Laughable Chimp Posted June 23, 2022 Share Posted June 23, 2022 9 minutes ago, duke313 said: I found it strange he never went out on loan with the rest of the players that won the Youth Cup, he was arguably the star of the team. Had he went on loan the same time as KKH, Barry etc. we might not be having this discussion. I think the Smith genuinely wanted to integrate him into the first team. He did give him his first league start after all and it was already done before with Ramsey. But the poor run of form soon after meant that he couldn't afford to try him out and he got sacked soon after. I can see this having been Smith's "broken promise". Gerrard after coming in obviously made no such promise which meant Carney kept being left out. And now he's upset with the club because he thought this would be his breakout season but he barely played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted June 23, 2022 VT Supporter Share Posted June 23, 2022 (edited) 6 minutes ago, duke313 said: The point of a buy back clause is for the players who isn't likely to feature to be sold, and then bought back by the selling club if he turns good for a fixed price. That is not the same as the Coutinho situation, that was a loan with an option to buy. Chelsea usually have a buy back option when they sell their academy players, Livramento for example, as do most Spanish clubs, the options to purchase the player back usually expires though. It's exactly the same concept though. Coutinho - we had a pre agreed option to buy him for x amount but some felt another team could then outbid us and steal him. Carney - we (could) have a pre agreed option to buy him back for x amount but some feel another team could then outbid us and steal him. The point of pre agreed contractual agreements is to create certainty and for pre agreed things to happen if they are activated. If one party activates that clause and the other party ignores their obligations and goes and does their own thing because they like a different option better, they are in breach of contract. Edited June 23, 2022 by sidcow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted June 23, 2022 Share Posted June 23, 2022 7 minutes ago, Laughable Chimp said: I think the Smith genuinely wanted to integrate him into the first team. He did give him his first league start after all and it was already done before with Ramsey. But the poor run of form soon after meant that he couldn't afford to try him out and he got sacked soon after. I can see this having been Smith's "broken promise". Gerrard after coming in obviously made no such promise which meant Carney kept being left out. And now he's upset with the club because he thought this would be his breakout season but he barely played. He was injured for 4 of the 5 league games after his debut. Returned for West Ham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 23, 2022 Share Posted June 23, 2022 1 minute ago, sidcow said: It's exactly the same concept though. Coutinho - we had a pre agreed option to buy him for x amount but some felt another team could then outbid us and steal him. Carney - we (could) have a pre agreed option to buy him back for x amount but some feel another team could then outbid us and steal him. The point of pre agreed contractual agreements is to create certainty and for pre agreed things to happen if they are activated. If one party activates that clause and the other party ignores it and goes and does their own thing because they like a different option better, they are in breach of contract. They are not the same., no one said anything about ignoring a clause. If for example we sold Carney for £8m, with a buy back clause of £12m after one season, rising to £16m after two seasons, all that means is they have to accept our bid for the agreed amount. Nothing would prevent them selling the player to someone else for £20m, it just means another clubs doesn't get the agreed price we would. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted June 23, 2022 Share Posted June 23, 2022 Buy back clauses are a great concept when you're man City, Chelsea, Real Madrid, Barcelona, juventus... Aston Villa? We show a player the door and then 2 or 3 years later once someone else has given them an opportunity and they've put the graft in you think they rush back to us? If we can't agree a deal with him so sell him he ain't coming back 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
messi11 Posted June 23, 2022 Share Posted June 23, 2022 I think hes signed a new deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delphinho123 Posted June 23, 2022 Share Posted June 23, 2022 I'm pretty sure he'll sign. I heard something earlier in the week and I'm willing to stake my stellar VT reputation on it. Bookmark this post. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted June 23, 2022 VT Supporter Share Posted June 23, 2022 (edited) 8 minutes ago, duke313 said: They are not the same., no one said anything about ignoring a clause. If for example we sold Carney for £8m, with a buy back clause of £12m after one season, rising to £16m after two seasons, all that means is they have to accept our bid for the agreed amount. Nothing would prevent them selling the player to someone else for £20m, it just means another clubs doesn't get the agreed price we would. Like I said, I disagree and I went round and round in circles on this before, I've said my peace now. If you think someone else can override it then fine. I'm not going to argue the toss. As with Coutinho though I'd like someone to point out another buy back clause elsewhere that's been activated but another club have offered more and overridden it. There was a situation Toby Alderweireld a while back where there was a cancellation clause allowing the buying club to cancel the clause and sell the player on. So we don't include a cancellation clause or put one in so high we'd just be happy with the cash anyway. Edited June 23, 2022 by sidcow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted June 23, 2022 Share Posted June 23, 2022 5 minutes ago, villa4europe said: Buy back clauses are a great concept when you're man City, Chelsea, Real Madrid, Barcelona, juventus... Aston Villa? We show a player the door and then 2 or 3 years later once someone else has given them an opportunity and they've put the graft in you think they rush back to us? If we can't agree a deal with him so sell him he ain't coming back The top teams can "convince" a player to come back and flip them for more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted June 23, 2022 Share Posted June 23, 2022 Just now, sidcow said: Like I said, I disagree and I went round and round in circles on this before, I've said my peace now. If you think someone else can override it then fine. I'm not going to argue the toss. As with Coutinho though I'd like someone to point out a other buy back clause elsewhere that's been activated but a other club have offered more and overridden it. There was a situation Toby Alderweireld a while back where there was a cancellation clause allowing the buying club to cancel the clause and sell the player on. So we don't include a cancellation clause or put one in so high we'd just be happy with the cash anyway. Coutinho if was all agreed before hand surely we would have announced his contract length at the time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 23, 2022 Share Posted June 23, 2022 2 minutes ago, sidcow said: Like I said, I disagree and I went round and round in circles on this before, I've said my peace now. If you think someone else can override it then fine. I'm not going to argue the toss. As with Coutinho though I'd like someone to point out another buy back clause elsewhere that's been activated but another club have offered more and overridden it. There was a situation Toby Alderweireld a while back where there was a cancellation clause allowing the buying club to cancel the clause and sell the player on. So we don't include a cancellation clause or put one in so high we'd just be happy with the cash anyway. I agree with you regarding the Coutinho situation, it's just not the same as selling a player and having the option to buy him back in the future. The best example is Tino Livramento at Southampton, Chelsea have the option of buying him back in 2023 for £38m I think, but nothing is stopping Southampton selling him now if City or United bid £50m. The player belongs to Southampton, it's not a loan, it just means if Chelsea were to bid £38m they have to accept it as agreed in the initial sale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barry'sboots Posted June 23, 2022 Share Posted June 23, 2022 8 minutes ago, Delphinho123 said: I'm pretty sure he'll sign. I heard something earlier in the week and I'm willing to stake my stellar VT reputation on it. Bookmark this post. Do you think he's waiting for next Wednesday to announce? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarryOnVilla Posted June 23, 2022 Share Posted June 23, 2022 I really wish we could give the boy the game time he desires. But, as things stand, we’re not in the position to gamble our results on him. so he’s either have to move on or sign and go out on loan. I’d love if he stayed with the club, because him, JJ, Aaron, Tim, Archer and Boubs could be the future of the club 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted June 23, 2022 VT Supporter Share Posted June 23, 2022 The easiest way is to have a sell on clause of say 30% inserted into the contract if we sell. If he becomes a £30m player we could buy him back for around £20m. If he becomes a £150m player then we get ££50m. This way the buying club gets a benefit to developing him and so do we. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barry'sboots Posted June 23, 2022 Share Posted June 23, 2022 3 minutes ago, duke313 said: I agree with you regarding the Coutinho situation, it's just not the same as selling a player and having the option to buy him back in the future. The best example is Tino Livramento at Southampton, Chelsea have the option of buying him back in 2023 for £38m I think, but nothing is stopping Southampton selling him now if City or United bid £50m. The player belongs to Southampton, it's not a loan, it just means if Chelsea were to bid £38m they have to accept it as agreed in the initial sale. Well that is like an option. They can't sell to someone else for 50m without first giving Chelski the option at 38m if it is still within the buyback period. I'm with Sidcow, the two are broadly the same. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted June 23, 2022 Share Posted June 23, 2022 4 minutes ago, duke313 said: I agree with you regarding the Coutinho situation, it's just not the same as selling a player and having the option to buy him back in the future. The best example is Tino Livramento at Southampton, Chelsea have the option of buying him back in 2023 for £38m I think, but nothing is stopping Southampton selling him now if City or United bid £50m. The player belongs to Southampton, it's not a loan, it just means if Chelsea were to bid £38m they have to accept it as agreed in the initial sale. Tammy as well who people still think we can sign Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KMitch Posted June 23, 2022 Share Posted June 23, 2022 He's not going to sign a new deal while he's with the England squad in the middle of a tournament... That said, I see him signing one soon. His agent is just trying to get the best deal for him possible and playing time. TBH, he played a lot last season in the Premier League for a player so young. He will continue to grow into the team (like JJ has). Needs to be patient if he isn't willing to go on loan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted June 23, 2022 Share Posted June 23, 2022 2 minutes ago, CarryOnVilla said: I really wish we could give the boy the game time he desires. But, as things stand, we’re not in the position to gamble our results on him. Why are we not? Palace, Southampton and Brighton seem to be doing Ok with youngsters I think its an excuse and a poor one that we cant afford to give him game time. Camavinga just played the Champions League final for example Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 23, 2022 Share Posted June 23, 2022 8 minutes ago, barry'sboots said: Well that is like an option. They can't sell to someone else for 50m without first giving Chelski the option at 38m if it is still within the buyback period. I'm with Sidcow, the two are broadly the same. They can before 2023 when the Chelsea buy back clause kicks in. Same as Tammy at Roma, they have a buy back clause for £67m which comes into effect in 2023 also, but they could sell to anybody this season for as much as the like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarryOnVilla Posted June 23, 2022 Share Posted June 23, 2022 Just now, Zatman said: Why are we not? Palace, Southampton and Brighton seem to be doing Ok with youngsters I think its an excuse and a poor one that we cant afford to give him game time. Camavinga just played the Champions League final for example Different players different clubs different situations. Dean smith didn’t want to risk him, and it seems like Gerrard didn’t as well. From his perspective, what’s his opinions? Stay and feel wasted or move on and try his luck somewhere else… the club and manager needs to convince him he has a future. Because he has.. he may need to wait a little longer for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts