Philippe Coutinho

[tomav84]

4 hours ago, Mark Albrighton said:

I don’t think that’s guaranteed. I think ultimately the player holds the power and if we somehow found ourselves in a situation where Villa wanted to take up the option but Coutinho didn’t want to join, he wouldn’t. 

It might be agreed in principle, I don’t doubt that. It might be agreed that Villa would pay him £150 grand a week on a four year deal. A gentleman’s agreement of sorts. But I don’t think he would be obligated to sign at the end of his loan. 

Ultimately I don’t think we’re going to find out either way.

 

I agree with the last line

But my understanding is that coutinho would've already agreed and signed the permanent contract. We just get to choose whether or not that contract goes live or not. It's more than a gentleman's agreement...an option to buy is legally binding 

[weedman]

On 05/02/2022 at 15:23, Rightdm00 said:

Not even remotely the same. What is the benefit to the player to negotiate 2 deals at the same time?  Why would Coutinho not just wait til the summer?

He already has a deal with Barcelona so it's not like he won't get paid.  This is why players have agents because so they don't do dumb things like remove their negotiating leverage for "reasons."

There's a lot of back and forth here, while obviously none of us know for sure what's in the contract, the fact that these pre agreements have clearly been agreed before with loans kind of kill this argument doesn't it? I mean, why would ANY player agree a contract when going on loan? Hell, I'm pretty sure neither us or Scott Sinclair really wanted to turn his deal permanent when it did but as soon as we were safe that pre contract he'd agreed as part of the loan kicked in and he became ours 

What if Coutinho wanted to come play with us and Gerrard, and during negotiations we made it clear we'd only go ahead if a pre agreement was signed? His choice becomes stay at Barca or sign for Villa 

 

Edit - there was also a lot of talk about him agreeing a pay cut to come here, and that doesn't make a lot of sense as part of a loan, and would make a lot more sense in terms of his next contract next season when he signs for us 

Edited February 7, 2022 by weedman

[Vive_La_Villa]

My understanding is if we want to sign him we will. It’s almost like a trial and he has to impress from now until the end of the season or he’s looking for a new club. 

He has committed to Villa. 

Of course I could be wrong about that but that’s my understanding. 

[Davkaus]

8 minutes ago, weedman said:

 

Edit - there was also a lot of talk about him agreeing a pay cut to come here, and that doesn't make a lot of sense as part of a loan, 

It does, and happens often, clubs would often rather keep a player as an option than loan them out and keep paying the majority of their wages anyway

[Sulberto21]

So I have a new contract from work does anyone know how these contracts work?

Edited February 7, 2022 by Sulberto21

[Panto_Villan]

It really surprises me that anyone thinks we have a loan with an option to buy, but that the purchase terms haven't been agreed with the player in advance.

It would entirely negate the point of the option to buy if the player could just demand a massive wage or derail the move entirely if they wanted. Especially when a player was coming towards the end of their contract, as they'd just kill any negotiations and then leave on a free and go to the same place (or somewhere else) with much higher wages.

I can't imagine any club would be dumb enough to sign up for that, let alone us.

[a m ole]

Contracts are entirely dependent on the contract in question, there’s no one-size-fits-all clause for buy options at the end of a deal. No one knows who has the decision making power except the club and Coutinho/’s agent.

[CVByrne]

...and people still go on ad on about hypothetical situations about the option to buy. The epitome of pointless discussion 

[Rightdm00]

13 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

It really surprises me that anyone thinks we have a loan with an option to buy, but that the purchase terms haven't been agreed with the player in advance.

It would entirely negate the point of the option to buy if the player could just demand a massive wage or derail the move entirely if they wanted. Especially when a player was coming towards the end of their contract, as they'd just kill any negotiations and then leave on a free and go to the same place (or somewhere else) with much higher wages.

I can't imagine any club would be dumb enough to sign up for that, let alone us.

You sign up for it, at a minimum, to lock in a price with the selling club. So no matter how much of a stormer a player has on loan the selling club can't turn around and jack up the price come summer.   That could assume a pre-contract with the player but not sure why you think it's a requirement. 

[sidcow]

9 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

...and people still go on ad on about hypothetical situations about the option to buy. The epitome of pointless discussion 

Isn't that the very essence of an internet chat forum?  If we stick purely to absolutes its going to be a very boring and very brief forum.

[weedman]

57 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

It does, and happens often, clubs would often rather keep a player as an option than loan them out and keep paying the majority of their wages anyway

I'm confused. You're saying Barca would rather keep Coutinho as an option than loan him out and keep paying the majority of his wages? 

But his contract with them is nothing to do with us. Unless we've agreed to pay 100% of his wages (which I'm sure I read was about 400k a week) - which we're clearly not - then Barca have done exactly what you said they wouldn't do, they've loaned him out and continue paying the majority of his wages. Hell, how many players have we loaned out while still paying most of their wages for years until their contracts expire?! It happens far more frequently than players agreeing a pay cut while under contract when they don't need to 

[Mark Albrighton]

 

[TRO]

2 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

My understanding is if we want to sign him we will. It’s almost like a trial and he has to impress from now until the end of the season or he’s looking for a new club. 

He has committed to Villa. 

Of course I could be wrong about that but that’s my understanding. 

Thats my understanding too....fwiw.

[Delphinho123]

The fact that he's come over here and bought a house (so I read), makes me think he's planning on seeing his career out in England rather than in Spain. That bodes well for us.

A lot of our Summer window will depend on how Coutinho performs between now and the end of the season. If he plays well, I don't think we'll sign a number 10 in the Summer and instead focus on a midfield enforcer, a striker and potentially a right back.

[Panto_Villan]

2 hours ago, Rightdm00 said:

You sign up for it, at a minimum, to lock in a price with the selling club. So no matter how much of a stormer a player has on loan the selling club can't turn around and jack up the price come summer.   That could assume a pre-contract with the player but not sure why you think it's a requirement. 

Out of interest, do you think a loan with an obligation to buy works the same way? That at the end of the season we'd be obliged to buy Coutinhho - unless he decided that he'd rather stay at Barcelona on much higher wages?

Clearly the selling club would never agree to an obligation to buy that worked like that, and similarly I just can't believe a selling club would agree to an option to buy on a player that left a massive open question mark about whether they can actually exercise that right.

In the same way we wouldn't sign a player but say "Actually, in six months you can demand a massive pay rise and leave on a free if you don't get it"

EDIT: although apparently that's not how it works in Football Manager, and since that's effectively the bible for any armchair football expert like myself, I just don't know what to think any more!

Edited February 7, 2022 by Panto_Villan

[Woody1000]

12 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

Out of interest, do you think a loan with an obligation to buy works the same way? That at the end of the season we'd be obliged to buy Coutinhho - unless he decided that he'd rather stay at Barcelona on much higher wages?

Clearly the selling club would never agree to an obligation to buy that worked like that, and similarly I just can't believe a selling club would agree to an option to buy on a player that left a massive open question mark about whether they can actually exercise that right.

In the same way we wouldn't sign a player but say "Actually, in six months you can demand a massive pay rise and leave on a free if you don't get it"

EDIT: although apparently that's not how it works in Football Manager, and since that's effectively the bible for any armchair football expert like myself, I just don't know what to think any more!

My understanding of the deal is that the ball is totally in our court. If he can get back to anywhere close to his best form then we will be signing him on a permanent deal, it’s unbelievable really!!

[Spoony]

3 hours ago, a m ole said:

Contracts are entirely dependent on the contract in question, there’s no one-size-fits-all clause for buy options at the end of a deal. No one knows who has the decision making power except the club and Coutinho/’s agent.

I think people forget this. This isn’t football manager. “Option to buy” could mean an infinite number of things. People speculate whether the player could pull out, the club could pull out, the circumstances in which either could happen, etc. It could literally say we have an option to buy but only on a Wednesday and only if a better club doesn’t come in for him and we pay him entirely in Big Macs and Steven Gerrard has to announce the signing from Gibraltar dressed as Martin Kemp during his Spandau Ballet years whilst John McGinn runs around him playing a maraca shouting “I am the ultimate mandolin creator!”

[Panto_Villan]

24 minutes ago, Woody1000 said:

My understanding of the deal is that the ball is totally in our court. If he can get back to anywhere close to his best form then we will be signing him on a permanent deal, it’s unbelievable really!!

Yeah, I think in practice this is all moot. I think if he does well here he'll want to stay here - because why wouldn't he? He's alreay had a "big" move that turned into a nightmare for him.

[Rightdm00]

53 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

Out of interest, do you think a loan with an obligation to buy works the same way? That at the end of the season we'd be obliged to buy Coutinhho - unless he decided that he'd rather stay at Barcelona on much higher wages?

Clearly the selling club would never agree to an obligation to buy that worked like that, and similarly I just can't believe a selling club would agree to an option to buy on a player that left a massive open question mark about whether they can actually exercise that right.

In the same way we wouldn't sign a player but say "Actually, in six months you can demand a massive pay rise and leave on a free if you don't get it"

EDIT: although apparently that's not how it works in Football Manager, and since that's effectively the bible for any armchair football expert like myself, I just don't know what to think any more!

Leeds got out of a loan with an "obligation" to buy not to long ago. So who knows how these deals work anymore. The media reports these complicated contracts in simplistic terms when really there can be all types of out clauses and what not inserted by the contracted parties.  

[brummybloke]

5 hours ago, Rightdm00 said:

Leeds got out of a loan with an "obligation" to buy not to long ago. So who knows how these deals work anymore. The media reports these complicated contracts in simplistic terms when really there can be all types of out clauses and what not inserted by the contracted parties.  

Did they ? I thought it was Costa from wolves and the terms were if they got promoted they had to buy him, and buy him they did despite trying not to ?