Surely he's on a relegation wage cut or some kind of 'chubby' release clause for breaking the Mick Quinn obesity index?
And confirmation from the Watford end... https://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/s...king-left-watford-richarlison-sell-on-clause/
The WO article posted 22 mins ago says "The Hornets would be entitled to 10 per cent of anything above the £40m they received from the Toffees in July 2018", so only on the profit, not 10% of the fee.
That is the normal sell on fee a percentage of the profit the club gets, NOT a percentage of the whole amount they sell the player for. EG If it was £40m that we sold Richarlison to Everton for and they sell him on for £50m then we would we would get a £1m sell on fee.
As I understand it that means we'd get 10% of the profit from the fee, not from the total fee. Hope that clears that up
Why is anyone bothered about the sell on clause. We got £15 million too much for him in the first place.
It’s the whole fee divided by the square root of the profit, times the number of season tickets sold.
Anyone got an idea as to how a sell on clause would work if there was a player exchange involved to? According to reports, Spurs are interested in signing Pervis Estupinan but are offering Lo Celso as part of the deal. Don't even know if we have a clause but presumably it would only work on a cash basis rather than including the value of any exchanged players?
I don’t know exactly how the details of add-ons are disclosed between clubs, but if we have a 10% profit sell-on clause, that applies to all future profit. That prevents the workaround of selling for £1 - giving us nothing - with £50m extra based on turning up to training once. It also means that if he goes to Spurs for £50m and Everton have a 10% profit sell-on of their own, then we are entitled to 10% of what they receive - or effectively 1% of the profit made on his next move.
They're disclosed to the FA, PL/EFL and if it's an international transfer to FIFA too. Even the most secret squirrel undisclosed transfer fee is known in full to the various authorities and they can enforce them if there's a complaint.
Except there are some on here who are adamant that we somehow keep our dealings with Udinese beyond the realms of the authorities.
I’ve been told with great authority that we don’t have a sell on fee by someone from the very reputable club Everton, so I refuse to believe it.
So we all agree that we have a sell-on clause whereby we have to pay Everton 10% of any fee they receive for Richarlison so long as the buying club is not based in Argentina or begins with the letter 'V'? Glad that's all sorted.
Or that even when a fee is disclosed in the accounts, money doesn't move from Watford to Udinese (and vice versa), even though that would mean the accounts wouldn't balance.
Point is we buy Pusetto. He is disclosed af £8m in accounts. He is capitalised at £8m. So even if terms are we pay in 10 years then we owe that money in the balance sheet. When he depreciates we lose money in our P&L each year from an accounting viewpoint.
Yes any player we buy is written off though the P&L account over the length of their contract. I was just responding to the accounts not balancing point.
The point someone made that Pussetto was just a gift even after being disclosed in the accounts isn’t possible because he will depreciate and we will have a debt. But thanks for piping up on my poorly worded explanation. People say the most idiotic things on Twitter but I’ll always remember to make my posts more accurate in future!
