He's not the only one that is oven ready for the next step up. I think greaves will be in demand too. I think carvalio etc might need another season on loan
Am I right in thinking the buyback clause from Villa is c.15m and reliant on us being in the same league as them? I do wonder if they'd exercise that fairly rapidly if we go up, and if we stay in the champ the money might be too pragmatic for us to ignore, especially if he has interest from prem clubs.
Yeah, nothing about that reflects poorly on the player in my opinion. It doesn't say anything about him refusing to train or make himself available for selection. He's refused to sign a new contract, as is his right, and the club have retaliated by sticking him in the reserves. If this was in any other industry other than professional sport, most reasonable people would side with the employee and accuse the employer of acting in bad faith. Similar situation happened to a player called Loreintz Rosier who now plays for Fortuna Sittard. Last season he was at Estoril in the Portuguese league, his contract expired in summer 2023, he refused to sign a new contract at Estoril midway through the season and so they put him on the naughty step for months.
We did the same with Henriksen (well not for the same reason, we didn't want him to sign a new deal) but we triggered his extension then pissed him about.
We also pissed KLP about in League 1, with McCann being forced to bench him because Ehab didn't want trigger the appearance-based bonuses in his existing contract.
I don't think they can 'exercise that fairly rapidly' if another club offers more money, they have the right to match it, so we'd be in our rights to wait for the best offer to come in.
Jevon Mills has signed for Bohemians on loan.... I wish someone would start a thread on Jadens buy back ... its been doing a 360 for months now... Edited for Syd...
Jaden isn't here on loan. As far as I understand it (famous last words..) a buy back is typically set up with a club where the selling club thinks a players value might shoot up after selling them, but to protect themselves they include a clause that lets them buy them back at an agreed price, so that they can either then benefit from the player's performance, or then sell the player on at a much higher fee than the buy back almost immediately. Tan's comments that suggest Villa would have to match any bid higher than the buy back suggests it's not actually a strict buy back clause, which makes me question why Villa set it up in that way, but until he's sold it's all guesswork really. https://www.danielgeey.com/done-deal-blog/football-transfers-buy-back-clauses-explained They go on to talk about the distinction between a buy back and a first refusal clause. The way Tan has explained it sounds more like Villa have a first refusal clause than a buy back. They also go on to talk about a third club offering more, and that in that situation there would be a fee payable to Villa to cancel their buy back. I don't think it'd be common to not require us to essentially 'buy out' the buy back clause to allow for a higher sale. And certainly not a requirement from Villa to match any increased bid. Only possible scenario I can think of that would mean everyone is telling the truth (just not the whole truth) is if the deal is something like: Jaden cost us 5m, with a 15m buy-back if we're promoted. If we receive an offer greater than 15m from another club and want to be able to accept that, we have a 2-3m (complete guess could be more, could be less, could be a % of any eventual profit?) fee payable to Villa. We assess that as an acceptable risk/fee because we believe (rightly, in hindsight) that he'll be worth 25-30m minimum, so the additional profit we stand to make is more than offset by any fee payable. Villa are happy with this as it means that either they're getting him back under market value at 15m, or they're getting a bigger original fee for him.
Enough people have mistakenly said he's here on loan I actually had no idea if you did mean it or not. I didn't think that was the thing to focus on in that post but fair enough.
According to Tan, the 15m is with no other bids on the table. Apparently if there are 'genuine' bids over and above then they'd have to match those too. Regardless of league status. But then with a statement like that, you just know the devil will be in the legalese detail of what constitutes a 'genuine' bid. I suspect it will at least constitute proof of money actually on the table and a formal indication that the player is willing to sign elsewhere.
It's where I come back to the example above, where there may be a 'break fee' payable to Villa to allow us to ignore their bid and instead deal with higher bids, which we may assess as being commercially acceptable. As you say, the devil is in the detail and I'm sure there's various elements around player transfers that the public never hears about, and quite rightly, otherwise it'd allow other clubs to take advantage of us.
**** knows frankly, but we could have only got him on loan. Fact is, we pretty much know we've got 3 fold back, even if he does go in the summer is still a return not to be sniffed at.
Absolutely and the detail is largely irrelevant. If we get 30m for him I don't particularly care how it comes about.
Detail is never irrelevant if it specifically affects what you're trying to do. Then it just becomes a ball ache. Think 15m is more or less a given, let's not count too many chickens beyond that. Just yet, at least.
It's irrelevant as a supporter. I would be furious if we sold him for 15m. Rogers has just gone to Villa for a roughly similar fee with 2 goals in 26.
Which was the point of the discussion above. But would then suggest Tan lied or omitted significant detail at the fan event.
