John Stones - Original Fee We Received

Almost fixated even.

 

I enjoy watching the sad sacks worrying about summat that doesn't matter. It's like rubber necking in a car but more fun.

 

Rubbish. You only pay tax on any proceeds at the end of the financial year based on your overall profit or loss, transfer fee proceeds aren't taxed at source.

 

It seems unlikely to me that the total transfer fee paid would not have some part of it being contingent upon appearances. That's surely the way most deals would be constructed when a promising young player is sold? And as Red Rain says, the incoming fees are not broken down between players in the annual accounts. It's therefore perfectly possible that Oliver Kay's figure of an initial 1.25M and the club's stated (overall) figure of 2.2M are both correct. If the remaining contingent fee follows closely on the initial fee (because the player has achieved a certain number of appearances, for example) then it hardly matters.

What I do find interesting though is that where the figures are quoted for such deals, they are often expressed in terms of "for an initial fee of...... £M, which could rise to ...£M depending upon appearances, etc". BFC were coy for a long time about the Stones fee. When it was disclosed, it seems to have been the total fee that was cited - although by that time the contingency had most likely been satisfied. Does any of this matter? Probably not. I just find it interesting, that's all. We are all indirectly paying for the players put before us though - although Mr Cryne has clearly subsidised that to a hefty degree in recent years.

 

Yes that's right,he was ill for the duration of the court case wasn't he,so didn't have to appear alongside his co-directors, I forgot that

 

Thank you Gally

 

but to be fair he also lied in the very same meeting and said flicker had said he didn't rate John Stones - or didn't think very highly of him. Utter tosh. Flicker went on record saying he was the best young CH in the country and woudl go all the way.

We get told what they want to tell us - period.

 

The transfer of footballers is subject to VAT in the same way as any other goods or services. Domestic transfers in the UK are taxable at the 17.5% standard rate. However, transfers between football clubs in the EU are relieved of VAT. Sales from a UK club to a buyer outside the EU are also free of VAT, although if a UK club buys a player from outside the EU it must account for VAT on the purchase.

 

So nothing to see here then...move along now

 

We sold Craig Davies in the same financial year as Butterfield and Stones if we're trying to use the accounts as a marker. Not sure you can do that though as we don't know how much we got for Butterfield or Davies or how much, if any, we received in add-ons/installments from players we'd sold in previous seasons. £1.5 million for Butterfield and £300,000 for Davies would leave a down payment of £1.2 million for Stones. If we got the full £2.2 million for Stones plus £300,000 for Davies then Butterfield left for half a million.

 

Great contributions to this thread. I haven't read the article tbf but the question may be what is the sell on clause based on? The journo may have used the lower figure to highlight the amount the sell on clause would be based on i.e. the profit Everton would be making on the initial fee. If it is based on the lower figure that would be good for us. Maybe that's just wishful thinking. Strikes me neither figure is inaccurate.

 

i thought butterfield did indeed leave for half a million

 

I have now looked out the original notes that I made at the time I reviewed the accounts. The actual figure for transfers received was £3,237,387 for that year.

I am sure that Whitey has gone on record previously as saying that the fee for Jacob Butterfield was £700k plus an additional % if he was sold for more by Norwich. He was sold for less so the contract with Norwich terminated there.

Assuming Whitey's figure is accurate, that leaves £2,537,387 to share between Davies and Stones. Personally, I think that £337,387 and £2,200,000 respectively is a lot more believable than £1,287,387 and £1,250,000 respectively.

I understand that it is not unusual for Transfer Fees to be phased over a number of payments, eg 50% deposit, 25% after 6 months and a final 25% after another 6 months. However, the agreed fee is grossed up to full amount in the financial statements and the balance outstanding is shown as a Debtor in the on the Balance Sheet of the selling club, and as a Creditor in the Balance Sheet of the buying club. These debts are protected by the FL licencing system even if a club enters Administration owing money to another club. It would be wrong for a Journalist to state that the total fee for a player was in fact just the initial down payment.

To my eyes, this journalist has based his story on a figure given by David Moyes, and David Moyes was mistaken because either he mis-remembered or he did not understand the nuances of accounting.

 

He may well have done. I have absolutely no idea. I hope we got more though, he was certainly worth more.