Summer transfer window 2023 - rumours, links and discussion.

[CoolClaret]

Seems to be a lot of talk on Twitter that Chelsea have decided to sell Maatsen.

Bring him home

[davideyresleftear]

The buy back clause applies whether we want to sell or not, otherwise it would be absolutely pointless.

Don’t some buyback clauses work on ‘if x amount is bid, we must accept’?

[davideyresleftear]

It's most refreshing to know that so many people know the ins and outs of a professional footballers contract.

Puts my mind at rest.

Come on mate, people are just discussing a complex transfer involving our club, in a thread with ‘discussion’ in the title. They’re not challenging the contract in a court of law

[Rick_Muller]

You would think the lad had a choice, otherwise, it's glorified slavery.

It’s all glorified slavery

[Colburn_Claret]

From SSN at 11.00 today

Burnley agree deal to sign Villa's Ramsey
Burnley have agreed a £14m deal to sign Aston Villa midfielder Aaron Ramsey.

The agreement also contains potential add-ons on top of the fee and Villa have inserted a buy-back clause.

The 20-year-old is now discussing the terms of a contract with Villa should that clause be triggered by the club in future.

Ramsey has already completed a medical with Burnley and will finalise the move once he has agreed with Villa.

Not sure how he can discuss terms of another contract with Villa now, for a buy back that may never happen

Most contracts buy back clauses mean the selling club get first option. This sounds, without knowing, as if Villa can buy him back at anytime, so long as they meet the agreed fee. Which is perhaps why Ramsey needs to agree wages with Villa first.
If I'm right it's a first, and very strange.

[Woodleyclaret]

Is the Lukabakio deal now dead?

[summitclaret]

Get Ramsey. Buy Tella and get Maatsen and THB back on loan and play Bayer in the Rodri role we'll be sorted.

[burnley007]

Get Ramsey. Buy Tella and get Maatsen and THB back on loan and play Bayer in the Rodri role we'll be sorted.

probably sell a few after £100m of spending!

[Exeterclaret]

Is the Lukabakio deal now dead?

Tavolieri tweeted on Saturday that it could be hijacked by Sevilla, but to my knowledge no one of any repute has updated since. Sevilla also look to be in for Lozano too, so don't know if it's an either or.

Longer it is that there's no updates, the less likely the deal will happen imo.

[boatshed bill]

Slavery is when you agree a job contract that Burnley fans don't want to happen

I think it's more a case of the player being bought and sold like a commodity.

[Tricky Trevor]

This has to be the most weird buy back clause i have ever known.
From what i have heard is that the buy back clause only becomes active after 2 years. What player in their right mind would agree a contract and wages 2 years in advance. The wages he agrees to could be worth less than today, the way inflation is going.

Totally agree.It sounds more like a two year loan that we are paying £14m for.

[IWOODLOVETT]

Many deals are agreed “in principle” and are left unsigned (especially loans of fringe players) until the selling club are confident that their first team squad is complete and not impacted by recent long-term injuries etc.

Expect a very busy day when the transfer window finally ‘slams shut’.
UTC

[Spijed]

Most contracts buy back clauses mean the selling club get first option. This sounds, without knowing, as if Villa can buy him back at anytime, so long as they meet the agreed fee. Which is perhaps why Ramsey needs to agree wages with Villa first.
If I'm right it's a first, and very strange.

If that's the case you'd think the sensible option would be for them just to loan him to us as it would save all the hassle

[fatboy47]

Totally agree.It sounds more like a two year loan that we are paying £14m for.

Why? Can they buy him back for a quid or something?

[Claretnick]

If that's the case you'd think the sensible option would be for them just to loan him to us as it would save all the hassle

Perhaps we have other players lined up for the 2 PL loans we can have..

[davideyresleftear]

Totally agree.It sounds more like a two year loan that we are paying £14m for.

You’d assume the buy back will be for more than what we paid. If, for example, it was £28m then it’s a two year loan of a good player and we get paid £14m (minus wages) for the pleasure. If the buy back is for a set amount I’d actually expect it to be for more than 2x what we paid.

Plus, for the buy back to be activated he’d have to have performed well for us.

*all guesswork / conjecture, I’m not claiming to have seen the contract, may it please the court

[claretonthecoast1882]

Totally agree.It sounds more like a two year loan that we are paying £14m for.

What if the buy back fee is 25m plus

[sleeperclaret]

Most contracts buy back clauses mean the selling club get first option. This sounds, without knowing, as if Villa can buy him back at anytime, so long as they meet the agreed fee. Which is perhaps why Ramsey needs to agree wages with Villa first.
If I'm right it's a first, and very strange.

I assume it's like a release clause that only Villa can invoke, so not unlike any other release clause in that they can be triggered at any point.

The contract agreement will be to ensure the player cannot just refuse terms and sign a new contract with someone else at a higher rate (invalidating the buyback clause entirely), or hold them to ransom to pay whatever he wants to rejoin them. It also gives certainty to the player about future income so the club can't prevent him joining another team through protracted contract discussions and offering him lower wages in the event of us being relegated, for example. It protects both parties.

[Carwin261]

The buy back clause applies whether we want to sell or not, otherwise it would be absolutely pointless.

Surely the buy back clause is that they have the first option on him if he becomes available.

[Raconteur]

Surely the buy back clause is that they have the first option on him if he becomes available.

I would say that is how they normally work. This seems to be a different kind of buy back.

Man City had buy back clauses added to all the players they sold to Southampton last season. Lavia was one in question. Again, it only became active after 2 years ( 2024)
I wonder if we would have the option to sell to another club after 1 season in this deal ?

[Cleveleys_claret]

Why? Can they buy him back for a quid or something?

Is it hard to understand he may end up rubbish/ injured to a point he never recovers and then we don't get anything for him

But if he excels we have paid for the privilige of improving him, doing all the legwork and them then buying him back at a price which compared with a player of simar ability (if as expected he reaches decent levels) is way less

[agreenwood]

Is it hard to understand he may end up rubbish/ injured to a point he never recovers and then we don't get anything for him

But if he excels we have paid for the privilige of improving him, doing all the legwork and them then buying him back at a price which compared with a player of simar ability (if as expected he reaches decent levels) is way less

Wouldn’t that depend on what sum the buy back clauses was set at? Also, presumably he still has a choice? Villa might not be as attractive a proposition in 2-3 years.

The odd bit must agreeing a contract for a future date. If he completely smashes through, he might want a higher wage in 2 years than they are proposing now. It’s possibly incentivised based on what he achieves with us.

[eastcoastclaret]

It's not an ideal arrangement but any new signing could turn out to be rubbish and not make a profit.

If the buy back is £25million for instance, its Villa paying for the privilege, not us. We in theory get a player for say 2 years, have his wages paid and make a reasonable profit on the deal if he returns to them.

[arise_sir_charge]

This discussion is great, nobody has any idea of truth be known. I’m confident though we won’t do a deal that can shaft us.

All we need now is Chesterperry to speculate around how such a deal can be amortised and we’ve really cracked it.

[Commy]

If he is successful, what is stopping us from selling him before two years?

[RVclaret]

Chelsea’s splurge continues… Michael Olise for £35m.

Time to sell us Maatsen.

[Commy]

Chelsea’s splurge continues… Michael Olise for £35m.

Time to sell us Maatsen.

Has he signed? Twitter saying City are in for him as well.

[mybloodisclaret]

Re the contract situation for Ramsey I see a couple of things. Villa hold all the power he is contracted to them. They would be letting him out, as don't see he gets enough minutes there. Kompany must really want the player, he has said he is going to be a full England international. So the clubs and player have come to an agreement that suits all. The buyback you would think would be at a far higher ceiling than what we will initially pay to them. Glorified loan? Potentially. Does Vinny really want the player? Clearly. No brainer then in my eyes. We as fans should just look forward to watching the guy.

[Juan Tanamera]

All this talk of Villa having first option on Ramsey in 2 years or whenever, who's to say we won't outbid them?

[Vegas Claret]

Has he signed? Twitter saying City are in for him as well.

they've triggered his release clause, not signed.

[Hipper]

Palace seem to be losing a lot of their creativity - Zaha, Olise. Eze is still there but for how long?

[Firthy]

FFP is an absolute farce and pointless. As soon as the smaller clubs unearth a gem then the big clubs like City, Chelsea etc. just swoop in buy them regardless of the price. All starting to get a bit boring and accepted practice these days. Maybe the Saudis will give them a run for their money, unfortunately to the detriment of football.

[Taffy on the wing]

For Newcastle
https://www.burnleyfootballclub.com/con ... O2E7r-D1gA

[Paul Waine]

This discussion is great, nobody has any idea of truth be known. I’m confident though we won’t do a deal that can shaft us.

All we need now is Chesterperry to speculate around how such a deal can be amortised and we’ve really cracked it.

Amortisation is easy, transfer fee (less any contingent amounts) divided by length of contract (or 5 years, if contract is longer like Chelsea keep offering). Contingent/performance amounts get triggered - they are added and amortised from date that those amounts have been triggered. Adjust again if player and existing club agree new extended contract period. If transferred out, adjust with new contract end date and calculate profit or loss from difference between the remaining amortised amount before sale and the transfer out amount received. In other words, the buy back clause doesn't change anything until the buyback happens.

[Newcastleclaret93]

For Newcastle
https://www.burnleyfootballclub.com/con ... O2E7r-D1gA

Well done to him.

[Jakubclaret]

FFP is an absolute farce and pointless. As soon as the smaller clubs unearth a gem then the big clubs like City, Chelsea etc. just swoop in buy them regardless of the price. All starting to get a bit boring and accepted practice these days. Maybe the Saudis will give them a run for their money, unfortunately to the detriment of football.

The creation & inclusion of release clauses render smaller clubs powerless & it's something in most cases now appear to be a standard thing you don't sign the player otherwise it's insisted.

[Rileybobs]

Wouldn’t that depend on what sum the buy back clauses was set at? Also, presumably he still has a choice? Villa might not be as attractive a proposition in 2-3 years.

The odd bit must agreeing a contract for a future date. If he completely smashes through, he might want a higher wage in 2 years than they are proposing now. It’s possibly incentivised based on what he achieves with us.

I’m sure the deal will be complicated and involve various scenarios. But essentially if Ramsey signs a 5 year contract with Burnley for the sake of argument, he will have guaranteed minimum payment terms for the duration of that contract. So if Villa have an option to buy him back the deal could simply be that they match his current payment terms or more likely increase this by a percentage. So he wouldn’t be signing a contract for a future date in a sense any more so than he is now by agreeing a long contract with Burnley. Where it would become complicated is where a new deal with Villa extends beyond his current contract with Burnley but this may not be the case.

[Tricky Trevor]

Amortisation is easy, transfer fee (less any contingent amounts) divided by length of contract (or 5 years, if contract is longer like Chelsea keep offering).

Thank you for posting that. I’d been going to post that amoritisation should be time limited and you’ve taught me it already is.

[clive40golf]

I’m sure the deal will be complicated and involve various scenarios. But essentially if Ramsey signs a 5 year contract with Burnley for the sake of argument, he will have guaranteed minimum payment terms for the duration of that contract. So if Villa have an option to buy him back the deal could simply be that they match his current payment terms or more likely increase this by a percentage. So he wouldn’t be signing a contract for a future date in a sense any more so than he is now by agreeing a long contract with Burnley. Where it would become complicated is where a new deal with Villa extends beyond his current contract with Burnley but this may not be the case.

pardon!

[Vegas Claret]

Jordan explains how Chelsea are doing what they are doing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYktOnzx9ec

[Rileybobs]

pardon!

My point is that by signing a contract with Burnley, Ramsey is tying himself into payment terms for the next potentially 5 years, so agreeing a deal with Villa now up to that same point in time is not really any different.

[Rumbletonk]

The buy back clause applies whether we want to sell or not, otherwise it would be absolutely pointless.

The way I see it, the buy back clause is like a release clause but for an individual club. In this case that's Villa. If the buy back clause is set at £40 mill then we have to allow the player to talk to them. That does't mean the player has to go. It just means we can't stand in the way if they meet that £40 mill asking price. I just can't see a player agreeing personal terms with the club he's leaving for us at point of sale

[Jakubclaret]

The way I see it, the buy back clause is like a release clause but for an individual club. In this case that's Villa. If the buy back clause is set at £40 mill then we have to allow the player to talk to them. That does't mean the player has to go. It just means we can't stand in the way if they meet that £40 mill asking price. I just can't see a player agreeing personal terms with the club he's leaving for us at point of sale

Buy back clauses are more secure than release clauses because you don't have to sell, but if you decide to providing the offer is matched you have to accept the offer from the original selling club who attached the buy back clause, it provides the guarantee that upon selling the original club have first rights on him if they match the bid from any other interested clubs, that's my understanding but I'm willing to be corrected.

[Woodleyclaret]

This Ramsay deal is getting silly, time to move on
I don't remember him being all that at Boro

[Rumbletonk]

Buy back clauses are more secure than release clauses because you don't have to sell, but if you decide to providing the offer is matched you have to accept the offer from the original selling club who attached the buy back clause, it provides the guarantee that upon selling the original club have first rights on him if they match the bid from any other interested clubs, that's my understanding but I'm willing to be corrected.

I don't think that's correct. I think you have to sell, should the player want to move and the buy back price is offered.

[Pickles]

A buy back clause is a release clause exclusive to the original selling club. The club must accept this offer whether they want to or not. It's then down to personal terms - which may have been agreed months, years before. There are usually time limits and validity involved and the price is usually deemed to be a good deal for the original selling club, taking player potential into consideration. So for example - let's say Trafford's buy back clause is about £30m. This could be much cheaper than Burnley, City and other clubs value him at, especially in a couple of years, but only City will have the chance to buy him for that price.

The original selling club could also have included the right to be notified of bids for the player from elsewhere, and the right to match any offer made.

Has no-one played Football Manager?!

I just think of them as potential loan deals but a bit fancier.

[Jakubclaret]

I don't think that's correct. I think you have to sell, should the player want to move and the buy back price is offered.

Maybe you are right it applies to that individual club, I think lots of contracts will be structured with complexity.

[Rileybobs]

To be fair a buy back clause could be whatever the two clubs and player agree.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Maybe contract clauses need their own thread

[Jakubclaret]

https://www.danielgeey.com/done-deal-bl ... -explained