Jump to content

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, AntrimBlack said:

If he performs well he will go back to his parent club. And we start then have to replace him.

If he performs well then it's likely that Villa will still be a Premier team at the end of the season. That's a good investment.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Feidhlim said:

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

Feel free :thumb:

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Wes said:

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).

II'm pretty sure Arsenal triggered Vardy's release clause a few seasons ago but he stayed at Leicester in the end.

That's not a 'buyback'.  Vardy was never an Arsenal player.  You're thinking of a release clause.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BOF said:

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.

Yeah absolutely that’s a bit concern, I think I noted in my original post that the success of the deal for me will come down to this very point, and whether the fee received will be suitable for any market inflation and limit city’s ability to buy back strictly for profit. 

Hell if we want to be smart about it we agree to a fair buy back clause, but there’s a stipulation if it’s activated that city can’t sell him on for a set time period after or something. Not sure if that’s possible though 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BOF said:

That's not a 'buyback'.  Vardy was never an Arsenal player.  You're thinking of a release clause.

Quite right. I've got jumbled up - forget the example but the initial point remains, the player does not have to agree.

Otherwise there would be a scenario where Man City could buy him back for X amount, but only pay him £1k a week for 5 years (obviously never would, but just used to detail the point)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tom13 said:

 

And as people have said, City have just signed Rodri, so we either make a profit from a 'loan', or we keep him. No negatives for me!

City will not necessarily buy him to play him, but just to sell him on at a fat profit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also with Buy Back Clauses, arent they generally for significantly more fee than the original fee.  Also I have seen (via press) that buy back clauses grow with each season and achievements i.e. international recognition.  So this is different from a loan because we would make some good profit if he is successful probably not as much as we could but at the same time we are purchasing a player cheaper than he would normally cost. 

A win-win for Villa and Man City, it just reduces the risk for both parties. 

  • We buy a player that has potential at below market cost because we are taking the risk of him failing but the downside is we sell for less if he is a success
  • Man City may have to fork out substantially more than currently if he is successful but can buy back at below the then market price.

It's a really good risk management strategy by both teams.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

According to transfermarkt he's only played as a Defensive Midfielder ten times in his career, and is normally a central midfielder. But I'd been thinking recently that in the Premier league we might not have the luxury of being able to play a three man midfield that contained Grealish, sometimes we'll need more a traditional central midfielder in there, with Grealish perhaps taking the place of one of the wingers... With that said I still think we might go for a Defensive Midfielder, or if this guy is going to do that job, then another box-to-box type midfielder.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, useless said:

According to transfermarkt he's only played as a Defensive Midfielder ten times in his career, and is normally a central midfielder. But I'd been thinking recently that in the Premier league we might not have the luxury of being able to play a three man midfield that contained Grealish, sometimes we'll need more a traditional central midfielder in there, with Grealish perhaps taking the place of one of the wingers... With that said I still think we might go for a Defensive Midfielder, or if this guy is going to do that job, then another box-to-box type midfielder.

 

His highlight video seem to suggest he is a deep lying or defensive midfielder anyway.  Certainly looks good getting his foot in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 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.

This is the main point, for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AntrimBlack said:

This is the main point, for me.

but if a big comes in for one of our players like Grealish or McGinn and we have to sell then isnt it the same thing if the player then insisted on going.  The only difference is the fee, we would get a smaller fee in this case rather than open market.

Loans go back to their clubs whatever and can be recalled (Depending on agreed terms).  With this it would include a fee and likely a substantial fee.  For me this is far closer to an open market sale than it is to loan.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, villarule123 said:

Can't we just be happy that we're signing players with, at a bare minimum, profitability in mind instead of signing players at the end of their careers with no resale value. 

About **** time. 

Absolutely, but we can discuss more than one thing, and sometimes things that aren't 100% positive.  Let's not stifle debate :)  There's room for everyone :wave:

  • Like 1
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