Jump to content

Douglas Luiz


LondonLax

Recommended Posts

Not concerned at all about the clause. There is a huge difference between someone that is good enough to play for a top half PL team, and a player good enough to play for Man City. 

If he proves to be world class we wouldn't keep hold of him anyway, the only difference is that City might get him back for less than they would otherwise have to pay. 

If he helps to keep us up it will be good business for both clubs, and having a good working relationship with City isn't a bad thing either. 

 

 

Edited by av1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Adam2003 said:

The club is signing ballplaying defenders who could step up into midfield, attacking fullbacks, midfielders like Luiz (and existing players like McGinn) who are hard to define as defensive or attacking midfielders - I think we aren’t thinking so much in positional boxes. Talk of “is he a DM or isn’t he” is, I think, going to prove to be irrelevant to how this team sets up. I’m excited to see it.

I see your point but think that is possibly akin to a total football utopia to a degree. If we look at all of the most successful PL teams they all have that specialist DM which I believe is essential to counteract the ever increasing attacking emphasis that the top teams adopt. IMO, of course. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quality player that we wouldn't otherwise get. If he's good enough for City to want him back. We'll earn a decent sum of cash that can be reinvested. I don't understand why people have issues with that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Skruff said:

Quality player that we wouldn't otherwise get. If he's good enough for City to want him back. We'll earn a decent sum of cash that can be reinvested. I don't understand why people have issues with that. 

I don't. What annoys me is when people are calling it a loan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Skruff said:

Quality player that we wouldn't otherwise get. If he's good enough for City to want him back. We'll earn a decent sum of cash that can be reinvested. I don't understand why people have issues with that. 

Just on this, while I would rather no clause obviously, I'm not overly worried about it - however he doesn't have to be "good enough for City to want him back", he only has to be good enough to be sold for more than the clause is worth.

If he does great and is suddenly valued at £30m+ and their buy back is £20m, they'll just buy him for £20m then sell him for £30m the next day.

I'm generally not worried though because I'm sure in circumstances like that they'd offer us the opportunity to buy out the clause for X amount first, so we'd effectively have first refusal presuming he wants to stay.

All this is assuming his value doubles in the next couple of years

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

I don't. What annoys me is when people are calling it a loan. 

City can take him back whenever they wish, and we cannot stop them doing so. And we cannot sell him. So to my mind he is really not ours.

If we owned him they would not be able to do that. And we could sell him if we wished.

So he is as close to a loan as you can get without it actually being called a loan.

Basically both City and us will make money from the deal, which is the whole point of the structure of this `transfer'.

Hopefully he does well for us and both clubs make money on the deal, but let's not pretend he is our player in the way that our other contracted players are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, AntrimBlack said:

City can take him back whenever they wish...

I wonder if this is true or if Villa will have negotiated a minimum term, perhaps a year?

Losing him in December, ready to be sold on in January, would be annoying. However, if we have him until May and then have until August to replace him, it’s still a great deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, AntrimBlack said:

City can take him back whenever they wish, and we cannot stop them doing so. And we cannot sell him. So to my mind he is really not ours.

If we owned him they would not be able to do that. And we could sell him if we wished.

So he is as close to a loan as you can get without it actually being called a loan.

Basically both City and us will make money from the deal, which is the whole point of the structure of this `transfer'.

Hopefully he does well for us and both clubs make money on the deal, but let's not pretend he is our player in the way that our other contracted players are. 

Unless he gets x amount of senior international appearances in a calender year it will be a while before City can fulfill his work permit/visa requirements

Edited by Kiwivillan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kiwivillan said:

Unless he gets x amount of international appearances in a calender year it will be a while before City can fulfill his work permit/visa requirements

If he does well enough for citeh to buy him back and want to keep him, they’ll be happy to offer him a much improved contract that, together with the criteria points from playing our games, could help him meet the requirement. I’m more interested in Villa gaining the services of a player we wouldn’t otherwise have been able to get, hopefully for a full season or more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JoeParker91 said:

Until we know the actual terms of the buyback clause (which we may never find out) I don't think it is something particularity worth fretting about.  

Very exciting player to be linked with. 

A good point. Also like your ‘linked with’ because, unless I’ve missed something, that’s all it currently is. Would be annoying if this deal didn’t get finalised!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, brommy said:

If he does well enough for citeh to buy him back and want to keep him, they’ll be happy to offer him a much improved contract that, together with the criteria points from playing our games, could help him meet the requirement. I’m more interested in Villa gaining the services of a player we wouldn’t otherwise have been able to get, hopefully for a full season or more.

The reason why we will be able to sign him if it goes through is the 15m is top 10% historical transfer value for us as a club and give him a wage relative high for our players. That's difficult for money bags City to fulfill hence the deal being beneficial for us

The way I understand it but could be completely wrong is he will need to get x% senior international call ups to facilitate the buy back clause easily

Edited by Kiwivillan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AntrimBlack said:

City can take him back whenever they wish, and we cannot stop them doing so. And we cannot sell him. So to my mind he is really not ours.

They can? Where did you find this? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Kiwivillan said:

The reason why we will be able to sign him if it goes through is the 15m is top 10% historical transfer value for us as a club and give him a wage relative high for our players. That's difficult for money bags City to fulfill hence the deal being beneficial for us

The way I understand it but could be completely wrong is he will need to get x% senior international call ups to facilitate the buy back clause easily

If he gets re-signed with a much improved contract (quite possible), it could give him the extra points (3 for top 25%, 2 for top 50%) to meet the threshold. All just speculation, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â