[SIGNED perm] Joao Pedro

So...

We sign him or...

We get around £17m for nothing?

 

30m would guarantee a work permit tbf. I know they're in a different league in terms of money but Real Madrid paid €45m for a 16 year old (Vinicus Jr) and another €45m on a 17 year old (Rodrygo). More money than sense.

 

It's far from certain he would sign for Liverpool for a number of reasons.

Liverpool would have to pay over £30m, that's if they matched Watford's offer, because of the compensation clause.

At Watford, Pedro could quickly get into the first team, at Liverpool he could well be loaned out or playing in the youth teams. It's a lot harder for him to play Premier League football at Liverpool than it would be at Watford.

I think Liverpool are just sniffing out the contract detail, to see if there are any loopholes in it.

I said before, but it was reported Fluminese wanted Watford to pay an advance sum of £2.5m, but Watford insisted he should play first team football in order to develop. That insistance seems to have backfired as it has attracted bigger clubs.

Personally, I think he will still sign for Watford. I don't think Liverpool would get invovled in paying Watford £20m compensastion. Who's to say Fluminese wouldn't negotiate a higher price with Liverpool. They could say he's now a more valuable commodity than when they agreed to sell to Watford. Why would Fluminese want to sell to Liverpool for the same money? Liverpool would have to make it worth it for them.

I think it all boils down to how legal is the contract Watford signed. It has to be watertight. If it is, I think Liverpool would walk (alone).

 

Personally, I think he will sign for us. But equally he might not. Either way I'll be right.

 

His competition at liverpool would be extreme especially if they sign Depay.

 

One thing you're missing in this part though is that it appears as if it would be of absolutely zero financial benefit to Fluminense to sell to Liverpool instead of us unless Liverpool stumped up over £27.6mil in total on the deal.

That's because as it is Fluminense should receive £10mil from us for the current deal (+ a future sell-on percentage).
However, the first £17.6mil from Liverpool would just go straight in to our pockets for having the break clause activated; Liverpool would need to add at least another £10.1 mil afterwards for Fluminense to start profiting.

In addition, because we already have the head start of a potential break clause, Liverpool giving an outlay of say £17.6mil to us, + £10.1 mil to Fluminense, would be gazumped by us just offering Fluminense only £10.2 mil (and we could still profit off that deal by some time later selling to Liverpool for at least what they were willing to pay in total).

You're right that there wouldn't ever be a deal at £50mil, but that's because chances are, it would be futile for Liverpool to try and outbid us - unless perhaps the player is absolutely desperate to join Pool instead, but chances are that while we're able to offer Flu up to £17.5mil on top of anything Pool could pay them, and still likely profit at a later date, Flu would encourage him to come to us still.


(PS the variables of possible sell-on clauses might affect the exact figures at which it would be of more or less benefit for Flu to accept an offer from us instead of Pool. but as it's quite hypothetical I've left it out of calculations here; but regardless the overall point still stands)

 

I haven’t missed that - I clearly stated that Liverpool or any other club would have to pay £17.6m and whatever fee on top of that that is agreeable to Fluminense. It’s could be £17.7m for all we know. But is likely as you state financially in terms of agreeable to the Brazilian club. But nowhere near £50m as the post I was replying to was saying.

I’m sure there are a myriad of clauses we don’t know about, especially if it’s true that we have been paying them to play him. Gino will have had solid assurances over the deal I’m sure, regardless of the break clause. We wouldn’t furnish Fluminense coffers without a guarantee he’ll join us no chance.

I was just saying that technically, Liverpool or any other club don’t have to part with anything other than a fee if they want him. Fluminense would be the ones liable, no other club.

We just need September to roll around and for him to turn 18 and sign. Until then, I suspect nothing is absolutely guaranteed and the player could lumber his club in trouble if he changes his mind amid big interest.

 

Again we will agree to disagree. It will be nearer the £50mil than the £30mil that another club has to come up with.

He has already signed a contract, as announced by Watford FC - https://mobile.twitter.com/WatfordFC/status/1053375453178793984

While it comes into play when he turns 18, a contract has been signed. Allbeit a pre contract. So legally binding paperwork has been signed and monies paid by us to them, to play him.

If it hasn’t, then Watford would be stupid to mention a pretend contract and pay a club to give a player play time that we could so easily lose out on.

I admitted that there is guessing on my part, but personally speaking, I still believe for a club to gazump us, they would have to offer nearer £50mil.

 

To be honest, it wouldn’t so much be another PL team I’d be worried about but rather Barcelona and Real Madrid who would happily pay that for promising talent and are the ‘dream’ clubs for Brazilian kids. Maybe PSG. These clubs wouldn’t think twice about spending the money and upsetting Watford, another PL might.

 

No thanks, don’t want to develop their player, unless it’s a loan to buy at the original price we are currently going to pay for him.

 

Hmmmm, if you haven't missed it, then what do you mean by the hypothetical £17.7mil figure then? By that do you mean that you believe that Liverpool would have to pay £17.6mil + £0.1mil, or £17.6mil + £17.7mil?

 

That release says we have reached an agreement with the club. For which there is no doubt about signed paperwork etc. Not up for debate.

It says nothing about pre-contracts. I don’t know how much clearer it can be made - a player from Brazil who is under-18 cannot sign anything under FIFA rules to a foreign club. It’s against the rules and is the very thing that Man City, Chelsea and other clubs are being punished for.

The deal we have signed with his club will likely have many clauses against him not signing. So as such the club will be very very confident of him signing. It will likely have agents and/or his parents signature on as his guardians. But it won’t have his until he is 18. Watford aren’t mentioning a pretend contract - there will be a contract drawn up already with signatures on it. But none of them will be his as it is against FIFA rules.

I just don’t know where you are getting the £50m figure from. If it’s true, no other figure than £17.6m breaks the clause. Not what we have paid already. Nothing. You are allowing for £32.4m on top of that for another club? And it’s your right to have a different opinion but you’re original post states we would want all manner of other fees (shirts sales, sponsorship etc) for us to agree to the break. We don’t have to agree. They pay the break fee, sell elsewhere and we pursue them for damages and likely breaking any other supplemental contracts regarding the fee and payments etc.

But no other club would come close to paying is £50m to activate the clause. The maths don’t add up.

 

One advantage, the player can see what happened to his countryman Richarlison, sign for us he gets a good chance to play!, then if he is worthy a bigger side will come calling!

 

Assuming the reports are correct a club would have to bid 32 million pounds to break even with us, or 36 million Euros.

Barca have paid fees in that range for youngsters before, but most other clubs have not. I don't see any Premier League club doing it, but then football does seem to have gone quite stupid lately.

Having said that, Fluminense would be stupid not to try and take advantage of the sudden interest if bids actually came in sufficiently large to offset the penalty. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to up to into the 40+ million range before they played ball; after all, if a bidding club is willing to pay a 20 million penalty clause on the selling club's behalf then they could probably be pushed higher.

 

Read the post you originally responded to. If the reports are accurate, we get paid £17.6m by Fluminense to break the deal - this would likely be from another buying club as they can’t afford it. They are then free to sell under whatever terms they want to that club.

Obviously I was being facetious by saying £17.7m but it would be out of our control if Fluminense then wanted to sell to that club for £100,000 and then say they will see us in court for whatever payments we have made.

Or it could well be that the £17.6m includes what we have paid? So the break clause takes the original fee into account....

 

...and this is where you're still missing something:

- We would get paid £17.6mil to break the deal. As you say, this money would likely come from the other hypothetical buying club.

- However, why would Fluminense agree to the break clause and then sell to the hypothetical buying club for £100,000, considering as things stand Flu would already receive £10mil from us?!?!?! They would earn less on the sale.

Secondly, even if the deal is somehow described in the illogilcal way in which the above scenario would require it to be, say:

- If we would get paid £17.6mil to break the deal (with this money coming from the buying club)
- Fluminense then want to sell to that other club for £11mil (earning Fluminense £11mil)
- It would then be simple for us to still pay Fluminense more than the other buying club, as we could pay the £10mil we were originally happy to pay, plus the £17.5mil we would get from the other club for the breakout clause.

This bit makes no difference, whether it's £17.6mil or £7.6mil, we can still use the fee from the breakout clause to gazump any club which pays the breakout clause then tries to give extra to Fluminense than what we've already agreed.

 

I actually don't think there is such thing as a "break even" figure for another club. Because:

- Even if another club agrees to pay the £17.6mil fee to cancel the contract, which would go to us
- Then they offer to pay Fluminense £17.7mil
- We could always offer to pay Fluminense £17.8mil, knowing that we could always sell to the other club for a profit.

This is the only thing I wonder: if there's a way Fluminense could encourage other clubs to break the clause just to get us to pay more than our original £10mil; even if, for the reasons I've explained above to you and Burnsy, there appears to be no scenario which makes sense for Fluminense which does not involve JP signing for us first.

 

Let's hope he doesn't live next door to Sietes!

 

Of course a contract has been signed with the player, it just doesn’t come in to play until he turns 18.

You’re missing the point that Fluminense are broke. That’s where the £50mil figure comes in. So of course the potential new buyer would have to offer way in excess of what we are paying, because they cannot afford for us to go after them. The break clause of £17.6mil-£20mil (depending of what media you believe) is the fee upfront. The loss of all other monies that would be due to us would still have to come from the new buyer because Fluminense have no money. So you’re right in saying it’s not the other clubs problem, but it becomes their problem the moment they enter the race.

 

I reckon he'll come to us, but whether he can cut it in the prem remains a huge question. As someone pointed out, he's currently playing in an inferior league. Judging by some of the defending on those vids, Big Kenny S would have had ten in that hat trick game.

The Pozzos, as we've seen demonstrated over and over, are astute businessmen. There won't be any loopholes in the contract. They'll have it locked down tight. The 20 mill penalty clause is another example of their nouse.

The pudlian and manky interest will be no more than tentative enquiries or internet 'noise' generated by a shabby assortment of the doubtless myriad of deluded souls who believe themselves to be special, highly-valued, unpaid transfer envoys to their nasty clubs. Someone takes the time each year to produce a comical list of about 300 players Watford are supposedly, rumourdly interested in each transfer window. A similar Poolian list must run into the thousands.

Similarly, there are hosts of rising young teenage stars around world football and no club, however profligate, is going to be interested in having minus £20 mill as your base starting point before negotiations even begin.

 

Another club would have to pay the 17.6 million to us PLUS at least what we agreed to pay to Fluminese. If they pay any less then Fluminese lose money.

 

Your logic makes no sense. Of course Fluminese wouldn’t agree to sell the player for 100k to another club when they have already agreed to sell him to Watford for 10/12 million.

 

I have read lots of the thread but probably missed something

I didn’t think you could offer financial inducements to under 18’s isn’t that what city and Chelsea did

 

As I understand it, you can’t offer inducements to sign them before they’re 18. That isn’t the case here as we’re waiting until he’s 18.

 

Is the updated Pozzo Model based on suing Scousers?

 

Once JP sees Wilmot’s IG feed from the ice cream parlours & discos of Udine, all bets will be off.

 

That’s what I thought - in which case how have we arranged deal that involves compensation if he doesn’t come here

 

Afraid I don’t get your point. What you describe isn’t an inducement to the player.

 

It’s a compensation payment for breach of contact and doesn’t involve payments to the player?

 

I’m guessing my understanding is crap as I’m fairly sure that Gino and his army of lawyers have a considerably better grasp then me. Just don’t understand how you can tie an international player under 18 into a contract and if you can’t don't understand why we would get compensation if he changes his mind and went somewhere else

 

Christ. How hard is this to understand - a player under the age of 18 in Brazil cannot sign a contract or pre-contract. It is against FIFA rules. If we claimed as much, FIFA would have us over a barrel. It is literally a black and white rule and you’re claiming we have broken it?

Any other fee’s you’re talking about are theoretical. Fluminense would be due to give us £17.6m guaranteed (either from them or furnished from another buying club). We may be able to get them for the money we have paid as a fee already but they could certainly be difficult about it, although I agree it’s unlikely. Any other fee’s are circumstantial and we certainly could not demand them up front and Fluminense would rightly challenge them in court.

I agree it’s all unlikely to happen. But £50m is way off.

 

Will come to us and go on loan to Liverpool

 

Calm down sweetie. It’s not difficult to understand at all. Clearly you are having a hard time admitting that you’re opinion isn’t the only way.

A contract has been signed, it comes into play when he turns 18.

It will be nearer the £50mil not the poxy £30mil you think. It’s very simple.

Again I will say we will agree to disagree.

 

This is my concern. If our contract is a blatant way to sign someone that can't legally be signed yet, would it be legally enforceable on Flu ?