I generally agree with you, but even coming from your imagination that range is absurd. He's a player Spurs are fine to sell; his price floor could maybe be as low as around the c.£11mil they received for Kyle Walker-Peters (they also received £13mil for Juan Foyth). Meanwhile the most they've ever received for a player was c. £46mil for a young Kyle Walker; but they sold a slightly older Trippier for £19mil. Everton meanwhile have signed players like Allan for c. £21mil and Iwobi for c. £27mil. I reckon a realistic range would be more like £15mil-£30mil. But to help you out, in response to @Arakel , it seems feasible that Everton value Richarlison at around say £55mil total. They also might internally value Winks at say £20mil. However, in making the deal maybe they'd claim to us and the FA that they're selling Richarlison for just £35mil cash + £11mil for Winks, citing the KWP fee (so £46mil total), as opposed to the deal actually being worth the £35mil cash + £20mil for Winks (so £55mil total) they perceive it as. Thus we'd only get small sell-on from the claimed £46mil deal value (getting 10% of £6mil), as opposed to the sell-on from a £55mil deal (10% of £15mil) which we should have had.
There is a global transfer market that has upper and lower values for expected ranges for players of specific ability, backgrounds and playing careers. Making comparisons is almost certainly a trivial matter for anyone involved in the industry. If a club is setting a value at the lower end of what would be an acceptable and realistic range then no one is saying there is a problem. It's the unrealistic ones that are being discussed. If the approx market range is X to X+10, then clubs recording it as X isn't an issue because that's within the justifiable range. No idea what the Premier League has to do with any of this, they're a complete irrelevance. If your argument is that a court (because that's where all this would play out) wouldn't be capable of looking at an individual player and weighing an approximation of their value versus established ranges observed elsewhere in the the global market then we're just not going to agree.
I’m agreeing there’s a range of values. I think there’s a very wide subjective range and it would be almost impossible for a court to conclude that 2 clubs had agreed an artificial value for a transaction they had both willingly undertaken if it fell within that huge range. You seem to think that the value of a player like Winks is effectively set within a very narrow range and that the courts would quickly get involved if the value fell outside that range. Clubs in fact have very little scope to agree a price, they should just look up the player’s set value on a table, akin to the glasses guide / cap guide for cars. I guess we’ll just have to disagree.
So if I've got this right, Richarlison goes for £40m plus Winks, then we take our sell on fee as a percentage of Winks? Hopefully not the left foot.
Don't believe I ever mentioned anything about appropriate size of a range, narrow or otherwise. What I said that that players have values and you can approximate a reasonable range for those values based on what similar players command as fees.
It’s the size of the range that can be ascribed that we disagree on. I believe there is more than enough width in that range for clubs to take advantage of for their own purposes such as in this situation. You don’t. Not sure there’s much more to say, we should just agree to disagree.
What the media have failed to mention is that this sort of deal would not be beneficial to Everton It's well-publicised that Everton have overspent and as a result need to make a big sale or two in order to bring us closer in line with the Premier League profit and sustainability rules (PL version of FFP), because we have sailed close to the wind on it. Depressing the value of the Richarlison sale, just to get out of a couple of million going to Watford, wouldn't be in our interests at all. We need to realise the biggest fee we can. At the moment, based on the assumption Everton paid £40m for Richarlison, his book value is somewhere in the region of £13m - anything we sell him for above that is profit on the accounts and we want to make as much as we possibly can as it gives us the financial wiggle room to spend in the market. If Everton sell him for £60m but have to pay Watford £2m of that, we book a £45m profit - that profit goes on the books in one lump sum for the accounting year you sell him in Sign 5 players on 5 year contracts at £25m each and the cost on the books is only £25m per year as the transfer fee is spread across the length of the contract for the accounts. In other words, selling Richarlison and declaring as much profit as possible is the important thing as it allows us to sign more players than just the £60m headline fee suggests. Cash flow and capital aren't the issue at Everton, complying with the rules is. We may well sign Winks (hopefully only on loan), but it won't be part of the Richarlison deal officially
You said that the valuation of the player would have to be at “fair value” and suggested this would remove Everton’s ability to devalue the purchase price. That’s what I was arguing against due to the subjectivity and huge range of what could count as fair value.
It makes the conversation pointless. Everton need to make as much money as possible out of the deal - they won't be depressing the value of it to avoid giving Watford a few hundred grand
But what if you sell Gordon too, inflating his fee and depressing Richarlison’s fee which was a key part of the initial question.
Gordon is the balancing figure, so what you lose on Richarlison you make on Gordon if they are sold as a duo.
Whilst I can see the logic in this, given Gordon is pure profit, I highly doubt Everton will sell Gordon Calvert-Lewin and even Pickford are the more likely departures before Gordon. Gordon is an odd character, a bit of a home bird, he turned down a move to Bayern Munich a few years ago because he hated the idea of leaving home
This suggests Everton want to sell before 30/06 but are sticking to £60m. There's no way the Premier League would ever give them a points deduction but could see a transfer window ban possibly. https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/everton-richarlison-tottenham-transfer-price-27351813
That should mean £1m immediately, plus 10% of whatever add-ons are achieved during his stay at Spurs.
Duxbury himself said 10% of the profit, which is also the standard clause on these type of deals I know Lou is more hit than miss on this type of stuff but I don’t think he is correct that’s it’s 10% of the total Not like it matters either way, none of it will be reinvested in the playing squad
I asked Andrew French and he said it’s of fee not profit, then I asked Bobble from Everton’s side of things and he also said fee not profit. Also just said on the latest podcast an hour ago that Watford will receive £5m. But like you say — none of it matters. Will be ending up in Mogi’s back pocket
Are Everton run by morons?* Why would they agree to that? * To answer my own question, quite possibly.
It can't be 10% of the fee surely. If Gino / Duxbury have negotiated 10% of the fee, them they should be shouldered carried around the Vic at the first home game of the season
If that’s right then fair play to whoever struck the original deal, that’s an excellent clause for us Just seem Leventhal claiming £2m however
