Lescott [Merged]

[Anonymous]

What do you base that on? What is the point of agreeing a fee in advance if one side can back out? What is the difference between having the fee in the loan agreement and not bothering at all? You may as well put a clause in there saying we can sign Robinho for 20p, unless City decide not to, right?

The idea is that if City should choose to sell the player, then Everton have first refusal at price X. Obviously this is a price which City find reasonable, hence they put it in the contract. If Jo turns out to be the new Henry this season and scores 30 goals, then City could simply refuse to sell. Everton cannot force the issue as Jo is still under contract with us. The right of first refusal does not equate to a guarantee for Everton that they can buy at that price.

Plus, normally clubs have very cordial relationships so come the end of the season, the agreed price is 99% of the time agreeable. As I said, the relationship between the two clubs has soured, hence i can see City telling Everton to sling their hook on principle.

 

[KingMoyes]

Can we just not agree to disagree over the matter....We don't want to sell it would be very bad business for us unless we got an astronomical offer...city and everton are very similar clubs except you have now come into money. I am made up for you and hope everton find an investor soon so we can both shake that top 4 up!

 

[dontshootme]

oh well if the papers say so it must be true, unless it comes from our o.s i wont believe a word you say on the matter.<a class="postlink" href="http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Team-news/2009/July/Jo-goes-out-on-loan" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Team-news/20 ... ut-on-loan</a>
this is all our o.s says.

That's fine, nothing wrong with doubting the (often wrong) sports media. I don't claim to have any inside info, I'm just pointing out that these "loans with an option to buy" are pretty common, especially with Everton, and especially in cases where his old club have basically given up on him, but the player needs games to prove his value (Arteta was frozen out at Sociadad, Pienaar at Dortmund).

 

[moomba]

All correct statements.

I was under the impression it was called in by the government. So this is wrong.
Anyway grow the fuck up. Your like a gang og bloody kids. I can pee higher up the wall than you. No you cant. pathetic and childish

Do you want a tissue to dry your teary little eyes?

Then you can fuck right off.

 

[dontshootme]

The idea is that if City should choose to sell the player, then Everton have first refusal at price X. Obviously this is a price which City find reasonable, hence they put it in the contract. If Jo turns out to be the new Henry this season and scores 30 goals, then City could simply refuse to sell. Everton cannot force the issue as Jo is still under contract with us. The right of first refusal does not equate to a guarantee for Everton that they can buy at that price.

Plus, normally clubs have very cordial relationships so come the end of the season, the agreed price is 99% of the time agreeable. As I said, the relationship between the two clubs has soured, hence i can see City telling Everton to sling their hook on principle.

OK, I suppose that all of that could be true. It's just that I've never heard of such a deal happening. I've never heard of a club taking a player on loan, having an agreed fee, wanting to exercise it (and the player wanting to go) but his parent club refusing. I have heard dozens of examples the other way.

One thing still doesn't make sense - how long does that "first refusal" last for? Presumably, if City decided to sell a year after the loan ended, Everton couldn't invoke the clause and buy on the cheap. But if the right to buy at a certain price ends the day the loan ends, it's an entirely pointless exercise, isn't it? The loan ends on (say) 30 June 2010, City receive a £25m offer from Scunthorpe on 1 July 2010, Everton can't do anything, right? So under what circumstances could Everton invoke the clause to their advantage?

 

[fanny hugger]

I was under the impression it was called in by the government. So this is wrong.
Anyway grow the fuck up. Your like a gang og bloody kids. I can pee higher up the wall than you. No you cant. pathetic and childish

at least i can spell "of" lol

lol thats the child in me coming out

 

[fanny hugger]

I was under the impression it was called in by the government. So this is wrong.
Anyway grow the fuck up. Your like a gang og bloody kids. I can pee higher up the wall than you. No you cant. pathetic and childish

Do you want a tissue to dry your teary little eyes?

Then you can fuck right off.

What would i need a tissue for?

Is there any need for you to be a prick

 

[allan harper]

 

[Anonymous]

The idea is that if City should choose to sell the player, then Everton have first refusal at price X. Obviously this is a price which City find reasonable, hence they put it in the contract. If Jo turns out to be the new Henry this season and scores 30 goals, then City could simply refuse to sell. Everton cannot force the issue as Jo is still under contract with us. The right of first refusal does not equate to a guarantee for Everton that they can buy at that price.

Plus, normally clubs have very cordial relationships so come the end of the season, the agreed price is 99% of the time agreeable. As I said, the relationship between the two clubs has soured, hence i can see City telling Everton to sling their hook on principle.

OK, I suppose that all of that could be true. It's just that I've never heard of such a deal happening. I've never heard of a club taking a player on loan, having an agreed fee, wanting to exercise it (and the player wanting to go) but his parent club refusing. I have heard dozens of examples the other way.

One thing still doesn't make sense - how long does that "first refusal" last for? Presumably, if City decided to sell a year after the loan ended, Everton couldn't invoke the clause and buy on the cheap. But if the right to buy at a certain price ends the day the loan ends, it's an entirely pointless exercise, isn't it? The loan ends on (say) 30 June 2010, City receive a £25m offer from Scunthorpe on 1 July 2010, Everton can't do anything, right? So under what circumstances could Everton invoke the clause to their advantage?

In truth, an option to buy at a set price hinges on both clubs wanting to do business. Under normal circumstances, the club loaning the player out with an option to buy (City in this case), would rather sell the player for fee X. However the club who are loaning the player (Everton in this case) would rather not pay the transfer fee because they either a) can't afford it, or b) would rather take a look at the player first. In this case, the club who are loaning the player will say "well, we agree that if we want to make the transfer permanent at the end of the season, we will pay your asking price." This is what goes in the loan contract.

If City choose not to sell, or up their price, there isn't really much Everton can do. Of course as you have stated, this rarely happens as players going out on loan with an option to buy are surplus to requirements at their parent club. Off the top of my head the only example I can think of of this was the transfer of Mauro Zarate from some Middle Eastern club to Lazio earlier this summer. Lazio had first option to buy, but the selling club upped their price several time, and in the end it took Zarate to buy out his own contract to get the move he wanted...

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

Can somebody kindly direct me to the Lescott thread?