Douglas Luiz

[TrentVilla]

8 hours ago, Enda said:

I’m not a lawyer but that sounds completely illegal.

It isn’t, they are commercial agreements between contracting parties including the player. If there wasn’t a contractual condition with such agreements they would be potentially meaningless.

[villalad21]

As a Brazilian International it won't only be Man City we need to worry about.

If he keeps progressing i can see the likes of Barca and RM being in for him.

[DaveAV1]

17 minutes ago, villalad21 said:

As a Brazilian International it won't only be Man City we need to worry about.

If he keeps progressing i can see the likes of Barca and RM being in for him.

Surely you of all people, as the creator of the Title Chase thread, must realise that our rise to the top is now an unstoppable train on the track to Glory. First the PL, then Europe and finally the World.
 

If Doug wants to ride that crazy train then great. Either way small clubs like Barcelona, Real Madrid and Man City can just look on in envious wonderment. 

Count ‘em boy, there is now and always has been only ONE Aston Villa. You’ve already bought a ticket, it’s time to climb aboard!!

[Junxs]

20 hours ago, yayoboy said:

IF City triggered the buy back, he has to stay with them for a season (on their books anyway) due to limits on how many times a player can move over 12 months IIRC...

So hypothetical talk of buying him back and selling straight to Juve etc can't be done?

Yep, I was just getting ready to write the same thing then saw your post.

Those worried about Man City buying him purely for sell on profits can put their minds at ease. Unless they feel he's actually good enough to play for them they wont be buying him back.

[sne]

Barcelona can't afford him as it's only to City we have to agree to the £35m fee. If Barca or anyone else comes in we can demand whatever we want.

Anyway, here's hoping City blow all their money on signing Messi next summer.

Edited October 11, 2020 by sne

[Enda]

6 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

It isn’t, they are commercial agreements between contracting parties including the player. If there wasn’t a contractual condition with such agreements they would be potentially meaningless.

The commercial part is fine.

The labour part is the controversy. Douglas is a human and Aston Villa are his employer. The only way you can force someone to change employers is if it’s a sort of agency gig, or he’s formally on loan to us, and we are not paying his NICs etc. I’ve asked around and I am 95% certain he retains right of refusal for any employer.

[MotoMkali]

16 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

As far as I understand it these buy back clauses are definitive, player wishes contractually don’t enter into it.

The player signs an agreement with the selling club as part of the transfer, so their is a contractual relationship between the player and selling club that becomes valid if triggered by the selling club.

So if City were to trigger it then neither Villa or the player can say no.

In practical terms though it’s debatable if a club would trigger such a clause if the player was really against it.

 

Luiz said he doesnt have a contract with them though

[BG_Villa_Fan]

If you think Man City would trigger his clause and he'll pull a Mings and travel up there in a Villa kit you're crazy. 

The way I see it, there are 2 possibilities - either Man City would want him in their own team, in which case there's nothing we can do about it, or they'd want to sell him for profit, in which case I'm sure we could negotiate with them. Either way 35 mil is a lot of money and with some prudent management can get you a very good replacement. 

Regardless of what happens that deal has been absolutely fantastic for Villa. I just hope they don't trigger it in January or the last day of a transfer window. 

[Sam-AVFC]

6 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

It isn’t, they are commercial agreements between contracting parties including the player. If there wasn’t a contractual condition with such agreements they would be potentially meaningless.

Presumably you're implying he would have already agreed a future wage with them when signing for us as otherwise they could just put him on £20k a year and he'd have to deal with it.

[TrentVilla]

2 hours ago, Sam-AVFC said:

Presumably you're implying he would have already agreed a future wage with them when signing for us as otherwise they could just put him on £20k a year and he'd have to deal with it.

Yes that would have to have been pre agreed as well although they could obviously go higher.

[TrentVilla]

2 hours ago, MotoMkali said:

Luiz said he doesnt have a contract with them though

I’ve seen him say he doesn’t have contact I’ve not seen him say he doesn’t have a contract but if you can point me in the direction of a quote on that I’d be very keen to read it.

[TrentVilla]

3 hours ago, Enda said:

The commercial part is fine.

The labour part is the controversy. Douglas is a human and Aston Villa are his employer. The only way you can force someone to change employers is if it’s a sort of agency gig, or he’s formally on loan to us, and we are not paying his NICs etc. I’ve asked around and I am 95% certain he retains right of refusal for any employer.

It’s not forcing, he has willingly forward signed a contract. Football isn’t like any other form of employment, Villa would be contractually obliges to transfer his registration, he would therefore have no choice.

People seem to think these clauses are unenforceable but I doubt very much a club like City, with teams of lawyers would enter into an agreement they couldn’t enforce.

[MotoMkali]

1 hour ago, TrentVilla said:

I’ve seen him say he doesn’t have contact I’ve not seen him say he doesn’t have a contract but if you can point me in the direction of a quote on that I’d be very keen to read it.

Might have just misread it. 

[Enda]

7 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

It’s not forcing, he has willingly forward signed a contract. Football isn’t like any other form of employment, Villa would be contractually obliges to transfer his registration, he would therefore have no choice.

People seem to think these clauses are unenforceable but I doubt very much a club like City, with teams of lawyers would enter into an agreement they couldn’t enforce.

Football contracts are complicated but they’re not immune to employment law. I asked a barrister friend if conditional contracts were enforceable and was told only if that person is effectively an agency worker (or another short-term transfer like a loan). There could be a loophole she’s never heard of, but contracts are sometimes written that violate law (see Bosman, for example). Not ruling it out but she said a requirement to change employers at an undetermined date, without employee consent, is a basic violation of worker rights and unenforceable.

In many ways, this is academic. If City want Douglas they can offer him CL football on £150k a week and his consent probably won’t be an issue.

[Vive_La_Villa]

I always thought the clause meant the club has to accept a 35m bid from Man City. After that point it would be up to Luiz to discuss terms and agree to the move. 
 

Is that not the case?

[hong0311]

26 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

I always thought the clause meant the club has to accept a 35m bid from Man City. After that point it would be up to Luiz to discuss terms and agree to the move. 
 

Is that not the case?

The club can also try to negotiate some sort of a cash deal to buy off the buy-back clause, similar to the Toby Alderweireld deal to Tottenham where A. Madrid seemingly paid Southampton to wipe off the buy option of the loan deal so the transfer to Tottenham can go through.

[TrentVilla]

5 hours ago, Enda said:

Football contracts are complicated but they’re not immune to employment law. I asked a barrister friend if conditional contracts were enforceable and was told only if that person is effectively an agency worker (or another short-term transfer like a loan). There could be a loophole she’s never heard of, but contracts are sometimes written that violate law (see Bosman, for example). Not ruling it out but she said a requirement to change employers at an undetermined date, without employee consent, is a basic violation of worker rights and unenforceable.

In many ways, this is academic. If City want Douglas they can offer him CL football on £150k a week and his consent probably won’t be an issue.

Football isn’t like other employment though because of player registrations which are owned by the club not the player. I’ve worked in recruitment for 20 years so I’m well aware of employment law but the transfer of footballers isn’t comparable to permanent or temporary workers.

[Thug]

On 11/10/2020 at 00:45, ThunderPower_14 said:

I can't believe that Man City would be able to take him back without his permission. That said, I think if they activated the clause, he'd go. 

I’m with this thought train.

 

Anything else would be a glorified loan.

[KenjiOgiwara]

22 hours ago, sne said:

Barcelona can't afford him as it's only to City we have to agree to the £35m fee. If Barca or anyone else comes in we can demand whatever we want.

Anyway, here's hoping City blow all their money on signing Messi next summer.

That's interesting, didn't think about that. What happens to city's buy back clause if another club buys him first? 

[Thug]

1 hour ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

I always thought the clause meant the club has to accept a 35m bid from Man City. After that point it would be up to Luiz to discuss terms and agree to the move. 
 

Is that not the case?

This is exactly how I would have interpreted it. A minimum fee release clause for a single club.  They’d be free to negotiate with the player if they met the asking price.