Is said to have been only 1.25M according to Oliver Kay in The Times today. Rest depended on appearances, etc.
The Annual Accounts that year showed Total Transfer Revenue Receive of £3m. They do not break down the figures between individual players and it is known that Jacob Butterfield was sold at the beginning of the same financial year. In my opinion, the sale of these two players fits the £2.2m figure for the transfer of John Stones better than £1.25. It just shows how much of journalism consists of making things up to fit the story the journo wants to tell, and how little of it fans should rely upon.
Especially when PC stands up in front of a room of people and tells them it was 2.2m. Probably just the big boys trying to force his value down Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Oliver Kay, who I normally quite like as a journalist, is on this occasion making it up. Both Ben and PC have said it was £2.2m.
But were they quoting the initial payment or the total package? I don't know - I'm only relaying what is reported today because it raised my eyebrows. My understanding is that Oliver Kay has some standing amongst football journalists, and has particularly strong connections in the North West.
I do believe PC when he said we received 2.2m, but that could have been 1.25m upfront, and lets say 750k after an international appearance and 250k after 25 Prem appearances??
Wouldn't it have been the other way around. More for first team appearances than international. After all it's Evertons value and benefit that pays out not England's. I don't know, just asking.
I was just guessing mate, thought they attached high values to clauses that are unlikely to happen. That way it inflates the value of the transfer but less chance of actually having to pay out. So in the example stated, higher chance of playing 25 Prem games than actually playing for England. Im probably completely wrong.
Patrick Cryne said £2.2 million - I doubt very much we got a single lump sum of that value though so it's possible.
nope no idea why people give a toss. its Patricks club he can do what he likes. not sure what impact it has on your life.
The transfer fee paid and received, unless it's a free, is never the same because tax is due to be paid by the Club buying the player and the Club selling the playing obviously don't receive the portion of the transfer money that has gone to the taxman.
The Financial Accounts covered the period to 31 May in the Year that John Stones was sold (February I think). Stones did not play for the Everton first team in that first season. It is an accounting convention that Revenue can only be recognised when it is certain, that is, not dependent upon some future event, the outcome of which is unknown at the time the accounts were prepared. Even though the accounts were not filed until the following December, they would have been finalised by the end of August. It is extremely unlikely that any event could have taken place between 31 May and say 31 August that would have caused the Accounts to be amended. I'm sorry, but I believe that your faith in this journalist is misplaced.
Aye,and it's not like Patrick Cryne has a history of creative accounting in any other walk of life is it...oh,wait a minute...