Fulham lose £500,000 as a result of beating QPR...?

[LondonFulhamWhite]

The Club must have a good working relationship with QPR or the use of the ground for two years would not have happened.  This is the sort of risk based clause that go in most transfer contracts because of the gambling driven society we now live in.

Jesus Christ, the world is always about to end with you/ everythings wrong...


These clauses are perfectly normal, and most relegation clubs put them in (probably on basis of we don't buy him, you aint gonna sell him for more than £4 million upfront). Still a good deal getting 4.5 (which was then reinvested straight into Berbatov)

Until my middle age gambling of any kind was seen a seedy activity done by seedy people, it was also in most forms illegal and by all the religions considered a sin.  The national lottery change attitudes in my view as newsagents became the purveyors of the poverty and pain gambling usually cause.

The advert where a very pikey type couple turn their living room into a casino really is the pits in trying to make it look like a normal activity.

You've just told me all I need to know about you.

[alexbishop]

well this topic has got weird...

[Forever Fulham]

I think the kicker is weird. We lose an extra half million Pounds in contingent bonus money if the team buying Zamora is relegated down?  Is the idea here that we have to have some skin in the game in the valuation we placed on the traded player, so much so that we in essence asserted at the time in negotiations that he would make the difference between relegation and staying up?  That's a sucker's play.  MAF should have never agreed to it.  Too many variable other than Bobby's play were bound to factor into the teams standing at the end of the season.  Or, perhaps management thought he was fairly valued for the guaranteed amount FFC was getting for the sale, and the contingency was just a side bet, or what in Texas they call a "Lucky Strike extra" .  Or lagniappe in Louisiana. The unexpected bonus?

[Rupert]

It is not saying we lose half a million if the dear neighbours get relegated, it is saying we gain half a million if they stay up, just so long as BZ is in their squad. They urgently needed a player, they paid us, arguably, over the odds, but they were so desperate to get some proven quality in their team that we were able to squeeze a survival bonus out of them on top. Perhaps we valued him at slightly more than they were willing to pay, and this was our way of topping up the price of a player who needed to move on.

Rather than see this as some sort of dodgy conspiracy, or whatever, I see it as some brilliant work by our sales team.

[cmg]

Yes, it's, probably a clever negotiating wrinkle, or a smart bit of bargaining. Despite the fact that it appears in a national newspaper there is, I suppose, a faint possibility it might even be true.

But imagine this theoritical, admitedly unlikely, scenerio. Last match of next season. We have sold Stockdale to Hull with a similar clause. We are safe in 9th whatever the result. We play Hull who need 3 points to survive. We then have a £500,000 (or whatever) interest in losing.
Does the League allow contracts which might create this sort of situation?

[God The Mechanic]

Is it not a bit weird that it applies this season?  Surely any relegation/survival clauses would have been for last season, unless they have added an almost continual clause in there.