulous and should be done away with by the FA.
Please login to post a comment
Not already a Yahoo! user ? Sign up to get a free Yahoo! Account