£130m for Hazard

i dont see the issue, theyve said the base price and informed you that they could get more if conditions are met, seems a trivial thing to moan about.
If youre complaining that people will then quote the max fee rather than the base fee then i don't disagree

adding wages into the fee is stupid, that can be listed separately

You wouldn't see the issue Adam.

You are one of the few I wouldn't expect to see it.

guess coutinho is a good example, everyone saying sold for 140, but it was more like 100(i think) with addons, some of which have already failed, one of which was them making the cl final this season, so thats 5mil off the potential max fee already

comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 2 minutes ago
You wouldn't see the issue Adam.

You are one of the few I wouldn't expect to see it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
because its a stupid 'issue' in the first place, imagine complaining that a journo informed you off the base fee and the potential max fee, go moan at the people who always quote the max rather than the base

or try to be insulting some more, up to you

not that you are the one who moaned about it

unless he was actually complaining that they only showed the max fee, in which case ill get my coat

Adam

It is the inconsistencies of fee reporting caused by the journo's. Guess work is taken out of it all when you get the base fee as a fact.

Then you wouldn't have people on web sites like this being ridiculous when quoting the fee of Coutinho for example as you highlighted yourself.

ahh right i get it, i was applying it to articles that actually provide clear information, rather than the majority that just omit information and go for the max fee for clicks

Adam

We certainly had yer pants down with Matic!