Douglas Luiz

[TRO]

I honestly don't see an issue.....the buy back clause is on a time limited basis and the clock is ticking, not sure, when its null and void, but until they show any interest, its just a moot point.

Dougie seems relaxed about it, says he never speaks to them, seems integrated with us.

there's nothing to worry about, until there is.

[cheltenham_villa]

2 minutes ago, TRO said:

I honestly don't see an issue.....the buy back clause is on a time limited basis and the clock is ticking, not sure, when its null and void, but until they show any interest, its just a moot point.

Dougie seems relaxed about it, says he never speaks to them, seems integrated with us.

there's nothing to worry about, until there is.

agreed, were very obsessed with it.

reality is theirs no formal interest and the price theyd have to pay is quite competitive for players in that position of which they have several.

[MaVilla]

32 minutes ago, TRO said:

I honestly don't see an issue.....the buy back clause is on a time limited basis and the clock is ticking, not sure, when its null and void, but until they show any interest, its just a moot point.

Dougie seems relaxed about it, says he never speaks to them, seems integrated with us.

there's nothing to worry about, until there is.

i would expect (or hope)....?, there was some agreement that if the re-purchase was to be triggered we would get X advanced notice?

Maybe not.....but i know if i was Villa i would be saying in the initial negotiations...."you cant be triggering the buyback on the 31st Jan at 8pm".......ie: i would want X days/weeks notice of intention to trigger the buyback, before the end of a window.

maybe im just.....not realistic tho.....

[OutByEaster?]

51 minutes ago, MotoMkali said:

He can choose to play for us. That isn't how it works. They can choose to potentially get his rights but he doesn't have to accept. Otherwise it is basically a forced agreement. And there is no way the PFA would stand for that. 

He's already accepted - it's something he'll have agreed to in the contract - there's a contract with three parties with a clause that allows the registration to return to City at a fixed price. If they take that up, he's registered to them - that's the contract he's agreed. If the clubs were trying to force it on him that would be different.

 

[Kiwivillan]

40 minutes ago, cheltenham_villa said:

agreed, were very obsessed with it.

reality is theirs no formal interest and the price theyd have to pay is quite competitive for players in that position of which they have several.

What's the price they'd have to pay? All I've seen is pure speculation from Journos who are just spitballing

[fightoffyour]

36 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

He's already accepted - it's something he'll have agreed to in the contract - there's a contract with three parties with a clause that allows the registration to return to City at a fixed price. If they take that up, he's registered to them - that's the contract he's agreed. If the clubs were trying to force it on him that would be different.

 

Have you seen that contract though? How do you know it’s not like a buy out clause but only applying to Man City? We have to accept a bid from them of a certain amount but he still has to agree terms before his registration is transferred?

That sounds much more believable to me. Otherwise there’s a situation where they could own a player who doesn’t have a contract with them. Doesn’t sound right, and I don’t recall that ever happening.

[AndyM3000]

58 minutes ago, MaVilla said:

i would expect (or hope)....?, there was some agreement that if the re-purchase was to be triggered we would get X advanced notice?

Maybe not.....but i know if i was Villa i would be saying in the initial negotiations...."you cant be triggering the buyback on the 31st Jan at 8pm".......ie: i would want X days/weeks notice of intention to trigger the buyback, before the end of a window.

maybe im just.....not realistic tho.....

Usually these buy back clauses end during the early-middle stages of the summer transfer window, probably for that very reason.

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

He's already accepted - it's something he'll have agreed to in the contract - there's a contract with three parties with a clause that allows the registration to return to City at a fixed price. If they take that up, he's registered to them - that's the contract he's agreed. If the clubs were trying to force it on him that would be different.

 

You know more about this stuff than me, but that seems like a terrible deal from the player's perspective. What stops Man City from buying his registration and then offering him a take-it-or-leave-it contract that's far less than he could get elsewhere? Or even than he is paid here?

[Rightdm00]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

He's already accepted - it's something he'll have agreed to in the contract - there's a contract with three parties with a clause that allows the registration to return to City at a fixed price. If they take that up, he's registered to them - that's the contract he's agreed. If the clubs were trying to force it on him that would be different.

 

Yeah that's how it works. The player has already agreed to the transfer if the clause is met. The players registration will automatically transfer back to Man C. Douglas will then have to negotiate a new deal with City. 

[Adam2003]

I’m just not worried as it’s only a financial thing. He’s so good he will eventually leave. The buyback may mean it’s for cheap but (a) we also got him for cheap because of it and (b) it’s not my money whether he leaves for £30m or £70m and the owners have plenty and will work their way around FFP. So swings and roundabouts, at least enough that I’m not going to worry about it even though I absolutely love him. 

[KentVillan]

https://www.danielgeey.com/post/football-transfers-buy-back-clauses-explained/

Quote

Can you please explain how buy-back clauses work – like the one used in Barcelona’s agreement with Aston Villa for Adama Traore?

Buy-back clauses in transfer agreements are used primarily to give a selling club the security of being able to repurchase a promising player at a set fee should the player excel in the future. Some high profile examples of such reported clauses include Álvaro Morata (Juve back to Madrid), Casemiro  (Porto back to Real Madrid) and Gerard Deulofeu (Everton back to Barcelona) . In many cases, the benefit of the transfer extends to the:

• selling club as they receive a transfer fee for a player that at present probably isn’t getting regular playing time with the possibility of requiring the player if he plays well at a predefined fee;
• buying club who can purchase a player that they otherwise may not have been able to acquire had it not been for the clause. In addition, the buyback figure is usually significantly higher than the original transfer fee; and
• player (who can play regular first team football, probably receive a pay rise and demonstrate their talent).

The buy-back provision is usually based on a number of individual or cumulative triggers including activating the clause:

• In defined transfer windows (i.e. the selling club cannot buy back the player for a minimum of two seasons);
• should the original selling club bid a set amount (which could vary depending on the season that the buy-back clause is triggered i.e. €2m in the 15-16 windows and €2.5m in the 16-17 windows).

Should a buy-back provision be triggered, there is usually a contractual obligation to enforce the contract and transfer the player accordingly.

As such provisions are commercial agreements between contracting parties, there is always the possibility of removing a buy-back clause should both parties agree (usually through payment made to the club that has the benefit of the buy-back clause). An interesting situation was reported over the summer with Atletico Madrid defender Toby Alderweireld  who was on loan at Southampton for the 2014/15 season. Southampton had an agreement with Atletico when entering into the loan deal that they had the option to purchase the defender for £6.8m. Although not a buy-back provision, the clause gave Southampton the ability to convert the loan into a permanent transfer unless Atletico paid Southampton £1.5m to remove the clause. In the 2015 summer window Tottenham bid around £11.5m which Atletico accepted. Southampton though wanted to enforce the £6.8m purchase clause. It has not been publically reported how the matter was finally resolved but it is likely that Atletico provided compensation to Southampton in order for the player to transfer to Tottenham.

How is it different from a first refusal clause?

A first refusal transfer clause gives the club who has the benefit of the clause the opportunity to be informed of any deal that the selling club is willing to accept for the transfer of the player. This is different from a buy-back clause because usually with a first refusal clause, the selling club retains the power to decide whether to sell the player or not. Typically, a buy-back clause automatically triggers the transfer of the player should specific contractual conditions be met. In practice, the selling club will not have any way of refusing the buy-back offer if the clause is intended to be an automatic trigger and it is drafted appropriately.

What price does the original club have to offer to buy the player back?

The most common way for the original club to repurchase the player is through a set transfer fee that is inserted into the transfer agreement I.e. If the club bids £15m in any of the first 2 transfer windows. In practice, these matters can become more complicated if there are different set fees depending on the year that the clause is activated, if the player is called up for the national team, if he scores a certain number of goals or makes a number of appearances. So, for example, a basic buy-back clause could be structured as follows to ensure that the buy-back fee will be set at:

• €5m should such a bid be received from the Offer Club in the Summer 2016 Window; or
• €6.5m should such a bid be received from the Offer Club in the Summer 2017 Window.

An additional €1m fee will be required to activate the buy-back condition should the player[1]:

• be called up to play in an officially recognised FIFA national team representative match;
• score 10 Premier League goals in any season consisting of 38 league matches; or
• play for at least 60 minutes in 50% of all Premier League, domestic cup and UEFA Champions League or Europa League competition matches.

What if a third club comes along with a bigger offer than the original club was offering? Does the original club have to match it? What if the third club then ups its offer in response?

This was a similar scenario to the Toby Alderweireld situation discussed above. In practice, a selling club, just as Atletico did, can have the benefit of a stipulated transfer amount cancellation clause, which caters for such a scenario where a third club bids more than the stipulated buy-back amount. Whether such a cancellation clause is inserted in the first place can depend on the negotiation position of the parties. If the original seller (who will have the benefit of the buy-back) is in a strong position, there is less likelihood of such a cancellation figure being inserted or in the alternative the cancellation figure being set at a high sum.

If there is such a provision and the buy-back cancellation sum is paid to the original club, then the selling club is free to sell the player and accept a higher amount. If the club refuses to pay the buy-back cancellation sum or there is no clause in the contract, then the original selling club should be able to enforce the buy-back clause so long as it can agree personal terms with the player and that the player wishes to re-join the club (though these factors may not be straightforward in practice!).

I think the reality is without seeing the exact wording of Douglas's contract, none of us has a clue what is possible.

There may be a fixed fee, already written into the contract, that we can pay City to remove the clause. Or it might need to be negotiated.

My guess is that with Purslow on the case, we haven't been screwed over here, and will be in a position of relative strength.

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

So we could potentially offer City money to remove the buy back clause it seems?

If we finished in Europe this season, or position with players gets alot stronger.

[deeps]

1 hour ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

So we could potentially offer City money to remove the buy back clause it seems?

If we finished in Europe this season, or position with players gets alot stronger.

Think you’re correct mate. If we want to remove it we have to buy it out. It’s a no brainer if we can somehow. 

[avfc1982am]

I thought registration is ultimately  held by us. As part of the bill of sale terms the buy back clause was inserted. The contract for Dougie's wages is completely separate, hence why we have offered him new improved terms. If City could call him back when ever they want I doubt very much they could impose a wage reduction. I think they would have to meet the terms of his current wages. Otherwise what is the point in offering new terms until the buy back period elapses. It would not surprise me that the new improved terms we have offered are to staive off City coming in a blowing us out the water with regards to his wages. Ultimately he can't refuse to return but City would have to at least meet the terms of his wages to also activate the buyback? Maybe I'm way off but that's how I see it. 

[sharkyvilla]

13 minutes ago, avfc1982am said:

I thought registration is ultimately  held by us. As part of the bill of sale terms the buy back clause was inserted. The contract for Dougie's wages is completely separate, hence why we have offered him new improved terms. If City could call him back when ever they want I doubt very much they could impose a wage reduction. I think they would have to meet the terms of his current wages. Otherwise what is the point in offering new terms until the buy back period elapses. It would not surprise me that the new improved terms we have offered are to staive off City coming in a blowing us out the water with regards to his wages. Ultimately he can't refuse to return but City would have to at least meet the terms of his wages to also activate the buyback? Maybe I'm way off but that's how I see it. 

I guess none of us really knows how it works.  For me, logically the least likely is that if City decided to activate the clause then Doug wouldn't have a choice as to who he wants to play for, that just sounds like restraint of trade to me or at least a very bad bit of negotiation by his agent.

[Dave-R]

18 hours ago, TRO said:

I honestly don't see an issue.....the buy back clause is on a time limited basis and the clock is ticking, not sure, when its null and void, but until they show any interest, its just a moot point.

Dougie seems relaxed about it, says he never speaks to them, seems integrated with us.

there's nothing to worry about, until there is.

Well I keep saying that Dougie had said he has little to no contact with anyone involved at City, the Bloke came out and said that himself on twitter.

I'm sure that says alot in itself that to me anyway City just do not seem interested and anything swirling around is media blasting rumours around because they have next to nothing to talk about.

 

[Dave-R]

18 hours ago, cheltenham_villa said:

agreed, were very obsessed with it.

reality is theirs no formal interest and the price theyd have to pay is quite competitive for players in that position of which they have several.

Obsession is a key word with some around here when it comes to certain players lol. I understand everyone has there favs but sometimes it's crazy daft. Whether its transfer talk or someone defending a player who's up for being criticised at the time for whatever reason, VT just gets over sensitive at times lol.

[OutByEaster?]

Excellent today, battled away against a very good Chelsea midfield and came out of it well.

There were a couple of tiny things he did that I thought were fantastic; the first was how much time he eked out of the foul on him very late on, lying on the turf with a wry smile and his eyes closed, but the one I really loved was a free kick that we got with about ten to go - Konsa was standing over it and looking here there and everywhere without being able to find someone to get the ball too - Luiz was offering some sort of instruction as he walked toward him, then took over - the first thing he did was look up, pick the ball up and move it two yards forward - every single Chelsea player fixated on him moving the ball immediately, and in a moment, three or four players became free - it allowed him to play a simple pass and get us moving - simple, streetwise and clever. 

I'm still convinced that at some point in his career he'll end up in a yellow shirt with an armband and a World Cup held over his head.

 

[Delphinho123]

2 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Excellent today, battled away against a very good Chelsea midfield and came out of it well.

There were a couple of tiny things he did that I thought were fantastic; the first was how much time he eked out of the foul on him very late on, lying on the turf with a wry smile and his eyes closed, but the one I really loved was a free kick that we got with about ten to go - Konsa was standing over it and looking here there and everywhere without being able to find someone to get the ball too - Luiz was offering some sort of instruction as he walked toward him, then took over - the first thing he did was look up, pick the ball up and move it two yards forward - every single Chelsea player fixated on him moving the ball immediately, and in a moment, three or four players became free - it allowed him to play a simple pass and get us moving - simple, streetwise and clever. 

I'm still convinced that at some point in his career he'll end up in a yellow shirt with an armband and a World Cup held over his head.

 

£50 to Villatalk if he does that whilst still at Villa. 

No! £100!!

[Rightdm00]

23 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Excellent today, battled away against a very good Chelsea midfield and came out of it well.

There were a couple of tiny things he did that I thought were fantastic; the first was how much time he eked out of the foul on him very late on, lying on the turf with a wry smile and his eyes closed, but the one I really loved was a free kick that we got with about ten to go - Konsa was standing over it and looking here there and everywhere without being able to find someone to get the ball too - Luiz was offering some sort of instruction as he walked toward him, then took over - the first thing he did was look up, pick the ball up and move it two yards forward - every single Chelsea player fixated on him moving the ball immediately, and in a moment, three or four players became free - it allowed him to play a simple pass and get us moving - simple, streetwise and clever. 

I'm still convinced that at some point in his career he'll end up in a yellow shirt with an armband and a World Cup held over his head.

 

You saw that to. Chelsea had sussed out all the available angles for a pass so Luiz just changes it. Love that dude so much.