Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This deal makes no sense to me when Man City will be competing with us for the league title next season....maybe they have given up hope already

 

 

 

 

 

 

😋

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Monsieur Hazdazler said:

Although you want to know you have certainly over the ownership of your players, there’s a strong business case here. Man City are likely selling him at a very reasonable price because this transfer will enable him to get a work permit...all City can do with him is loan him again as he can’t get a work permit for them. This transfer should give him enough points for that. The result is city get to see him in the premier league, make a profit on him overall if he never goes back. However if he excels they can buy him back for the first team with no permit issues. For us, if they do that we get a couple years of service (most likely) and make a profit on the deal. 

For me the success of the transfer comes down to whether or not the buy back clause is high enough to allow us to adequately source a replacement down the line if the market continues to inflate. 

Yep, good post.  It does seem a little ... fraught for me.  In that a resounding success means you will lose the player.  On the basis that the board have explicitly said they don't want to be developing players for other teams, this does seem a little like doing exactly that, only with the illusion of ownership in the meantime, and you get to keep him if he doesn't make the grade.  I dunno.  Maybe I'm being a little negative.  Once he contributes towards a successful campaign this time around, we can look at the rest when we get there.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AJ said:

Say, for some reason, he falls in love with us, and doesn't want to go back?

Yeah it's a valid question.  In a(ny) buyback clause, does the player have to agree?  Can he veto?  No idea tbh.  I can't imagine the buying club would want someone who doesn't want to be there, so he might be able to dissuade them in that sense.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BOF said:

Yep, good post.  It does seem a little ... fraught for me.  In that a resounding success means you will lose the player.  On the basis that the board have explicitly said they don't want to be developing players for other teams, this does seem a little like doing exactly that, only with the illusion of ownership in the meantime, and you get to keep him if he doesn't make the grade.  I dunno.  Maybe I'm being a little negative.  Once he contributes towards a successful campaign this time around, we can look at the rest when we get there.

A fair view for sure, I think a financial profit is always attractive though. Loans suck as you do the development but often for a chunk of the bill (with some at least). On this one, we come out of it well either way.

 

3 minutes ago, AJ said:

Say, for some reason, he falls in love with us, and doesn't want to go back?

Buy back clauses don’t work like that. If city activate it he would have to go back, no choice for him

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We're always going to be 'developing players for other teams' in some capacity unless they retire after leaving us of course. It's the not getting paid for it if they're any good bit we don't want to repeat again.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Monsieur Hazdazler said:

Buy back clauses don’t work like that. If city activate it he would have to go back, no choice for him

Ah, buggery fiddlesticks then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AntrimBlack said:

And now I can connect with Mings. That is the difference.

You're too old school mate 😉. No-one's "ours" any more... just enjoy the ones we have for as long as we have them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

but he will be ours...am i missing something here? this is a transfer, not a loan as everyone keeps implying. a loan means that they return to their parent club whether they want him back or not (unless a mandatory fee has been agreed). this is just a buy back option, something to cover city's backside if he turns into a superstar. if he 'just' becomes a decent premier league midfielder then city wont bother...they buy superstars, not just decent players. if he becomes a superstar then that would mean he's had a cracking few seasons for us and had a key role in our progression...so he'd end up leaving anyway to a bigger club whether there's a buy back or not.

I know what you are saying, but while there is a buyback option, he is a loan really, in all but name.

If he becomes a `superstar', he goes back to them. If he is very good, he may move on anyway, and that applies to Grealish, McGinn, etc. as well.

But we should be hoping to keep our best players, and to sell them should be for our club to decide, not another club.

My original point was only that I find it difficult to connect with a player who is not really ours, be it a loan or this type of deal.

And I suppose I am disappointed in that I thought with the new owners this sort of short termism would be a thing of the past.

However, if this goes through I will still hope he is brilliant for us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, BOF said:

Yeah it's a valid question.  In a(ny) buyback clause, does the player have to agree?  Can he veto?  No idea tbh.  I can't imagine the buying club would want someone who doesn't want to be there, so he might be able to dissuade them in that sense.

Player doesn't have to agree. The release clause basically means that you can formally begin talks with the player if you are willing to play the club this amount in a single payment (unless otherwise stated in the initial transfer agreement).

 

Edit: Wrong Example Used

Edited by Wes
Example used was regarding a release clause not a buyback clause. Correctly pointed out by BOF.
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Monsieur Hazdazler said:

On this one, we come out of it well either way.

The one glaring loophohle that I hate in these situations is market value versus buyback fee.  If, at any point during his time at Villa, his value on the open market exceeds his buyback fee, then City have reason to trigger the clause regardless of whether they want him in their team or not.  Because they could take him back solely to sell him straight away for a guaranteed profit.

It's why I think there should be a condition attached to buyback clauses that once the player is bought back, he cannot move to another club for a calendar year so as to prevent the 'flipping' of players for profit.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Feidhlim said:

12 pages talking about a **** buy back clause.

 

Really? We get a good player. If he does brilliantly, we make a profit through the transfer and on field success of the team. We replace him with another smart signing.

 

How about we talk about his skills, strengths, weaknesses. Whether he has a dodgy jumper etc.

I'm not worried. He'll play in a Villa kit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â