Aaron Ramsey

[thunderball]

There is also the potential of going back for more money even if you don’t want or need him:

Say he kicks on, in two summers time he becomes a £35m player, but our midfield is stacked or we are going for much higher level players, we threaten to activate the buy back with no intention of playing him, but to trade on for the difference (£35m - £25m clause figure = £10m FFP profit). We offer to erase the clause and our interest for £10-15m, Burnley keep the player and have “only” paid £22m-£27m for a £35m player, while we pocket another £10m+ clear profit. Every ones a winner , it’s the future for our academy conveyor belt.

[Monkeypuzzle]

Are we resigned to this one then? Still no official news. Disappointing but it won't actually affect our season at all. He wasn't going to play much I don't think.

[stewiek2]

Says to me we don't see any route for him to the first team, but at th same time we can't keep loaning these players out hoping they either come good or do well enough the loan club wants him permanently. We'd have a surplus of Keinan Davies's on the books we simply can't get rid of. This way we get something for him and if he comes good we have the option of getting him back at a knock down price, or forego that option for an additional fee. Win win.

Personally, I don't see him having much of a future with us. I don't see Archer having much of a look in as well.

[PaulC]

1 minute ago, stewiek2 said:

Says to me we don't see any route for him to the first team, but at th same time we can't keep loaning these players out hoping they either come good or do well enough the loan club wants him permanently. We'd have a surplus of Keinan Davies's on the books we simply can't get rid of. This way we get something for him and if he comes good we have the option of getting him back at a knock down price, or forego that option for an additional fee. Win win.

Personally, I don't see him having much of a future with us. I don't see Archer having much of a look in as well.

I think Archer will get some game time as he had featured a bit in the pre season games and there's fewer options up front. Also if Watkins gets injured he's first choice backup at the moment 

[david-avfc]

3 hours ago, Zatman said:

Why would he or his agent agree to that pre arranged contract? What if this contract has a 40000 a week salary and Ramsey has a stormer at Burnley and Liverpool offer him 100000 a week

It would be an absolutely bizarre thing to lock yourself into that’s for sure…

Several people on here appear determined to prove they know all the ins and outs of player contracts and transfer terms when in reality without experience working inside a football club or as an agent no one has any idea.

I have no idea on the finer working of such a transfer clause either but through common sense I know you can’t force an employment contract on someone against their will, and 3rd party ownership of players is banned which presumably rules out villa having an enforceable contract whilst he’s contracted to another club.

It just doesn’t seem to me like this buy back clause is anywhere near as simple as some are suggesting. It seems like it gives us a lot more flexibility than without it which is a good thing, but the idea that it’s as straightforward as clicking our fingers and having complete control over another team’s player I just don’t buy at all. I’m open to be proven wrong but other than “trust me that’s not how it works” I haven’t seen anyone put any evidence forward.

[useless]

Just have to follow the logic, if we sell him with a buy-back-clause, and he agrees to it as well as having pre-agreed contract should he return, then it follows that he would be more than happy to come back otherwise he wouldn't agree to them in the first place.

He's genuinely a Villa fan, we're a club on the up, so the idea of him being happy to come back is hardly a stretch, he might even see going to Burnley as a chance to prove to us that he's good enough for our team, I'm just guessing here but I don't think we have a scenario where there's a big falling out with him and the club, otherwise we would just sell him outright, no buy-back, and no pre-agreed contract should he return.

The pre agreed contract situation is no different from any contract, if he does well enough that he becomes worth more than what that pre-agreed contract is worth and he returns to us then he will be given an improved deal, same as if one of our current players if given a new deal now, if they perform well enough next season that they're worth more then they will be given an improved deal, if not we would risk losing them.

[fightoffyour]

49 minutes ago, david-avfc said:

It would be an absolutely bizarre thing to lock yourself into that’s for sure…

Several people on here appear determined to prove they know all the ins and outs of player contracts and transfer terms when in reality without experience working inside a football club or as an agent no one has any idea.

I have no idea on the finer working of such a transfer clause either but through common sense I know you can’t force an employment contract on someone against their will, and 3rd party ownership of players is banned which presumably rules out villa having an enforceable contract whilst he’s contracted to another club.

It just doesn’t seem to me like this buy back clause is anywhere near as simple as some are suggesting. It seems like it gives us a lot more flexibility than without it which is a good thing, but the idea that it’s as straightforward as clicking our fingers and having complete control over another team’s player I just don’t buy at all. I’m open to be proven wrong but other than “trust me that’s not how it works” I haven’t seen anyone put any evidence forward.

I don't know the ins and outs of player contracts but I have read a book about football transfers and there are other resources online and real examples with relevant information.

Secondly, the contract wouldn't be forced upon him; he would have to agree to the possible future terms being offered, otherwise we might not agree to the deal to sell at all.

Thirdly, it wouldn't be complete control over another team's player; there would likely only be next summer or the following summer's transfer windows, and not say on the last day of the window, that we could activate the clause and we'd probably have to give them notice too - anything can be included to protect all parties.

[Steero113]

2 hours ago, Monkeypuzzle said:

Are we resigned to this one then? Still no official news. Disappointing but it won't actually affect our season at all. He wasn't going to play much I don't think.

He wouldn't get a minute this season, regardless of cup runs or Europe.

He has a multitude of international midfielders in front of him. We would need to have about 7 injuries before he even made the bench. This is a far cry from the squad that enabled his brother to break through.  

[StewieGriffin]

2 hours ago, Cizzler said:

Does he? Who?

His brother, Diaby, Buendia, Bailey, Coutinho, Philogene all (or possibly could) play in that left AM role and would play there ahead of him, even if one or two of them would be out of position.

All 6 of them are more developed than Aaron Ramsey is, so he's 7th choice for one position. One could argue/debate all day long on the merits of moving on at least 2 of those to allow AR a better pathway, but the "best" solution isnt always the one available.

The club may be working on the hypothesis that 2 years down the line, the club can see a vision where Bailey and Coutinho won't be here, and maybe Philogene might not progress as well as we'd hope so he might go too - then we'd have the option of bringing a developed and ready Ramsey back to compete as 1/4 ahead of a couple of out of position players (i.e maybe 2nd choice behind JJ) rather than his current status.

[sharkyvilla]

If you take Football Manager as gospel on this kind of detail then I've never seen a player having to agree to a future contract when a buyback clause is put in.  Aaron's agent would be a moron to agree to such a thing.

[DaveAV1]

2 hours ago, david-avfc said:

It would be an absolutely bizarre thing to lock yourself into that’s for sure…

Several people on here appear determined to prove they know all the ins and outs of player contracts and transfer terms when in reality without experience working inside a football club or as an agent no one has any idea.

I have no idea on the finer working of such a transfer clause either but through common sense I know you can’t force an employment contract on someone against their will, and 3rd party ownership of players is banned which presumably rules out villa having an enforceable contract whilst he’s contracted to another club.

It just doesn’t seem to me like this buy back clause is anywhere near as simple as some are suggesting. It seems like it gives us a lot more flexibility than without it which is a good thing, but the idea that it’s as straightforward as clicking our fingers and having complete control over another team’s player I just don’t buy at all. I’m open to be proven wrong but other than “trust me that’s not how it works” I haven’t seen anyone put any evidence forward.

I absolutely agree that none of us here have the level of knowledge required to psss comment with any great certainty but I don’t think that it’s unreasonable to assume that our emperor of football business the formidable Monchi knows his way around the subject fairly well and do we can be happy that we’re in good hands. Right we’ll my daughter’s mom is calling me for tea so I’ll leave you all to your mass debating 

[Zatman]

Has been said on here previously but buy back clauses have only really been activated by Real Madrid and Barcelona. 2 of the biggest clubs that can attract these players to return

Throwing in buyback clauses for Archer and Ramsey is no guarantee they will want to come back and they cant be forced to return as that would lead to mass court cases

[tinker]

A sell on clause is the way to go, say 50% of anything over the £12m they paid. Simple from Ramseys point of view and we gain no matter what happens.

[Made In Aston]

2 hours ago, thunderball said:

There is also the potential of going back for more money even if you don’t want or need him:

Say he kicks on, in two summers time he becomes a £35m player, but our midfield is stacked or we are going for much higher level players, we threaten to activate the buy back with no intention of playing him, but to trade on for the difference (£35m - £25m clause figure = £10m FFP profit). We offer to erase the clause and our interest for £10-15m, Burnley keep the player and have “only” paid £22m-£27m for a £35m player, while we pocket another £10m+ clear profit. Every ones a winner , it’s the future for our academy conveyor belt.

 

[fightoffyour]

32 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

If you take Football Manager as gospel on this kind of detail then I've never seen a player having to agree to a future contract when a buyback clause is put in.  Aaron's agent would be a moron to agree to such a thing.

The agent would get a cut of two transfers

[beasley14]

3 hours ago, StanBalaban said:

It is right - it's called amortisation, but the example is highlighting a 5 year contract for Gvardiol. The contract of the player sold is immaterial.

If AJ is sold for 12m, as pure profit it would offset a 60m player incoming ona 5 year contract. It might not be quite a linear as that, but it gives us the gist.

Only for the first year though right?  You'd still have to offset the £12m for the further 4 years?

[villan95]

19 minutes ago, Zatman said:

Has been said on here previously but buy back clauses have only really been activated by Real Madrid and Barcelona. 2 of the biggest clubs that can attract these players to return

Throwing in buyback clauses for Archer and Ramsey is no guarantee they will want to come back and they cant be forced to return as that would lead to mass court cases

Even if they are contractually obligated to do so?

I do agree it is rare that you hear about these type of deals though and it's usually something that's happened on the continent.

[useless]

What have other clubs not excercising buy-back-clauses got to do with us and Aaron Ramsey, just because other clubs haven't brought back players doesn't mean that we won't, when other clubs sell players with buy-back-clause those players probably don't have the unique relationship that Ramsey has with us, he'st been at the club since the age of seven and is a big Villa fan, his family are Villa fans, two of them are also players at the club, if he does well enough at Burnley that we want him back, then I'm not sure why he wouldn't be more than happy to return, which is why he's agreeing to buy-back and even sorting out his contract beforehand should it happen.

If he did change his mind and decided he didn't want to rejoin us I don't think there would be anything we could about it, but I think there would be some kind of clause in that scenario to protect us, say if he agreed a move from Burnley to anotehr club, imagine Real Madrid to use an extreme example, there would be something in place to make sure we got most of the benefit of that bid, say if our original buy-back was twenty million, and Madrid bid sixty million, Burnley would get twenty million of that and we would get forty million.

Club knows what they're doing, everything will be agreed with Aaron beforehand, and if he does change his mind, the deal will be structured in such a way that we still won't be left short, we can't force him to rejoin us, but I'm sure there must be a way where if he leaves Burnley for another club, Burnley only get the original buy-back fee agreed with us and we get any of the profit on top of that.

[Zatman]

22 minutes ago, villan95 said:

Even if they are contractually obligated to do so?

I do agree it is rare that you hear about these type of deals though and it's usually something that's happened on the continent.

Why would they or the agents sign them up for that?

[villan95]

2 minutes ago, Zatman said:

Why would they or the agents sign them up for that?

I'm not entirely sure but I guess the upside for him would be he gets to go and earn say 3x as much as Burnley while playing regular football. And then if Villa buy him back he doubles his wages again? Still a risk on the players side considering he could be worth far more by then though. Unless the wage Villa would have to pay goes up every season or something. These deals are far too complicated lol.