Sam Cosgrove Signs

BlueBanana wrote: Did we have a sell on for Cosgrove?

Lummy was saying on the radio that the sell on is a 'substantial' one pal so the way Cosgrove is playing then we could be set for a large sum.

munchymagic wrote:

BlueBanana wrote: Did we have a sell on for Cosgrove?

Lummy was saying on the radio that the sell on is a 'substantial' one pal so the way Cosgrove is playing then we could be set for a large sum.

Munchy is the 30% mentioned on the other thread right or just a guess, seems a very good sell on if true?

BlueBanana wrote:

munchymagic wrote:

BlueBanana wrote: Did we have a sell on for Cosgrove?

Lummy was saying on the radio that the sell on is a 'substantial' one pal so the way Cosgrove is playing then we could be set for a large sum.

Munchy is the 30% mentioned on the other thread right or just a guess, seems a very good sell on if true?

Just guessing pal, 30% to be honest I would call substantial but it could be even higher as I bet Aberdeen didn't expect him to be as prolific and they hardly paid the world for him so should have worked in our favour.

Lummy will have a better idea but I would imagine it is around that.

OK, pal thanks. I really can't see it being as much as 30%. IMO Aberdeen would be mad to let us have that amount. Would think more like 15/20% and i think that is fairly substantial, considering they would have got him for nothing 5 months later. I maybe very wrong tho

BlueBanana wrote: OK, pal thanks. I really can't see it being as much as 30%. IMO Aberdeen would be mad to let us have that amount. Would think more like 15/20% and i think that is fairly substantial, considering they would have got him for nothing 5 months later. I maybe very wrong tho

Still circa 400k would not to be sniffed at, especially if we get it in January of course - I am hoping for a Cosgrove bidding war then who knows how much we could get

whatever the fee the club get from Cosgrove transferring anywhere, you can be assured any money owed to the club, the current transfer policy will continue. nothing will change!

The word from the cub was that it was a good sell on fee when he left.

At a pessimistic lower end guess that would give us 400-600k.

paddockite wrote:

BBC Cumbria Sport @bbccumbriasport

Stoke City have been told by Aberdeen they will need to pay £4m to sign former Carlisle striker Sam Cosgrove. It’s… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

01 Dec 2025 09:35

0 Retweets 12 favorites

• Reply
• Retweet
• Favorite

Well if there's a club whos owners can actually afford to pay it and are probably mad enough to its Stokes so that's got to be good news.

bbc reporting that Stoke are after Cosgrove (denied by Aberdeen manager Derek McInnes) with a fee of 4 million allegedly reported.
By the look of it McInnes is stating that players dont need to be sold ( unless they meet the clubs valuation)
No wonder non of our board want to step down with all this speculation of our young players and Cosgrove.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

£4m doesn't sound much for Cosgrove. Couldn't get a game under Curle

Apologies, i hadn't noticed the other posts

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Isn't standard a 20% of the profit from the sell on?

As we sold him for next to nothing 20 or 40k that's a profit of £3,960,000 giving us £792,000.

Urban Designer wrote: Isn't standard a 20% of the profit from the sell on?

As we sold him for next to nothing 20 or 40k that's a profit of £3,960.000 giving us £792,0000.

Could be neigh on the same profit from selling Branthwaite if that is the case.

We should be doing this with Branthwaite - Aberdeen have stated that Cosgrove is going nowhere for less than 4m therefore meet it, better it or bugger off.

We should start the bidding with Branthwaite at 1.5m, make it public and see where it goes, that is peanuts for such potential.

Urban Designer wrote: Isn't standard a 20% of the profit from the sell on?

As we sold him for next to nothing 20 or 40k that's a profit of £3,960.000 giving us £792,0000.

Better than a kick in the testicles.

Don’t think there is a standard. TBF whatever % the club negotiated is good considering if Aberdeen had waited til the end of the season they wouldn’t have had to give us anything.

Lummy described the sell on as "eye watering"

I’ve heard it’s more like 40%, good work by somebody if true.

stu wrote: Lummy described the sell on as "eye watering"

Did I? Not sure I have used that phrase before, but hey I might have.

The message passed to Radio Cumbria was bigger than your average sell on, lets just hope its true.

Could a larger sell on % almost work as a disadvantage because it is distorting his market value?

Aberdeen won't sell him unless they get the return themselves that they think is worthwhile for them. If they think he's worth £4m to them and we've got a 40% sell on they'd be daft to accept a £4m offer because they'll be getting nowhere near that.

That might make his price too high for any potential buyers.

Even at 40% Aberdeen would bite anybody's hand off for £2.4m profit.

Chances are it would be paid in instalments anyway so unlikely to be a big immediate amount.

Yes Lummy, pre match on BBCRC a few months a go. If I am wrong i apologise. Would you say that the sell on clause is substantial?

Until he is sold, our sell-on is zilch

Though if he is, it will show Keith Curle's player dealings made a substantial profit well done Keith!

I know I did say it was big, it was just the "eye watering" phrase

Around Melbournes's figure.

This really would be a footballing windfall if he signs for somebody for the amounts mentioned,
Signed for us we can hardly say we developed him the lad hardly played for us in and out team mostly out and then this like winning lottery

Apart from Hill, I’d say Cosgrove was our best player and he hardly played - in the last 5-7 years. Says more though about the rest that have played.

40% is a good sell on.

Don't talk bollocks, Mullen.

Just as big a question as the sum of money is what clibbins does with the money. If he's projecting transfer income of £4m does he see that as covering losses for 10 years or will he release some of the funds for the first team? Cosgrove could go for £50m, not much use if we have to sit through many games like Cambridge.

Maybe a question for the fans forum? Will some of the transfer income be used for player acquisitions?

I would rather the money be used to pay off EWM and enable new owners to come in and tell the 3 old men to piss off.

The Aberdeen manager expects him to stay until the end of the season

CCU wrote:

orfc wrote: Until he is sold, our sell-on is zilch

Though if he is, it will show Keith Curle's player dealings made a substantial profit well done Keith!

I think it was NC who concluded the small print...

Aye but it was Keith who spotted his potential and signed him.

nobbyblue wrote:

CCU wrote:

orfc wrote: Until he is sold, our sell-on is zilch

Though if he is, it will show Keith Curle's player dealings made a substantial profit well done Keith!

I think it was NC who concluded the small print...

Aye but it was Keith who spotted his potential and signed him.

Nah it was Dykes. Keith then didn’t deem him good enough until his hand was forced

I remember watching Cosgrove come on as a sub against Fleetwood early season, he looked dreadful, worse than Mark Beck. Good luck to the lad, would never have predicted him going on to play at a higher level.

I thought Mark Beck was OK!

Markovitch wrote: £4m doesn't sound much for Cosgrove. Couldn't get a game under Curle

Im almost certain Cosgrove couldn't get a game due to the potential embarrassment for Curle after forking out £50,000 for Bennett. in the couple of games I seen Cosgrove play, he looked a better player than Bennett will ever be, but that isn't to hard to achieve I reckon.

I saw him play a couple of games in the checkatrade, and he looked the a shot in the first team. Unlike Nabi who was shocking.

sirjimmyglass wrote: Don't talk bollocks, Mullen.

I'm honestly not - he was the only player I see that had something about them, that could play at a higher level and score goals. I got stick about it then, when every man & his dog said he'd do nowt and Stockton would be a better player.

I'd maybe add O'hare, he was on loan though, but there's not many we have had recently that you can honestly say can play at a higher level.

Well watching Sportscene most weeks despite his goal record he doesn't look like a player who could cut it at Tier 2 level in this country. Still looks very awkward and that he couldn't trap a bag of cement. It's more of a sign of Scottish football that he has a decent record up there but if we were to get a nice cut from a deal it would be most welcome.

bluestblue wrote: Chances are it would be paid in instalments anyway so unlikely to be a big immediate amount.

Actually that's not true now most of the PL clubs pay off that sort of amount in one go using the ability to do so to reduce the fee ie 5m over 5 years or 4.5m and you can have the cheque now. And what's more, I believe they have a way of making it look like it was 5m by donating the discount to one of the charities they have running their community activities.

I think Aberdeen v Rangers is on sky sports tonight.

I'd say Rangers are lower Championship level so I'll see how he gets on.

Gary Dicker was in the top 50 Scottish players in the Record at the weekend. I think that says it all!

Cosgrove was third best striker.

CCU wrote:

Urban Designer wrote: I'd say Rangers are lower Championship level so I'll see how he gets on.

How many lower Championship teams would be top of a Europa League Group containing Feyenoord and Porto with a game to go?!

Come on Dan you cant use stats like that when they dont suite the narrative.

Rangers lower championship standard?

Theyve been worse than that tonight!!!

Mullen103 wrote:

sirjimmyglass wrote: Don't talk bollocks, Mullen.

I'm honestly not - he was the only player I see that had something about them, that could play at a higher level and score goals. I got stick about it then, when every man & his dog said he'd do nowt and Stockton would be a better player.

I'd maybe add O'hare, he was on loan though, but there's not many we have had recently that you can honestly say can play at a higher level.

Say you thought he looked like a good player.
Say you thought he should have been given far more of a chance.
Say you thought he had potential to play at a higher level.

Any of those things are just about plausible, partly because I do remember you saying similar things at the time. I didn't agree with you then, not many people did but you did call it.

He made 3 league starts for us and scored once. So to say you thought he was one of our best players from the last 7 years makes you look a complete fool.