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

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

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

Morally, a contract singed with eyes wide open is a contract.

 

[JBizzle]

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

To an extent I agree, but the sell on fee was part of the reason why Coventry got him for only £1m in the first place. A gamble on both teams that he'd improve and command better further fees.

Given that he was a decent striker for them on loan, we could have easily said no and demanded more up front.

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

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."

Well, if a large chunk of my 5% increase is going on legal advice for the legalities of multiple tier sell on clauses it’s Barber In

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

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.

To be fair his return based on number of games both at club and intentional level isn’t great.

If you replaced his goals against Chelsea and Man City with two tap ins he would be perceived totally different as someone not living up to the hype.

He’s dined out on the goals. The next 5 months is probably the most important period of his career to see what a regular run of games at the top level returns

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

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​

This

It’s also not unusual for clubs with unlimited future profit % arrangements on players to settle a full and final claim on the clause early when they run into cash flow issues or need capital.
For example we are willing to pay you £1m now to relinquish any future income from the clause

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

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.

You could counter this risk by inserting that there must be a sell on fee included in your future sale of this player or you pay us a fee of £xm when you sell him if you don’t.

 

[Bodian]

He was the last player to leave the pitch on Sunday and hung around - until the fans - a bit slow to catch on - finally started singing his song which he acknowledged.As @Bozza hints at re: the contractual to and fro - It looked like a goodbye / and he knew the significance of it.

Also thought it was interesting/sentimental/ symbolic even for Fab to send Gomez and Enciso on together (to waste time basically) in the last few minutes. A nice touch.

Gomez is off??

Absolutely.
Delap smashing defenders and Enciso buzzing around here there and everywhere like a wasp.
I think Delap will get fed up with Enciso's random shooting and have a strong word in his ear.
I see it developing into a very good partnership if Delap scares patience into him.

Will Delap teach him the art of the two handed push in the back?

 

[GoingUp]

I think I have declared Ensico, Barco and Buonanotte as my favourite and our most exciting players.

This could mean I am a poor judge of player (likely) or that we are not valuing flair players at the moment?

Football is a bit mechanical and dull at the moment. Bring back the flair players with a bit of unpredictability.

Premier league problems eh?

Agreed, when we are stuck kicking the ball around not making any opportunities, Ensico is the one who wants the ball, tries to be positive and make things happen.

Yes he can be frustrating but there a big player in there somewhere.