Jump to content

Micah - this week's raising of hopes


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 891
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I can never understand this issue. It has been reported that some clubs get a sell on fee when a player is sold on again, but I don't remember Latics getting further sell on payments. Maybe it depends on how the contract is worded, otherwise a small club could make quite a bit from a player who moves up in value several times. For instance if Richards moved for £5m this summer and did well enough to move for £15m in a couple of years we may be in for another windfall of £2m on top of the initial £1m, and another £1m if he moved on again for £20m.

The transfer of a player is governed by a contract between the selling club and the buying club. You can't bind a third party club, who comes along and buys the player further down the line, under that same agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MEN reporting that Liverpool want Richards in a cut-price deal.

The saga rolls on...

Any talk of a cut-price deal is going nowhere. Given City's ridiculously strong financial position, they're better off declining any cut-price offer and paying him for another year to help with their homegrown players quota, even if they have no real intention of playing him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes to the first bit.

No idea on the second bit.

Thanks.

The interesting bit is if, for instance, It's reported that club A has paid Club B £1million for a player, does that mean it has actually given club B £835000 ? Or that it has had to pay out £1.2 millin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he went for a fee which included a sell on clause my understanding is that we would get 20% of whatever Man City receive from that subsequent sell on.

But I doubt he will increase in value. Be more than happy if we top £1m from this bloke.

Is the 20% a cut of a one of transfer fee or future profit?

 

Rochdale got some money when Lambert was sold by Southampton to Liverpool a few months back because Bristol Rovers had a sell on clause with Southampton and Rochdale had a clause with Bristol Rovers that they were entitled to a percentage of any future profit they made on Lambert.

 

Liverpool pay Southampton a transfer fee for Lambert.

 

Southampton pay Bristol Rovers the percentage of the transfer fee they were entitled to as a sell on clause agreed when Asia Paton both him from Bristol Rover

 

Bristol Rovers pay Rochdale a percentage of the sell on fee they received from Southampton, agreed when Bristol Rovers bought him from Rochdale.

 

Although I was under the impression that the Richards clause we have is for 20% of a transfer fee and not future profit. I.E if City sell him we wouldn't be entitled to any percentage of their future sell on clauses.

Edited by PlayItLivo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SUNDAY MIRROR: Micah Richards is hoping Manchester City will allow him to resurrect his career out on loan.

Hope I'm wrong, but I think the ship has sailed on this

If we get any money I'll happily pay £10 to player share

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SUNDAY MIRROR: Micah Richards is hoping Manchester City will allow him to resurrect his career out on loan.

 

"Micah Richards is hoping that Manchester City will allow him to resurrect his career by spending the final year of his contract out on loan.

 

Liverpool, Tottenham and Newcastle have all failed to follow up their interest in the former England defender, being put off by champions City's £7million asking price."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see why City would let him go out on loan.

 

A loan deal may mean City have to pay a small percentage of his wages and get no transfer fee at the end of the season.

 

A loan fee would in effect be a transfer fee.

 

City may as well sell him for a cut-price cut-price fee, say £3m to £4m. Is that what other clubs are hoping for?

 

Smoke and mirrors. Deal or no deal!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Micah Richards is hoping that Manchester City will allow him to resurrect his career by spending the final year of his contract out on loan.

 

Liverpool, Tottenham and Newcastle have all failed to follow up their interest in the former England defender, being put off by champions City's £7million asking price."

Liverpool are getting £14million for Fabio :censored:ing Borini!

 

And they think £7mil for Richards is steep? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genuine question - is VAT payable on transfers? If so is it normally included in the price stated or not?

Yes but the buying club can recover the VAT incurred and so the VAT can be ignored. Only generally sticks at end of the line e.g. Sale of tickets to consumers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but the buying club can recover the VAT incurred and so the VAT can be ignored. Only generally sticks at end of the line e.g. Sale of tickets to consumers.

It's over 25 years since I studied VAT and that was only light touch.

 

I thought that in this circumstance we can only recover the VAT we paid in acquiring Richards. Which was probably nil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's over 25 years since I studied VAT and that was only light touch.

 

I thought that in this circumstance we can only recover the VAT we paid in acquiring Richards. Which was probably nil.

 

That's right, we're unlikely to have any VAT costs ourselves, but if Liverpool shelled out a headline figure of £7m, its likely that the gross inclusive VAT amount would actually be £8.4m.

However, as Liverpool are making fully taxable supplies e.g. sale of tickets, merchandise, catering, booze, players etc, they should be able to pay City the £8.4m but recover £1.4m from HMRC through their VAT return. City would have also had to pay over the £1.4 m VAT to HMRC that they collected.

 

Assuming Latics recieve 20% of £7m = £1.4m, we would invoice City for £1.4m + £280k VAT = £1.68m, we would pay over £280k to HMRC but City would be able to recover £280k themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...