Buy Back Clause
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Goldfiinger  Just down the road 25 Jul 17 6.04pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Should these even be legal? It obviously stacks the deal in favour of the selling club and only aids super clubs that loan out thirty players at a time. Now they get to not only loan them but actually sell them. Then if they become better they can buy them back at a fixed price increase. Utter bollox if you ask me.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Icepick Tony Chester 25 Jul 17 6.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
It's like anything, no one has to accept it but someone always will and therefore makes it the norm. Hardball doesn't always work, especially when fans want to see certain signings but unfortunately nowadays money talks and the big clubs use theirs in powerful ways.
"They got his own song 'He's just too good for you', it's quite unbelievable but when you see it and he's facing up someone - I actually feel sorry for them, 'Cos he actually is" - Ian Holloway |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Goldfiinger Just down the road 25 Jul 17 6.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Icepick Tony
It's like anything, no one has to accept it but someone always will and therefore makes it the norm. Hardball doesn't always work, especially when fans want to see certain signings but unfortunately nowadays money talks and the big clubs use theirs in powerful ways. You do have to accept it if those super clubs have all the talent in their academies and then feed them out to all the other clubs in loans and buy back options. Becuase otherwise you either have to feed of the scraps. Clubs loaning out dozens of players and selling others with buy back clauses is just monopolising youth development. It's a way of de-risking there academies. Sell four players for £10m each all with £20m buy back clause. If one makes it they buy them back and can sometimes sell them on for triple that. (Morata) The smaller (feeder) clubs take all the risk, either have a player who doesn't make it or loose them once they do. Stinks of unfair trading to me.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Icepick Tony Chester 25 Jul 17 6.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Goldfiinger
You do have to accept it if those super clubs have all the talent in their academies and then feed them out to all the other clubs in loans and buy back options. Becuase otherwise you either have to feed of the scraps. Clubs loaning out dozens of players and selling others with buy back clauses is just monopolising youth development. It's a way of de-risking there academies. Sell four players for £10m each all with £20m buy back clause. If one makes it they buy them back and can sometimes sell them on for triple that. (Morata) The smaller (feeder) clubs take all the risk, either have a player who doesn't make it or loose them once they do. Stinks of unfair trading to me. Key is to make sure that you are getting the most out of your academy and giving them the opportunity to progress into the 1st team. Obviously it's hard as, like you say, the big clubs stockpile. It's not right and like you I don't agree with it but unfortunately it's becoming the norm and will continue unless it's either banned or teams refuse to agree.
"They got his own song 'He's just too good for you', it's quite unbelievable but when you see it and he's facing up someone - I actually feel sorry for them, 'Cos he actually is" - Ian Holloway |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
beak  croydon 25 Jul 17 6.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
All the fairness of zero hours contracts.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Dan89 Se25 25 Jul 17 7.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
This now becoming more common, sides are prepared to sell their younger player but this gives them some protection, in case the player becomes excellent. Imagine Man Utd put a buy back clause in pogba deal, it would of saved them a lot of money.
Another Damien Diagonal - Total Football |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Goldfiinger Just down the road 25 Jul 17 7.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Yes but it means they coin the market. They now don't even have to bring through there academy players. All they have to do is buy a zillion. Then sell them with buy back clauses and watch all the other clubs do the work. Obviously it's great for United and Chelsea and Madrid but what ever we think about Chelsea having a gizillion loanies... well selling them with buy back clauses crushes the market even more.. it de-risks every player they sell and takes away the upside from smaller teams. It basically turns every other club in to a proxy feeder club, which last time I checked is illegal.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Painter Croydon 25 Jul 17 8.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Goldfiinger
Should these even be legal? It obviously stacks the deal in favour of the selling club and only aids super clubs that loan out thirty players at a time. Now they get to not only loan them but actually sell them. Then if they become better they can buy them back at a fixed price increase. Utter bollox if you ask me. Could you give a current example of this in practice, the clubs and player involved.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Goldfiinger Just down the road 25 Jul 17 8.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Example of what?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Goldfiinger Just down the road 25 Jul 17 8.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Assuming your asking for example of buy back deals.. Man City are trying to sell Iheanacho and have a buy back clause. Morata was sold buy Real Madrid to Inter Milan and they had a €20m buy back clause. Brought him back and sold him for £60m to United. Everton bought a player from Barca they inserted a buy back clause and then bought him back and I think are selling him on. It's not even that these clubs want the player back. Sometimes they do but also sometimes they just want the buying club to finish the player before they take them back and turn a bigger profit. If that's not using smaller clubs as proxy feeder clubs I don't know what is.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| silvertop Portishead 25 Jul 17 8.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Painter
Could you give a current example of this in practice, the clubs and player involved. Actually, selling property and recoup8ng a % of an increase in value where planning consent is secured is quite common. They are called overage clauses. You make the buyer do all the work but both sides benefit if the clause is well drafted. Likewise, if this provision is properly drafted, why shouldn't we do ok? Say the clause doesnt bite for 3 years and he is the nuts. We get a brilliant player on an extended "loan" and get 50% of what we paid back. Who says he will continue to be that good. And how else would we secure a player who is that good and has that much experience in this league for such a young age for such a price in this crazy market? The ideal thing, of course, is to stay in this league, continue to grow, develop a well stocked academy and thus become a club that makes use of these provisions.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
EagleinSF  San Fransisco 25 Jul 17 8.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
This is a growing (and worrying) trend. TBH I don't think it will stop (or decline) until there are limits put on the amount of players in the professional leagues that you can have out on loan. This would curb some of the hoovering up of young talent.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.