Hart of the Matter
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 5,180
Always wondered how buy backs work if the player decides he doesnt want to return?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What if we said no more loans, sell but with buyback
- Thread starter WallyA
- Start date
Tim of the Oak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2012
- Messages
- 18,119
Chelsea reduce the cost of loaning their players to other teams as they get more game time. Thus improving the chances of the loanee featuring regularly and increasing their worth. I hope we do something similar.
aguero93:20
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 90,262
- Location
- Hunting Cats.
- Team supported
- Some gobshites in day-glo green and black.
Basically, they don't work.Always wondered how buy backs work if the player decides he doesnt want to return?
My biggest issue with loans are:
1) The player doesn't belong to the other club so they have little incentive to play them, or
2) The player gets loaned to crap teams because good teams won't buy them as they'd just develop their own talent
We have alot of loanees coming back this season; and if we don't plan on integrating them into the squad, we should just have a mass sale, 5m a player, but with a buyback clause of 30m that expires in 3 years. This has a few benefits;
1) The player's career finally starts, he is not just being loaned out over and over again, he is at a good club and will play because he is there player.
2) The player knows if he is exceptional over 3 years, then City will possibly buy him back and he has incentive, the buying club would also profit big. We can even make the buyback clause 40m as a bigger incentive for better teams, the odds are atleast one player will be worth bringing back, and since we sold a bunch at 5m we can probably bring them back with a net cost of 0.
The only reason I bring this idea up is I'm just thinking about where our loanees are; mostly Scottish Premiership, Eredivisie, or Championship. Those loans are good for a year, but after which the player must truly be tested, Girona is our only top loanee club and only Maffeo get's game time, Aleix Garcia doesn't have a chance.
Enes Unal is playing with Villarreal, they were 5th last season and 5th this season. They are a good club to play at for a player developing and aiming for the top. These are the kinds of sales we should do more often.
The players would refuse to go rather than take the wage cut, but they are covered if on loan.
Always wondered how buy backs work if the player decides he doesnt want to return?
Many people get this completely wrong.
If the player doesn’t want to go, too bad because the contract is signed with the possibility of a buyback.
One clear example is Morata at Juve. He was sold to Juve and bought back against his will by Real. Stayed at Real one season as a bench player and was sold to Chelsea for double the money they paid.
What would be the point of having a buyback if the player can say no? It would defeat the purpose. Same thing with loans with an obligation to buy/option to buy. Can the player say no, of course he can’t because everything is agreed initially.
I’ve argued this many times here and I see some still don’t get the point but I assure you a player can not say no. It’s not like the buyback clause is a surprise. The player know very well they are included and can be activated.
We have buybacks now we Enes Unal and Kelechi Iheanacho amongst other players. If they score 30 league goals next season. We can buy back them back and have them in the squad or immediately sell them for a massive profit. It’s genius.
I like the idea of selling cheap with a conditional buy back clause (a buyback clause with an expiry date), however the example you made of selling for 5m with a buyback clause of 30m is a bit much.
In this market 30m is basically nothing to us. Someone mentioned KDB that we bought 55m for, he is worth 150m easily now.
Basically, if we paid 30m to buy the player, it's because he can play for City meaning he is probably worth 60m minimum.
I'm sure when we sold Maffeo for about 9m City put in a buyback clause that is around 30m, give or take. I was pissed we sold him at first, but with a buyback clause we have the peace of mind that if he becomes world class in germany (a good league to measure potential by, not Scotland or the Netherlands), then we buy him back for cheap. 30m is cheap in this market, and prices are only going up, the standard rate for a high potential defender is 50m minimum nowadays.
Rammy Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 May 2008
- Messages
- 29,845
It’s genius when it works, one of the main issues is that not many decent deals are done with buybacks for exactly that reason. The buying club doesn’t want to generally pass up the chance of making the profit on the sale.Many people get this completely wrong.
If the player doesn’t want to go, too bad because the contract is signed with the possibility of a buyback.
One clear example is Morata at Juve. He was sold to Juve and bought back against his will by Real. Stayed at Real one season as a bench player and was sold to Chelsea for double the money they paid.
What would be the point of having a buyback if the player can say no? It would defeat the purpose. Same thing with loans with an obligation to buy/option to buy. Can the player say no, of course he can’t because everything is agreed initially.
I’ve argued this many times here and I see some still don’t get the point but I assure you a player can not say no. It’s not like the buyback clause is a surprise. The player know very well they are included and can be activated.
We have buybacks now we Enes Unal and Kelechi Iheanacho amongst other players. If they score 30 league goals next season. We can buy back them back and have them in the squad or immediately sell them for a massive profit. It’s genius.
It’s genius when it works, one of the main issues is that not many decent deals are done with buybacks for exactly that reason. The buying club doesn’t want to generally pass up the chance of making the profit on the sale.
We have the expiry date on the release clause of 3 years.
If the player is worth 30-40m, we are not going to bring them back as they wouldn't be good enough for the club and we wouldn't make any profit on them. But if they are worth 30-40m then they are probably one of the best players at the club they are at. If they happen to be amazing (world class) and are worth 60m+, then of course we'd buy them back, but by then the club would have reaped the benefits of 3 years contributions of a player worth 60m that they paid a meager 5m for.
It’s genius when it works, one of the main issues is that not many decent deals are done with buybacks for exactly that reason. The buying club doesn’t want to generally pass up the chance of making the profit on the sale.
It is harder to include but it’s good for the buying club as well as they do make a profit. Not as big as if there was no buy back but it still benefits everyone.
The buying club gets much better value for money in the short term. Usually getting a player below market value due to the inclusion of the buyback clause. For clubs with no so much money this is very good.
Any way you look at it, it’s a win-win for both clubs.
We have the expiry date on the release clause of 3 years.
If the player is worth 30-40m, we are not going to bring them back as they wouldn't be good enough for the club and we wouldn't make any profit on them. But if they are worth 30-40m then they are probably one of the best players at the club they are at. If they happen to be amazing (world class) and are worth 60m+, then of course we'd buy them back, but by then the club would have reaped the benefits of 3 years contributions of a player worth 60m that they paid a meager 5m for.
Good point.
Though I’m not sure on the duration. I think it varies. Rulli had a 3 year expiry date and possibly Unal iirc but not Kelechi.