I see (but can't read) there is an Athletic article out about us being at CAS this last week over the Sarr contract. I think we are appealing some easement of add on clauses due to pandemic.
Hear is the article: As Ismaila Sarr prepared to face — and ultimately overcome — Egypt in the second leg of Senegal’s World Cup qualification play-off on Tuesday night, 4,000 miles away, lawyers representing his current and former clubs were going head-to-head at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). An appeal, brought by Watford following a FIFA judgment last year, centred on the relatively minor matter of interest payments due to Rennes following Sarr’s €35 million (£28.8 million) transfer in August 2019. However, the case provides a rare insight into the structure of the transfer agreement, details of performance targets and add-ons and the impact that a double whammy of a pandemic and Premier League relegation had on Watford’s finances. The Athletic has reviewed the original FIFA case documents and spoken to sources on all sides of the debate to paint a picture of a record club transfer that caused financial strain during a testing period on both sides of the English Channel. On August 8, 2019, Watford secured Sarr’s signing. A five-year deal expiring in 2024 and the structure of payments to be made by Watford to Rennes were agreed. Watford would pay Rennes €35 million (£28.8 million) in five instalments until 2023: £6.6 million up front, two further payments of the same value on August 31, 2020, and August 31, 2021, then £5 million on August 31, 2022, and £4 million on August 31, 2023. If Sarr achieved certain performance targets, Rennes would also receive: £400,000 for a combined total of 15 Premier League goals and assists, or in the FA or EFL Cup quarter-finals onwards (then a further £400,000 after 25, 35, 45 and so on) and £400,000 after 20 Premier League starts, with the same amount due every 10 starts beyond that. By the end of the 2019-20 season, Sarr had started 22 games (scoring five and assisting four) and therefore an additional £400,000 was due. But Watford had been relegated and the world was in the grip of the COVID-19 pandemic. The season overran to July 26 with only a 47-day gap until the new Championship campaign began. Just over a month later on August 31, Watford were due to pay £7 million (£6.6 million for the second transfer stage payment and the first add-on of £400,000) to Rennes. By September 9, two days before the start of the season, the French club had not received their money, in addition to £65,000 still owed from the initial transfer payment. They flagged the issue to the English club. Watford responded on October 1, saying that due to the combined hit of COVID-19 and relegation, they needed extra time to make the outstanding payment. Rennes, a club also playing without crowds and navigating the impact of French football’s broadcast deal collapsing, declined the proposal and decided to escalate the issue, taking their complaint to FIFA. The original contract stipulated that Watford would have to pay five per cent interest per month on any payment they missed. Therefore, the French club demanded around £7 million in fees and add-ons plus a further £730,000 in interest and legal fees. The FIFA Players’ Status Committee reviewed the evidence presented by the clubs’ legal teams on April 20, 2021. Case files outlined Watford’s claim of “significant disruption and financial difficulties as a result of two unexpected cumulative events that occurred in 2020 and that materially affected (their) finances in a short period of a few months”. They quoted shortfalls of £36 million across match-day, commercial and broadcast revenues, and asked for a revised payment schedule and the five per cent interest penalty cancelled owing to the unforeseen circumstances. Watford also asked for the £400,000 add-on payment to be delayed until August 2021 and the second instalment of the transfer postponed until October 2021. The judge overseeing the case said the English club had “no doubt suffered financially from the consequences of the pandemic” but FIFA’s COVID-19 guidelines did not allow for a delay to the main payments. The excuse of relegation received less sympathy. “All clubs are expected to have an adequate risk management plan as to the possibility of being relegated,” the judge said. It was also highlighted that over a five-year contract period, Watford “could reasonably have anticipated a relegation in said time”. It meant Rennes partially won their claim. The outstanding transfer fees and add-ons were ordered to be paid, but the judge felt the five per cent per month interest was “disproportionate” and ruled that a fairer 18 per cent per annum be applied. This meant that interest, up to the date of the hearing, sat at £750,000 if none of the outstanding payments had been satisfied in the interim. The delay between the initial discrepancy and the FIFA hearing meant Watford, despite being out of the Premier League, were on a slightly sounder financial footing as they knew Premier League football was likely to return. The day of the case coincided with the 1-0 victory at Norwich, which left them needing to beat Millwall at home four days later to make an immediate return to the top flight, which they did. Sarr scored the important goal from the penalty spot. https://cdn.theathletic.com/app/upl...Images-1314205559-1-scaled-e1620566279928.jpg Sarr and team-mates celebrate promotion in April 2021 (Photo: Richard Heathcote/***** Images) It was not all good news for Watford, though. The judge outlined that if any of the money did not appear in Rennes’ bank account within 45 days, Watford could face a transfer ban for the next three windows. Watford were afforded 21 days to appeal the decision, which led to this week’s hearing at CAS. A spokesperson for the court confirmed that it concerned “a contractual dispute between the clubs relating to the transfer of the player Ismaila Sarr”. The contentious issue was the level of interest payable to Rennes. It is understood that other stage payments within the agreement between the clubs have been paid, with the next (£5 million) due on August 31, 2022. Sarr now has 37 Premier League starts and a combined 15 goals and assists — his last coming when setting up Emmanuel Dennis for the only goal at Villa Park — meaning Watford now owe Rennes two further payments of £400,000. Although the case has been heard by CAS, the panel overseeing the evidence needs to deliberate and prepare the arbitral award. A final decision is not expected in the immediate future. Once back from international duty with Senegal, Sarr may only have nine more matches remaining in a Watford shirt. The Athletic highlighted when last summer’s transfer window closed that a move away from Vicarage Road would be more likely at the end of the 2021-22 season, especially with two years remaining on his deal. Liverpool, Manchester United and Crystal Palace have all tried to prise him away during his time at Watford and other suitors are now circling. Although it is understood nothing has been decided yet on any player’s future, Watford will, at the very least, aim to make a profit on the Sarr sale whether they stay up or head back to the Championship. The club and the player have done the hard yards to get this far together and will want a happy ending for financial and footballing reasons. I don't think we will be making a profit on Sarr - not up front anyway.
Watford line up for today's U23 match against Wigan - just about to kick off. please log in to view this image
The thing I'm most surprised by in that CAS decision is the judge changed (lowered) the interest rate that both clubs freely agreed with each other. Even as a Watford fan, it looks a bit unfair on Rennes that we agreed to 5% a month for being late, are paying late, but paying less in interest than we said we would.
Ouch ?! 252 million debt ? Surely an error somewhere..or perhaps it’s watered down when the full details come in. Worrying either way .
Well yes & no. There was that official video of Gray a few years ago where they used the phrase Luther misit and that infuriated him however he clearly has access inside the stadium as there was a photo op with him last month. Perhaps, due to his community and charity work he won't have the time to be an ambassador. I've never seen an apology from the club for the slur whilst trying to relate Gray to Luther.
21 million pound loss made last year - not too bad I guess but does add to a very high debt overall I believe which is a worry. https://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/s...ase-latest-accounts-showing-loss-21-7million/
No idea if it is true, but some reports suggesting Scott Duxberry will be leaving at the end of the season.
That's handy about the Leicester City match, I'm going to see The Levellers that evening, helps with the dash back.
