MICHAEL Rickets' transfer to Middlesbrough has resulted in some reports disputing the financial details involved and the amount Walsall are due owing to a sell-on clause when the striker originally moved to the Reebok.
Wallsall have issued a statement on their website detailing how much they will actually receive from the original fee negotiated when Ricketts was transferred to Wanderers.
As Bolton Evening News Chief Soccer Writer Gordon Sharrock revealed here on Saturday morning, Spurs were gazumped by Middlesbrough when the Reebok top scorer switched to The Riverside minutes before the transfer window closed in a package deal that could be worth more than £3.5m to Wanderers - £2.5m down with £1m linked to appearances plus a substantial sell-on clause.
Wallsall Chief Executive Roy Whalley said on the club's website www.walsallfc.co.uk that claims that Walsall would receive a £700,000 windfall were "totally misleading."
Whalley told the website: "It is true that the club will derive financial benefit from the transfer of Ricketts to Middlesbrough.
"In the deal taking him to Bolton Wanderers, 'sell on' clauses were included that would enable Walsall FC to benefit from any future transfer involving Ricketts.
"However the figures quoted in Monday evening's Express & Star were wide of the mark.
"Firstly, the transfer fee paid by Middlesbrough was £2.5million not £3.5million. Some 'sell on' clauses have been inserted but these are dependent upon Middlesbrough achieving League and Cup success during the next couple of seasons.
"To calculate Walsall's share of the transfer you have to deduct the amount already paid by Bolton to Walsall for the original transfer, from the £2.5million paid by Middlesbrough. We receive 20% of the balance, amounting to £420,000.
"This money will be received in a series of stage payments.
"While the Ricketts transfer is a welcome development for the club, it will not, as has been suggested, guarantee a 12th successive trading profit. It will however go some way towards helping the club overcome the £2.5million loss of income following the demise of ITV Digital."
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article