[CONFIRMED] Richarlison Sell-on Clause?

Agreed, but it's not going to change their views on themselves though is it?

 

In fairness, has anyone posted a link saying there actually is a sell on clause?

 

Not that I've seen. Similarly, haven't seen a link saying that there isn't one!

I don't think anyone knows for certain either way.

 

I'm sure I read on social media that there was one.

 

Then it must be true!!

 

Though @toffeeblue9 says certain Everton "journalists" claim there isn't one.

 

Not recently. It was around the time there was supposed Barcelona interest in him. Paddy Boyland, Everton reporter on the Athletic, talked about it on a podcast at the time.

 

Only one thing for it... fire up the Leventhal!

 

Why do we talk about a sell-on clause with Richy here - has it ever been reported by anyone that there was one included?

I’m not reading all 5 pages, but going back to the very start of this thread, it seems like wild conjecture based on literally nothing other than supposed theoretical Pozzo precedent.

 

Seems like everyone is forgetting the simple fact that Gino and Scott do business properly, and with this in mind, there is simply NO way they’d have missed out on this potential windfall.

Rest easy Hornets, Gino and Scott got this.

 

Or, indeed, Gott this

 

Gott Fuxbury.

Could be the greatest Pro Evo name in history.

 

It really baffles me that there is such a huge amount of money being talked about for Richarlison. I just don't see the hype about him.

 

He’s been pretty important for Everton recently, but then there hasn’t been a lot of competition.

 

I think the hype is just about right, strikers who can consistently get you double figures, especially if they have time on their side and play for crap teams, will go for £50m these days

 

Fwiw, there's been a backtrack on the sell on clause stuff today

https://twitter.com/ElBobble/status/1536358510979604480?t=0ujYDt4ZLalPQDSalDkd5w&s=19

This guy is almost never wrong, so I believe it

 

Double figures! You’re right of course, but years ago the best strikers (not just phenomenons like Messi/Ronaldo) would aim for 30 goals a season. However back then they would play every game (42).

 

If he goes for 60m, we could buy 2 strikers for £2m.

 

Good lorkins!

Mogi will be eating well tonight!

 

That can't be right, someone was on here earlier confidently telling us that there was no such clause.

 

My account was hacked

 

fair play for coming back with the update…others wouldn’t.

 

He has never got double figures consistently in the premier league. He has however played all his premier league games in sub 16 finish teams. At a better team like Leicester or Spurs he may deliver more than that.

 

Double figures in 3 of his last 4 PL seasons. 7 in the other.

 

48 goals in five seasons. He is no Son Heung Min 75 goals in last five. Even Lacazette who Arsenal allowed to run down his contract and leave on a free has scored more at 54 goals in last five seasons.

Richarlison is a good player in poor teams, but he is not an elite player. He is on par with Deeney on goals scored in the Premier League.

 

You're arguing with an imaginary person. No one has said he's an elite player.

 

Maybe, but he only managed 10 goals last season. That hardly screams Champions League player to me.
Anyway Everton would be wise to sell him even if they do not get their asking price. We all know he is happy to completely down tools if he doesn't get his own way.

 

Bit of a penalty merchant too.

 

True, but a £50 million fee is comparable to top fees. I think the Haaland fee and Nunez fees are something like that figure. Anyway it’s all rather pointless from our point of view as he is not our player. Somehow I suspect we will only find out if there is a further transfer payment due to us when he leaves Everton, when they publish the accounts for this period in a couple of years time.

 

I didn't say it did

 

Nunez fee is £64mil up front with about £22mil in easy bonuses which should be hit within 2 seasons.

Haaland fee was only £51mil because of the release clause, with there being £34mil in agents' fees on top (and his salary is a hefty 400k per week).

I do agree with the general sentiment of not thinking Richarlison is especially great, and I was also surprised when Everton paid so much for him from us initially. A £50mil fee is still understandable given his age and being relatively PL proven, but only just.

The Nunez fee is a fair chunk higher than Richie's, which is understandable as he's a bit younger and has more upside potential I think; but there's also a fair element of risk considering the league he's coming from and there are times when his game still seems very raw.

The Haaland fee, with the large agent fees, is also a fair chunk higher than Richie's - albeit it still seems under market value considering he's basically the top prospect in world football, but that's due to the unusual circumstances of him having the release clause. His wage will be waaay more expensive than Richie's on top of that fee though.

 

Looking forward to seeing Haaland at City. He was again unplayable most of the time against Sweden. His all round game has definitely improved since being at Dortmund. He still needs to improve his buildup play though. But as for finishing it doesn't get much better.

 

I wasn't accusing, my point was in the wider context.

 

This of course needs to take into account Danny Rose agreeing to that - which I’m not convinced he would. His last seasons at Spurs tells you all you need to know about that type of move.