Aaron Ramsey

[Zatman]

Just now, CVByrne said:

Seriously, this is just amusing. The buy back is always on a good chunk more money and moving back to the "bigger" club. No player and his agent are going to suddenly go, oh this is terrible, we get a big pay increase and sign on bonus. We need to go on strike, we're being treated like meat

When has this ever happened a player coming back When he doesn't have or want too?

Real had to negotiate with Morata for example to get him.back

[VillaAlex]

Just now, Zatman said:

Of course my issue is people assuming its guaranteed he is coming back

Yeah it's not, but a risk worth taking if we can't fit him in. If he gets to the level where Man City/ Real Madrid would want him fair play to him.

[MotoMkali]

6 minutes ago, Zatman said:

I cant remember a transfer ever where a buy back clause forced a player to move. Its actually never happened

Lawyers would be all over it like Bosman part 2

Morata never wanted to leave Juve. 

The contract is agreed at this time. If he really wanted to he could probably figure out a way to buy the contract. 

[StanBalaban]

1 minute ago, Zatman said:

Of course my issue is people assuming its guaranteed he is coming back

AJ and his agent will be instrumental in the creating a lot of terms of any contract - it won't be a case of clauses being inserted by Villa on the sly.

My guess is that the move to Burnley is made possible due to the lowish transfer fee - something I would guess the player is pushing for to get regular PL game time. In return, the club would like the option to buy the player back, with terms of this arrangement both pre agreed with the player and Burnley. Everyone would need to be happy with the this from the get go, otherwise there is no deal.

With regards to the lack of buy back clauses being optioned in the past, I would say that speaks volumes of just how few promising talents prove to be good enough to actually be recalled by a top team.

The Villa of old could never get away with this, as any promising youngster stood a good chance of game time. If the event arose that a talented academy player wanted regular football before there was a chance here, there's no way that if they proved successful they'd agree to come back to a consitently poor Villa team.

FWIW, I believe the only way AJ doesn't come back is if his progress doesn't match ours.

[duke313]

The details of this transfer and it various clauses will be quite complex. If for what ever reason He doesn’t return to us over some dispute about a future contract, we will I assume also have a sell on clause in the deal. So if City or someone buy him, we’ll still get something extra.

[CVByrne]

8 minutes ago, MotoMkali said:

Morata never wanted to leave Juve. 

The contract is agreed at this time. If he really wanted to he could probably figure out a way to buy the contract. 

Exactly, he could say he doesn't want to come back to Villa and refuse to and kick up a fuss saying he'll refuse to play if the buy back is activated. Any player can really kick up a fuss to try get their way out of signed agreements etc.. 

But if we want him back and he's not strongly opposed to it we activate the clause he gets a pay rise and sign on bonus and he's back at Villa. 

[duke313]

1 minute ago, CVByrne said:

Exactly, he could say he doesn't want to come back to Villa and refuse to and kick up a fuss saying he'll refuse to play if the buy back is activated. Any player can really kick up a fuss to try get their way out of signed agreements etc.. 

But if we want him back and he's not strongly opposed to it we activate the clause he gets a pay rise and sign on bonus and he's back at Villa. 

Then we sell him to ever wanted him

[duke313]

4 minutes ago, StanBalaban said:

With regards to the lack of buy back clauses being optioned in the past, I would say that speaks volumes of just how few promising talents prove to be good enough to actually be recalled by a top team.

I think we’re just used to loaning players for development in this country. This is done quite  a lot in Spain by their bigger clubs. City started doing this with Pep and their Spanish Sporting Director with an unpronounceable name.

We’re going to see a lot more of this here with Emery, Monchi and our Spanish contingent. It’s the same benefit as a loan, but it also boosts FFP as well. Which we need to embed ourselves into the top 4.

[StanBalaban]

3 minutes ago, duke313 said:

I think we’re just used to loaning players for development in this country. This is done quite  a lot in Spain by their bigger clubs. City started doing this with Pep and their Spanish Sporting Director with an unpronounceable name.

We’re going to see a lot more of this here with Emery, Monchi and our Spanish contingent. It’s the same benefit as a loan, but it also boosts FFP as well. Which we need to embed ourselves into the top 4.

Yep, also FFP has kind of made this a necessity - trade the viable academy prospects of tomorrow for FFP profit, in order to bring in more the more established players ready for the first team today.

It's also something that only a few teams can do. No young talent at somewhere like Bournemouth or Palace is going to agree to go back there in a couple of years, if he excels at a different club in the meantime. He'll want a move to a big club.

The fact that we might be entertaining this type of deal shows that were thinking like a big club.

[duke313]

1 minute ago, StanBalaban said:

Yep, also FFP has kind of made this a necessity - trade the viable academy prospects of tomorrow for FFP profit, in order to bring in more the more established players ready for the first team today.

It's also something that only a few teams can do. No young talent at somewhere like Bournemouth or Palace is going to agree to go back there in a couple of years, if he excels at a different club in the meantime. He'll want a move to a big club.

The fact that we might be entertaining this type of deal shows that were thinking like a big club.

Yep 100%. We’ve failed in the past by loaning players out and just running their contracts down, or selling for peanuts. This way, we let another club beneath us take responsibility for developing them, then if their good enough they can come back, if not we’ve made profit already.

[Indigo]

I get that it's a shame to let go of a talented, local academy player and that he could have gotten some minutes this season between the cups and Europe, but ultimately if the reporting on it is correct it seems like a good deal for everyone involved.

[DJBOB]

9 minutes ago, duke313 said:

Yep 100%. We’ve failed in the past by loaning players out and just running their contracts down, or selling for peanuts. This way, we let another club beneath us take responsibility for developing them, then if their good enough they can come back, if not we’ve made profit already.

It would be lovely to have a host of academy players playing for us.

But most will not even play in the premier league. Better to send out those who are high value as the ones who will cement themselves in the premier league are almost always forcing their way into the team early.

Gareth Barry started 27 matches at 17.

Agbonlahor played all 38 matches at 19.

Albrighton played 29 matches at 20.

Grealish 17 games at 18 and eventually every match at 20.

JJ 22 games at 19.

If they're not breaking through at a young age - the chances of them being of premier league status declines fast. Doesn't mean they can't go on for a championship career but as a whole, we tend to naturally overrate our academy so unless they are forcing their way into the first XI at a young age - it's smart to take these offers.

Edited August 8, 2023 by DJBOB

[duke313]

7 minutes ago, DJBOB said:

It would be lovely to have a host of academy players playing for us.

But most will not even play in the premier league. Better to send out those who are high value as the ones who will cement themselves in the premier league are almost always forcing their way into the team early.

Gareth Barry started 27 matches at 17.

Agbonlahor played all 38 matches at 19.

Albrighton played 29 matches at 20.

Grealish 17 games at 18 and eventually every match at 20.

JJ 22 games at 19.

If they're not breaking through at a young age - the chances of them being of premier league status declines fast. Doesn't mean they can't go on for a championship career but as a whole, we tend to naturally overrate our academy so unless they are forcing their way into the first XI at a young age - it's smart to take these offers.

Going to be more difficult for them to break into our team over the foreseeable as we improve, so deals like this make sense.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Archer ends up being sold with a buy back clause, unless he really lays a claim this season.

Edited August 8, 2023 by duke313

[allani]

1 hour ago, Zatman said:

Or he got a better offer elsewhere hence why buyback clauses are stupid for teams like us

Not saying he will go to City/United etc but we have left it open

How is that any different to him staying here?  If Man City offer us enough money - then the lure of playing for a team "guaranteed" CL football on higher wages would still be attractive.  I'd say that IF he does well at Burnley then the idea of coming back to Villa and playing in the CL would be pretty strong and so the likes of City/United would have to offer him a lot more money for him to move there instead.

[Zatman]

44 minutes ago, duke313 said:

I think we’re just used to loaning players for development in this country. This is done quite  a lot in Spain by their bigger clubs. City started doing this with Pep and their Spanish Sporting Director with an unpronounceable name.

We’re going to see a lot more of this here with Emery, Monchi and our Spanish contingent. It’s the same benefit as a loan, but it also boosts FFP as well. Which we need to embed ourselves into the top 4.

Yet City have never used these clauses to flip them for bigger fees. Luiz and Porro they could have got money back and also now Lavia.

 

[allani]

1 hour ago, Zatman said:

What if he says no and doesn't want to come back as we shipped him out first time of asking

But that isn't what has happened.  We've basically given him a chance to play big boy's football in the "best league in the world" at a point in his career where he's not going to get that opportunity with us.  I'd say it is far better for him than staying and going to Colchester on loan for a year.  He can go there and know that if he proves himself there is a good chance we'll bring him back and put him straight into our first team.  If he doesn't do as well then he's still had a couple of seasons as a PL player that should allow him to have a decent career elsewhere.  It really isn't much more than a glorified loan (assuming he does well).

[duke313]

They didn'twant Luiz back, Porro no idea and Lavia clause doesn't kick in until next year.

[allani]

1 hour ago, CVByrne said:

He can't say no, that's the point of agreeing the buy back clause and terms now

Also the fact that the negotations seem to mainly be focused on the terms under which he would come back - suggest that he and his agent are really not thinking that their answer would be "no".

[Zatman]

Just now, allani said:

But that isn't what has happened.  We've basically given him a chance to play big boy's football in the "best league in the world" at a point in his career where he's not going to get that opportunity with us.  I'd say it is far better for him than staying and going to Colchester on loan for a year.  He can go there and know that if he proves himself there is a good chance we'll bring him back and put him straight into our first team.  If he doesn't do as well then he's still had a couple of seasons as a PL player that should allow him to have a decent career elsewhere.  It really isn't much more than a glorified loan (assuming he does well).

I agree with your point but many on here think he is guaranteed come back as we have a buyback clause

Real Madrid and Barcelona seem the only 2 teams to ever activate these clauses because they are elite clubs

[Keyblade]

8 minutes ago, Zatman said:

Yet City have never used these clauses to flip them for bigger fees. Luiz and Porro they could have got money back and also now Lavia.

 

Because they don't need them. The profit is worth more to them than what they could add to that team. It's also likely that we won't need AJ too.