Aaron Ramsey

[HalfTimePost]

11 minutes ago, Tayls said:

Would Southampton's clause with city need to be bought out as well for any potential sale to take place? So when City or Chelsea try and take Ramsey in two seasons times, Burnley will need to pay us to allow that to happen, should it happen within the timeframe we set… let’s say 2.5 years… 

OR 

Does it mean City get first refusal now, and if they say no, Southampton can do as they please? 

Lavia's buyback to City comes into effect next summer I don't believe there'd be any need to buy out the clause.

As it is only in effe t next summer - that's why there's a push to sign him this summer from Liverpool etc as they can do so without city's interference. Suppose there is a chance City have a sell on clause and may profit from the sale anyway but assume the chances of a Sell-On and a Buyback are probably minimal.

So Southampton can do as they please both now and next year as long as City don't activate their clause  - but the likelihood that City have an option to buy Lavia for £30m knowing another club will pay £50m for him - it's unlikely Southampton get the chance next year as City will activate the clause and then sell him immediately.

Southampton ~could~ buy City out of the clause but its probably too late for that as City already know there's profit to be made on Lavia and if it was easy to negotiate the clause away I'm sure they'd have done so when signing him initially.

The same could be true of our clause with Ramsey. If we have a buyback for say £25m, we'd activate it under two circumstances;

1. He genuinely could be part of our squad and improve us.

2. We think we can sell him for more profit even if he's not ready for Villas team.

Burnley could buy us out of the clause, but realistically we'd only agree to that if Ramsey had a subpar Season or 2 and we believed that neither of the above options was super likely and that we'd be better off selling the clause for £5m or so to balance the books

Edited August 9, 2023 by HalfTimePost

[useless]

If he has a good season at Burnley I wouldn't be surprised if we bought him back as soon as next summer, we've got a number of attacking players who could be heading into their last season with us for various reasons, so next summer it might not just be about improving the starting eleven, but adding a few second choices as well. This whole deal could end up being a glorified loan.

[HalfTimePost]

1 minute ago, useless said:

If he has a good season at Burnley I wouldn't be surprised if we bought him back as soon as next summer, we've got a number of attacking players who could be heading into their last season with us for various reasons, so next summer it might not just be about improving the starting eleven, but adding a few second choices as well. This whole deal could end up being a glorified loan.

I hope so

[Nabby]

21 minutes ago, Cizzler said:

And if he’s an excellent English CM being good enough to start for Champions League clubs, then getting £14m and a % sell-on for a player that we’ve grown through our academy is a terrible deal.

It’s not like we can just sign players like that off the street.

Mf's who have played in the CL ?

[Keyblade]

41 minutes ago, Cizzler said:

Is it though?

A.Ramsey was excellent for Boro last season (top 6 in the Championship) and instrumental in the England u19 Euros win.

City have just sold a keeper who was playing for Bolton (in League One) for £20m+.

Rhian Brewster went for £24m. Neco Williams went for £20m. Solanke went for £20m in 2019 (with only a loan in the Eredivise).

I think £14m is cheap - but again, if the buy-back is concrete, perhaps there was leeway in the fee. You’d hope so anyway.

We don't have the Sky 6 tax clearly but we're dealing in the same vein. We're struggling to sell off some of the senior players we went out and bought, so failing that as sad as it is this is a good way to bring in funds.

Plus, all is not lost considering the buyback clause. It's a glorified loan imo giving both teams transfer wiggle room, and Villa having the choice of not even signing him back if he's not good enough.

[skarroki]

24 minutes ago, useless said:

If he has a good season at Burnley I wouldn't be surprised if we bought him back as soon as next summer, we've got a number of attacking players who could be heading into their last season with us for various reasons, so next summer it might not just be about improving the starting eleven, but adding a few second choices as well. This whole deal could end up being a glorified loan.

That sounds like a verbatim quote my friends who support Man City said to me when we got Dougie. 

[Oaks]

1 hour ago, Cizzler said:

Is it though?

A.Ramsey was excellent for Boro last season (top 6 in the Championship) and instrumental in the England u19 Euros win.

City have just sold a keeper who was playing for Bolton (in League One) for £20m+.

Rhian Brewster went for £24m. Neco Williams went for £20m. Solanke went for £20m in 2019 (with only a loan in the Eredivise).

I think £14m is cheap - but again, if the buy-back is concrete, perhaps there was leeway in the fee. You’d hope so anyway.

Would rather £14 million with a buyback than £20 million without.

[Cizzler]

5 hours ago, Cizzler said:

My personal “catostrophising” is because there is no guarantee of this.

If he’s really good (which a lot of people think he might be) - why can’t he just sign for Liverpool/ Man U, etc. after he smashes it at Burnley?

 

5 hours ago, lexicon said:

Because we have a buy back agreement already signed and sorted in place. What is so hard to understand about this?

 

You didn't answer my question.

Why does the 'buy-back clause' mean he has to sign for us? Surely if other clubs meet the agreed amount that triggers the clause, then Burnely can also accept their bids and Ramsey becomes free to negotiate with everyone. 

 

[Cizzler]

4 hours ago, Oaks said:

Would rather £14 million with a buyback than £20 million without.

Pretty sure all of the deals I quoted also had buy-back clauses though. Brewster, Solanke and Trafford's were widely reported. 

[duke313]

52 minutes ago, Cizzler said:

 

 

You didn't answer my question.

Why does the 'buy-back clause' mean he has to sign for us? Surely if other clubs meet the agreed amount that triggers the clause, then Burnely can also accept their bids and Ramsey becomes free to negotiate with everyone. 

 

The buy back clause we agreed may be lower than his actual value. Why would Burnley accept that offer from other clubs?

[WallisFrizz]

1 hour ago, Cizzler said:

 

 

You didn't answer my question.

Why does the 'buy-back clause' mean he has to sign for us? Surely if other clubs meet the agreed amount that triggers the clause, then Burnely can also accept their bids and Ramsey becomes free to negotiate with everyone. 

 

Well no because then Ramsey would be in breach of the contract that he willingly signed. He is not a passive party in this, he will be signing a deal knowing the terms of it and that  we can buy him back. I think Alan Nixon in one of the very early reports about this referred to Ramsey negotiating the terms of his future wages should we buy him back. 
 

 

[nick76]

6 hours ago, useless said:

If he has a good season at Burnley I wouldn't be surprised if we bought him back as soon as next summer, we've got a number of attacking players who could be heading into their last season with us for various reasons, so next summer it might not just be about improving the starting eleven, but adding a few second choices as well. This whole deal could end up being a glorified loan.

It would have to be more than good season for Burnley for us to think about bringing him back.  The level we are playing at (we hope) will be much much higher than Burnley.  AJ would have to be playing at an exceptional level, for us to consider him coming back.

[WallisFrizz]

35 minutes ago, duke313 said:

The buy back clause we agreed may be lower than his actual value. Why would Burnley accept that offer from other clubs?

Because they have pre agreed to and signed a legally binding document saying they will transfer him back to us if we trigger the clause (if this all goes through as reported). 

If Ramsey and Burnley start breaching the terms of the contract in a few years then we would take them to court. I would also imagine the FA may stop him registering for a third club if there has been a breach but I don’t know.

Contracts matter. That is why Cardiff have had to pay Nantes the full fee for Sala and were put under a transfer embargo until they did. I obviously don’t know the ins and outs of this deal more than anyone else but I know that there will be the legal teams of two clubs and a player agreeing to all terms of it before it is signed because it is legally enforceable.

[duke313]

21 minutes ago, WallisFrizz said:

Because they have pre agreed to and signed a legally binding document saying they will transfer him back to us if we trigger the clause (if this all goes through as reported). 

If Ramsey and Burnley start breaching the terms of the contract in a few years then we would take them to court. I would also imagine the FA may stop him registering for a third club if there has been a breach but I don’t know.

Contracts matter. That is why Cardiff have had to pay Nantes the full fee for Sala and were put under a transfer embargo until they did. I obviously don’t know the ins and outs of this deal more than anyone else but I know that there will be the legal teams of two clubs and a player agreeing to all terms of it before it is signed because it is legally enforceable.

Eh? I know they have to accept our offer. I was explaining why they wouldn’t have to accept the same offer from other clubs.

[WallisFrizz]

1 minute ago, duke313 said:

Eh? I know they have to accept our offer. I was explaining why they wouldn’t have to accept the same offer from other clubs.

You asked a question. 

[lexicon]

2 hours ago, Cizzler said:

 

 

You didn't answer my question.

Why does the 'buy-back clause' mean he has to sign for us? Surely if other clubs meet the agreed amount that triggers the clause, then Burnely can also accept their bids and Ramsey becomes free to negotiate with everyone. 

 

Because that's the entire point of the deal. He already agrees to and signs a contract of the terms, as do Burnley, so if we want him back, it's already signed and done on their end, just a matter of us paying the sum that has already been agreed. 

Why is this so difficult to comprehend? 

[lexicon]

16 minutes ago, duke313 said:

Eh? I know they have to accept our offer. I was explaining why they wouldn’t have to accept the same offer from other clubs.

Because it'll be in the contract that we have first refusal and we've already agreed and signed terms, so it doesn't matter. 

[duke313]

24 minutes ago, WallisFrizz said:

You asked a question. 

It was a rhetorical question.

[allani]

7 hours ago, HalfTimePost said:

Lavia's buyback to City comes into effect next summer I don't believe there'd be any need to buy out the clause.

As it is only in effe t next summer - that's why there's a push to sign him this summer from Liverpool etc as they can do so without city's interference. Suppose there is a chance City have a sell on clause and may profit from the sale anyway but assume the chances of a Sell-On and a Buyback are probably minimal.

So Southampton can do as they please both now and next year as long as City don't activate their clause  - but the likelihood that City have an option to buy Lavia for £30m knowing another club will pay £50m for him - it's unlikely Southampton get the chance next year as City will activate the clause and then sell him immediately.

Southampton ~could~ buy City out of the clause but its probably too late for that as City already know there's profit to be made on Lavia and if it was easy to negotiate the clause away I'm sure they'd have done so when signing him initially.

The same could be true of our clause with Ramsey. If we have a buyback for say £25m, we'd activate it under two circumstances;

1. He genuinely could be part of our squad and improve us.

2. We think we can sell him for more profit even if he's not ready for Villas team.

Burnley could buy us out of the clause, but realistically we'd only agree to that if Ramsey had a subpar Season or 2 and we believed that neither of the above options was super likely and that we'd be better off selling the clause for £5m or so to balance the books

2 is a big gamble.  Other teams would know exactly what we paid to get him back and so would reduce their fee accordingly.  Spending £25m to potentially only sell him for £30m would be a big gamble (especially if no-one did buy him and then we ended up selling for under £20m because he was surplus to our needs).  I think this is partly why it seems like most BBCs that are activated are for reason 1 rather than reason 2.  City probably could have sold Luiz for more than the BBC they had in place for us - but the risk was that no-one bought him immediately and he spent a year playing in their reserves with his value declining every single day.  I think you put a £20m BBC clause on a £10m prospect because you hope that in 2 years time that player has developed (through regular first team football that you couldn't offer) into a £40m player that walks back into the first team squad.

[allani]

2 hours ago, Cizzler said:

 

 

You didn't answer my question.

Why does the 'buy-back clause' mean he has to sign for us? Surely if other clubs meet the agreed amount that triggers the clause, then Burnely can also accept their bids and Ramsey becomes free to negotiate with everyone. 

 

The BBC can only be triggered by the club that sold him - as in Buy Back Clause - rather than being a general Release Clause which can be met by any team.  I would also imagine that we get first refusal so that if we offer the value of the BBC but Liverpool offer £40m then Burnley are obligated to accept our bid.  Obviously if Liverpool offer £40m and we chose not to activate the BBC then Burnley could sell him to them.