The mancityfans.net football forum

Chelsea must pay Manchester City up to £6.5m for Daniel Sturridge

• Chelsea to pay minimum of £3.5m for 20-year-old striker
• City had asked for £9m, Chelsea wanted Sturridge for £3m


Chelsea were today ordered by a Premier League tribunal to pay Manchester City £3.5m, rising to a possible £6.5m, for the striker Daniel Sturridge.

Chelsea signed Sturridge last summer after his contract at Eastlands expired and had hoped to pay a maximum of £3m for him. But City, who were seeking up to £9m compensation for bringing him through the ranks, were awarded considerably more.

The initial £3.5m will be topped up based on Sturridge's appearances for Chelsea and the senior England team.

Link http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010 ... ester-city

Could have been worse, but could also have been a lot better. The £3.5m base payment is a bit low imho, would have been fairer if it was £6.5m not linked to appearances.

As a tribunal fee it is probably quite high. This is a payment for our development of the player not a valuation of his transfer value, which was nil because his contract had expired.

Basing the fee on appearances for Chelsea and England shows what a sham the whole thing is though. His appearances don't have any influence on what it cost City to develop Daniel Sturridge. The fact that the fee is linked to appearances makes it look just like a transfer fee.

What a crock of shite.

How much did Villa buy Delph for?

He only has to make 40 first team appearances (not starts appearances and in any comp not just prem) for us to get 5.5m, that will rise another mill if he plays for England just once and we also get 15% of any sell on fee so could rise higher.

If hes a good enough player.We will be paid the full amount.Only time will tell.
IMO he is a good player but moved to the wrong team.He would have beeen better off at a club like Fulham or Sunderland where he would get more game time and chance to develop.

But the thing is the initial 3 million is what Chelsea originally wanted to pay so they got what they wanted. I still love this as they will not want to play him now though unless they have to and that's gonna lower his chances massively.

how much do we have to pay Coventry?

Socrates wrote:He only has to make 40 first team appearances (not starts appearances and in any comp not just prem) for us to get 5.5m.

Is that from now, or including games already played? (not that it matters much)

Quite surprised about this. Thought it would be far, far less (about £3mill, rising to £4.5ish).

How much does it cost to run our academy per year? I had a feeling it was under £2 million, in which case this has paid for approximately the whole academy's operating costs during the time he was with us.

I think on balance it is a good deal for us and Chelski can afford to play him.
Was it Joe Royle who had to put Terry Cooke on ice rather than reach a payment threshold because a decision was taken it was time for him to go?

Vhero wrote:I still love this as they will not want to play him now though unless they have to and that's gonna lower his chances massively.

The extra £2 million over 4 years pales in comparison to the wages wasted by not playing him. You're talking 10 appearances per season, which is hardly a lot considering a Champions' League club's fixture list.

Vhero wrote:But the thing is the initial 3 million is what Chelsea originally wanted to pay so they got what they wanted. I still love this as they will not want to play him now though unless they have to and that's gonna lower his chances massively.

He is years from an England cap, and Chelsea WILL strengthen in that area in the summer - so more likely to rot in the reserves or go out on loan. Until he fulfils his potential he is not worth £6.5m and not worthy of a place in the Chelsea line up. "Not wanting" to play him will not come into the equation, he isnt good enough right now.

If he does fulfil his potential, we get paid upto £6.5m for the work we did over 2/3 years, Chelsea invest in training him to try to get to the next level and they ultimately will also reap the benefits of the development THEY put into the player in the latter stages of his formative years IF, and its a big if, he makes the grade.

I think its a fair deal all round

kids a tit i hope he rots on the bench the ungrateful shit, then gets passed onto bolton/wigan/fulham so he can atleast get to play against us when were winning prem after prem and realise what a massive cocking mistake he made

Great result! I expected £3mil tops, all included

It's what you call 'Cheap at Half the Price'!

I'm happy with this.
He was an ass Sturridge.
Big headed homo imo.

paulmclaren wrote:I'm happy with this.
He was an ass Sturridge.
Big headed homo imo.

Agreed, saw him yesterday in Weybridge high street... My god he thinks hes the greatest (never mind footballer) thing the planet has ever produced!! Looked an absolute arrogant twat. And did his best to make sure he was noticed!!

Thats the poll thread..This is the outcome of the tribunal thread...A fair few peeps guessed the fee right though

shawzy wrote:Thats the poll thread..This is the outcome of the tribunal thread...A fair few peeps guessed the fee right though

splitting hairs?