Discussion in 'The Transfer List' started by Burnsy, Jul 24, 2022.
It's Robbo all over again.
Surely that figure isn’t right..?
I think you'll find the correct phrase is "that can't be roight?"
News da Bola
The deal between Watford and Tigres for the purchase of Samir was closed at € 6.5 million (about R$ 34.1 million). The deal should yield Flamengo something around R$850,000.
So do we think we got him on a free from Udinese but in return inherited a sell-on clause to Flamengo they'd agreed?
Or we only loaned him from Udinese, lied about it, and he’s been to us this summer what Pussetto has been to Udinese. And the fee is heading in their direction…
My recent trip to the zoo yielded a flamingo.
Didn't we get a couple of million out of the Sancho to United deal even though he didn't come directly from us? Is this a similar case here?
Wait till you get the bill.
Sorry to wade in like that.
Very small % of the fee TBF
You don't have a leg to stand on.
Possibly. As @The undeniable truth says, it's a very small percentage (I misread initially the currency) and so it probably is just a cut of a cut. Though if he did move to us on a free from Udinese I can imagine Flamengo were quite pissed off at missing out the initial sell on. It sort of implies Udinese had a sell on clause inserted in the deal to us, otherwise where would the link back to Flamengo come in?
ie. Watford get 6.5m euro, chuck a bit of that at Udinese because we agreed a sell on with them and then Udinese pay whatever sell-on fee percentage of that amount they agreed to Flamengo in the original transfer.
Does seem very unlikely that we pocket the fee having taken him from Udinese for free as a favour a few months ago.
This really does open a can of worms though. You could easily get around sell-on clauses when you own two clubs. You buy a player, could even have a 40% sell-on clause. You then sell to the other club you own, or even a free transfer, thus reducing or removing the sell-on fee completely.
Obviously this is unethical, but probably not illegal. Having said that, it would be quite stupid of a selling club to not be aware of the arrangement between Watford and Udinese under the Pozzo's. So I would have thought any transfer with a sell-on clause to Watford or Udinese would be protected against that and a sell-on obligation is only viable once a transfer is made for the outgoing player to another club not owned by the Pozzo's. Hence why we paid Flamengo for selling Samir.
All the same pockets m8
Somebody paid actual real money for him?
I'm pretty sure it's a FIFA rule that states that the club(s) that trained a player from an early age get a small percentage of the fee, hence we got a few million from the Sancho deal to United (I believe we would have got one for his deal to Dortmund too, but that wouldn't have been worth too much). Besides, I don't think anything immoral has been done to Flamengo here, Udinese paid €4m to buy him, but had he been sold on the open market in January rather than given to us, it's not as if he'd have generated a large fee, even Tigres wouldn't pay that fee for someone whose contract was supposedly running out
Well, Brazilian money....
A Brazilian is quite a lot to be fair. Gotta respect the record fee, even if inflation is out of control.
Decent fee for him, no wonder the thread is so quiet and missing the usual suspects.
If it does go to us then yes a great fee. And even if it doesn’t the Masina fee offsets the Pussetto farce. So overall I would say intercompany dealings are on a more even keel so no complaints from me on that front as things stand.
I don't see how it wouldn't go to us, as far as I know, you can't just 'donate' transfer fees to other clubs just because you fancy it. Still doesn't make up for Pussetto in my book, this was a player who wanted to leave Udinese, came to us when we needed a CB (that he wasn't good enough is beside the point), and was sold on for big money to a Mexican side with more money than sense, Pussetto was signed for us solely for the benefit of Udinese (I don't know enough about Udinese to say whether Masina is useful to them or not)
I imagine it probably does go to us, just noticed the percentage paid to his former club and some said maybe it was only a loan to us in the winter or that would have expired. But anyway even without that they bought Masina back at an inflated fee so swings and roundabouts on Pussetto.
Think the percentage that goes to Flamengo was because they were the ones that trained him, rather than a sell-on directly from Udinese.
I don't know enough about Italian football to say how useful Masina and Pussetto are over there, but Masina at least pushed Holebas to his best form for us and proved a good Championship LB, Pussetto couldn't even cut it in the Championship, so based on their impact for us, we've still been short-changed!
I reckon Masina will be a regular starter for Udinese. He will be useful to them.
Even Success was wasn’t he to an extent !?
Bit of a strange post, because all it really does is highlight how bad most of our transfer dealings are if you’re calling out this post for being quiet.
Yes. Didn't Zeegalaar get a decent amount of playing time with them?
I thought Pussetto was signed as cover for Sarr and Deulofeu as they were our only wide options.
Sadly Geri got crocked and it turned out Pussetto couldn't hack it in English football.
It shouldn't have come as much surprise that a man with the strength of a 12 year old boy wouldn't be able to hack English football, even in the short cameos he had in the Championship season he looked out of his depth
Of only we'd had the benefit of watching Pussetto closely for a couple of years so we could assess if he'd be suited to English football.