[Albion] Julio Enciso - Paraguay’s new wonder kid (Signed 17/06/2022)

[huzzah]

My headcanon: "Ruud, would you let us know if you're going to play goodnight, if not we could develop him better with us" ... "Don't you know who I am! F You PBOBE, we signed a contract that says if he plays a certain amount of games we get to keep him until the end of the season, and because you even considered questioning me, goodnight is relegated to the boot room, and there's nothing you can do about it, mwahahahaha!" ... 2 minutes later ... "Kieran, want some help staying above Leicester this season?"


* no facts were harmed or used in the making of this conspiracy theory

 

[Stato]

Yes like Gyokeres then. Oh wait

There's an interesting line in this article about what Coventry could make from a potential Gykores move published by Talk Sport in November: https://talksport.com/football/2338495/coventry-viktor-gyokeres-sell-on-clause-brighton-transfer/

“Viktor has gone crazy in terms of how he has performed,” Coventry owner Doug King told talkSPORT. “That was a tough negotiation with Sporting Lisbon and if he does move on to somewhere else in his career then we will benefit.

“I’m not holding my breath. We are not running the club on that basis, but we will take it. A large part of that will go to his original club Brighton, everyone seems to think it will go straight in the coffers but it will go down the chain."

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

There's an interesting line in this article about what Coventry could make from a potential Gykores move published by Talk Sport in November: https://talksport.com/football/2338495/coventry-viktor-gyokeres-sell-on-clause-brighton-transfer/

“Viktor has gone crazy in terms of how he has performed,” Coventry owner Doug King told talkSPORT. “That was a tough negotiation with Sporting Lisbon and if he does move on to somewhere else in his career then we will benefit.

“I’m not holding my breath. We are not running the club on that basis, but we will take it. A large part of that will go to his original club Brighton, everyone seems to think it will go straight in the coffers but it will go down the chain."

Great that we're likely to get a bit of cash I guess

But something feels a bit wrong in all this. So we sold to Coventry, who sold to Sporting, who might sell to, who knows PSG. Sell on clauses have been a part of football for a long time, but a sell on to a sell on? How does this work in the contract? (and i'm not suggesting you or anyone else should know this) So Coventry are making a contract with Sporting a couple of years back. In that contract they include a clause stipulating that a complete third party (BHA) should benefit? Why would either contracting party want this?

I suppose to answer my own question, Coventry reasoned correctly the value would increase we agreed and waived the sell on in favour of this clause being entered into this contract.

But OK, what if PSG, then sell to Man Utd in 2027. Do we get another cut then?

And morally, that's more my problem, to what extent should a club retain a stake in a player who have changed clubs several times

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

1. Does well.
Feels vindicated. Feels he’s proven he deserves more football.
Wants to leave.

2. Does badly.
Blames the club.
Feels he hasn’t been respected. Wants to leave.

Can’t see any reality where he comes back here after six months away and decides to sign a new deal.
If we get into Europe maybe? Although all the European clubs he’s been linked with will be in Europe too most likely.

3. Does brilliantly for them, lights up the Premier League. We keep him, play him and pay him. We win the treble

 

[Stato]

Great that we're likely to get a bit of cash I guess

But something feels a bit wrong in all this. So we sold to Coventry, who sold to Sporting, who might sell to, who knows PSG. Sell on clauses have been a part of football for a long time, but a sell on to a sell on? How does this work in the contract? (and i'm not suggesting you or anyone else should know this) So Coventry are making a contract with Sporting a couple of years back. In that contract they include a clause stipulating that a complete third party (BHA) should benefit? Why would either contracting party want this?

I suppose to answer my own question, Coventry reasoned correctly the value would increase we agreed and waived the sell on in favour of this clause being entered into this contract.

But OK, what if PSG, then sell to Man Utd in 2027. Do we get another cut then?

And morally, that's more my problem, to what extent should a club retain a stake in a player who have changed clubs several times

Our deal would be with Coventry, not with Sporting, so we won't be party to any agreement between them and Sporting. I would guess that you're right about us waiving the original sell on in exchange for a chunk of any future, larger sell on. Given the two club's positions, it makes sense that we'd take the risk for a higher final profit and Coventry would want to maximise immediate money in. The only way that this could continue to another sale is if Coventry were to make a similar agreement to waive with Sporting and we made a back to back deal with Coventry.

 

[GJN1]

Profit YAY! Rejoice! Rejoice!

And the club can then pass that on in the form of cheaper season tickets.

 

[jcdenton08]

Any chance the mods can please update the thread title?

 

[kevo]

I love Enciso. Gives everything on the pitch and a hugely talented player. Was developing into our star man under RDZ until he got injured.

Don't understand why Fab is so reluctant to play him when fit or even bring him on as a sub. Maybe there really is a 'personality clash'. If so, good managers know how to overcome that.

Buanaotte I can fully understand going out on loan as he needs time to develop. But Enciso is good enough for our starting XI. He will shine at Ipswich and I get a strong feeling we won't see him playing for us again. I will be gutted if so.

 

[MJsGhost]

Great that we're likely to get a bit of cash I guess

But something feels a bit wrong in all this. So we sold to Coventry, who sold to Sporting, who might sell to, who knows PSG. Sell on clauses have been a part of football for a long time, but a sell on to a sell on? How does this work in the contract? (and i'm not suggesting you or anyone else should know this) So Coventry are making a contract with Sporting a couple of years back. In that contract they include a clause stipulating that a complete third party (BHA) should benefit? Why would either contracting party want this?

I suppose to answer my own question, Coventry reasoned correctly the value would increase we agreed and waived the sell on in favour of this clause being entered into this contract.

But OK, what if PSG, then sell to Man Utd in 2027. Do we get another cut then?

And morally, that's more my problem, to what extent should a club retain a stake in a player who have changed clubs several times

I don't think there needs to be any explicit agreement between two clubs involved in a transfer for money to be paid to a club or clubs who held and transferred a player's registration earlier in their career. All it would be is that club 'C' selling to club 'D' for a profit triggers an extra payment to club 'B' because of the existing sell-on clause between B and C.
Club A may then be due a percentage of B's additional profit if the contract of sale between A & B included a sell-on.

This would all depend on the wording of the sell-on clauses i.e. to include any and all profit made from a subsequent sale.

If each contract of sale has a similar clause, there’s no limit to the number of times extra revenue could trickle back up the chain (though a percentage of a percentage of a percentage etc means a smaller slice of the pie each time, though the pie itself might grow).

Any of the contracts in the chain could have something written in to limit the sell-ons (or might not include one), but assuming they don’t, here's what could happen using our Viktor as an example...

(figures for illustration only, so please don’t call me out if I have got some known contract info wrong)

If our contract with Coventry stipulated that the fee is £1m plus 25% of any subsequent profit they make from selling him on. We’d bank £1m at that point, but would be due 25% of anything Coventry make over £1m when selling him (i.e. including the fee and their sell-on).​

​

Coventry sell to Sporting: £15m + 10% of any profit Sporting make from selling him on. We bank another £3.5m at this point (25% of the £14m profit)​

​

Sporting sell to PSG for £100m +10% of any profit made from selling him on. Coventry are now paid another £8.5m (10% of £85m profit). We are owed 25% of that £8.5m – another £2.125m banked.​

​

If PSG were to sell to Real Madrid for £150m... Sporting get £5m more (10% of £50m profit); Coventry are owed 10% of that: £500k; and we are then owed 25% of that: £125k.​

​

In this scenario, we make £6.75m in total (£1m + £3.5m + £2.125m + £0.125m)​

​

Coventry make £17.25m.​

Sporting make £76.5m.​

PSG make £45m.​

​

Congratulations to anyone still reading... ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz​

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

I love Enciso. Gives everything on the pitch and a hugely talented player. Was developing into our star man under RDZ until he got injured.

Don't understand why Fab is so reluctant to play him when fit or even bring him on as a sub. Maybe there really is a 'personality clash'. If so, good managers know how to overcome that.

Buanaotte I can fully understand going out on loan as he needs time to develop. But Enciso is good enough for our starting XI. He will shine at Ipswich and I get a strong feeling we won't see him playing for us again. I will be gutted if so.

I feel the same as you.

I don't particularly see how quite so many people here have concluded he's not good enough.

We just have to hope he does well at Ipswich.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

I feel the same as you.

I don't particularly see how quite so many people here have concluded he's not good enough.

We just have to hope he does well at Ipswich.

He seems to get nowhere near the leeway the other players of a similar age get (and many of our much older players), and it seems to be because a) he shoots a bit much, b) he’s on social media a bit too much, and c) because he wanted to represent his country at the Olympics.

He’s 20 years old. He’s the big hope of his country. He’s recovering from some serious injuries. And he’s got a manager who is barely out of nappies himself, who’s just been handed £200m worth of (mainly attacking) talent. I don’t know why we’re not supporting his growth, because there’s clearly an unbelievable talent there that we could regret losing in a few years for what I imagine will be peanuts, considering how we’re currently managing him.

 

[Milano]

I love Enciso. Gives everything on the pitch and a hugely talented player. Was developing into our star man under RDZ until he got injured.

Don't understand why Fab is so reluctant to play him when fit or even bring him on as a sub. Maybe there really is a 'personality clash'. If so, good managers know how to overcome that.

Buanaotte I can fully understand going out on loan as he needs time to develop. But Enciso is good enough for our starting XI. He will shine at Ipswich and I get a strong feeling we won't see him playing for us again. I will be gutted if so.

I agree with some of that but not that he's good enough to start for us if everyone is fit, he was but not now. Pedro and Rutter both start ahead of him IMO. He wants to start, hence why he's gone out.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

He seems to get nowhere near the leeway the other players of a similar age get (and many of our much older players), and it seems to be because a) he shoots a bit much, b) he’s on social media a bit too much, and c) because he wanted to represent his country at the Olympics.

I've tried countering these arguments many times along the lines of ..........

He shoots a bit much. Well the rest of them probably shoot too little

If you're on social media enough to notice who else in on social media a lot, you're probably on it too much yourself

Like every other young player we have, he wants to play for his country. What do we expect?

 

[Milano]

He seems to get nowhere near the leeway the other players of a similar age get (and many of our much older players), and it seems to be because a) he shoots a bit much, b) he’s on social media a bit too much, and c) because he wanted to represent his country at the Olympics.

He’s 20 years old. He’s the big hope of his country. He’s recovering from some serious injuries. And he’s got a manager who is barely out of nappies himself, who’s just been handed £200m worth of (mainly attacking) talent. I don’t know why we’re not supporting his growth, because there’s clearly an unbelievable talent there that we could regret losing in a few years for what I imagine will be peanuts, considering how we’re currently managing him.

Not supporting his growth? Loaning him out is supporting his growth, a lot more than a few minutes off the bench and the odd cup match he'd currently get here.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

I agree with some of that but not that he's good enough to start for us if everyone is fit, he was but not now. Pedro and Rutter both start ahead of him IMO. He wants to start, hence why he's gone out.

That's fine, but given that both of Pedro and Rutter have missed big chunks of the season, the lack of game time for Enciso hints at something else. I just don't think the manager rates him.

 

[The Sock of Poskett]

He seems to get nowhere near the leeway the other players of a similar age get (and many of our much older players), and it seems to be because a) he shoots a bit much, b) he’s on social media a bit too much, and c) because he wanted to represent his country at the Olympics.

He’s 20 years old. He’s the big hope of his country. He’s recovering from some serious injuries. And he’s got a manager who is barely out of nappies himself, who’s just been handed £200m worth of (mainly attacking) talent. I don’t know why we’re not supporting his growth, because there’s clearly an unbelievable talent there that we could regret losing in a few years for what I imagine will be peanuts, considering how we’re currently managing him.

Maybe letting him go on loan to Ipswich for the rest of the season is exactly the right way of supporting his growth? If he's going to be a nailed on starter for them, getting a solid run of games under his belt again is precisely what he needs.

He helps them stay up, scores a few, assists a few and arrives back with us for pre-season a reborn player, reader to make a starting place his own next season?

After all, chances are we aren't going to have the full roster of attacking talent we currently have when it comes to next season. Someone will either have been sold for mega bucks or picked up a long term injury. Hope not, but it's pretty likely ...

 

[Greg Bobkin]

I love Enciso. Gives everything on the pitch and a hugely talented player. Was developing into our star man under RDZ until he got injured.

Don't understand why Fab is so reluctant to play him when fit or even bring him on as a sub. Maybe there really is a 'personality clash'. If so, good managers know how to overcome that.

Buanaotte I can fully understand going out on loan as he needs time to develop. But Enciso is good enough for our starting XI. He will shine at Ipswich and I get a strong feeling we won't see him playing for us again. I will be gutted if so.

It could be as simple as JE wanting to play every minute of every game and Fab not being able to guarantee that. He's young, hungry and wants to be on the pitch (and score) at EVERY opportunity. But that's not how things work here – not with the squad. Even nailed on, in-form players don't start every game. I know Enciso was further down the pecking order than them, but it shows that no player is entitled to start or feature in every game. Maybe after a loan spell the two parties might have a change of heart and he'll be part of the plans for 24/25? Who knows?

As for good managers knowing how to overcome a personality clash, Sir Alex Ferguson – who some would call the greatest manager of all time – simply shipped them out when they crossed the line. Beckham, Stam, Keane to name just three of many.

 

[Beanstalk]

Great that we're likely to get a bit of cash I guess

But something feels a bit wrong in all this. So we sold to Coventry, who sold to Sporting, who might sell to, who knows PSG. Sell on clauses have been a part of football for a long time, but a sell on to a sell on? How does this work in the contract? (and i'm not suggesting you or anyone else should know this) So Coventry are making a contract with Sporting a couple of years back. In that contract they include a clause stipulating that a complete third party (BHA) should benefit? Why would either contracting party want this?

I suppose to answer my own question, Coventry reasoned correctly the value would increase we agreed and waived the sell on in favour of this clause being entered into this contract.

But OK, what if PSG, then sell to Man Utd in 2027. Do we get another cut then?

And morally, that's more my problem, to what extent should a club retain a stake in a player who have changed clubs several times

Had this explained to me quite well by someone at the club years ago. If Sporting sold to PSG (or similar) and didn't include a sell on fee, then sold to United, the chain would be broken, if all clubs in the chain had sell on fees, we would receive money.

So if Gyokeres followed your example and went to PSG and the United the chain would look something like this (completely making up fees for the sake of explanation and keeping all sell ons at 20% for the same reason):

Man United buy VG for £100m from PSG.
PSG receive £100m but give £20m of that to Sporting.
Sporting receive £20m but give £4m to Coventry.
Coventry receive £4m but give Brighton £800k.

PSG = £80m
Sporting = £16m
Coventry = £3.2m
Brighton = £800k.

If PSG/Sporting didn't include a sell on fee in their deal however, none of that money goes any further down the chain and PSG would receive £100m for VG from Manchester United.

 

[AZ Gull]

We might have seen the last of him in an Albion shirt.

If, as widely suggested, he refused to sign a contract extension, we'll be looking to sell him this summer to get a few quid back before he's free to walk away in 2026.

Around the time of his signing, both Andy Naylor and Brian Owen reported that it was believed Albion had an extra year's option in the contract.

 

[chaileyjem]

"Reports going back to Paraguay reported the fee to be about £10 million with an extra year’s option on the contract."

A day he won't forget as Enciso deal captivates a nation as well as Albion fans

Julio Enciso says the day he signed for Albion was “unforgettable”.

www.theargus.co.uk