So these buy back clauses?

Garbo

Garbo

UTC Legend
...they seem to be a part of each transfer we do thesedays..but how do they work?

For instance IF Ake wanted a transfer at anytime during his contract with us, could he effectively be blocked from moving to another club without Chelsea's consent?

...and if these clauses are included should we be getting him for a more suitable fee to us?

...not sure that such clauses should be added to a players releaes...smacks of some sort of control freakery, from the selling club..
 
can't we start insisting on 'sell-back' clauses instead - i.e. we want a refund if a player turns out to be crap.
 
It's pretty common practice everywhere but in England but is catching on over here now.

The simple answer is without seeing exactly what the clause says, we won't know the answers.

Usually, it means that Chelsea can buy Ake back at a set price (whatever the clause says) until that clause expires (which could be a year or two or over the length of the contract - again without seeing what the clause says, we won't know).

It does not stop another club buying him for whatever we want to charge them - what you described above is a first option clause which the buy back clause isn't.

Just as an example, throwing figures in the air, we sign Ake for £20 million, Chelsea have the chance to buy him back at a later date for say £30 million even if he is worth more than that.

The key questions with these clauses are 1. what's the figure they can buy him back for and 2. how long does the buy back cause exist for (does it have any expiry date ?).

Will they ever want him back ? Who knows. We are still fishing in a different pool of players than Chelsea for transfers so though the clause being there is unfortunate, personally I doubt they will ever exercise it.
 
They give the club the option to buy back, they can't block the team selling him to anyone else, all they can do is either match the price the selling club agrees to sell him for or pay the already pre determined fee.

One example, Fabregas was sold from Arsenal to Barcelona, they had a buy back option and they chose not to, so he was sold to Chelsea, ending the agreement with Barcelona.

Edit - Much better answer from Chris, read that :)
 
The Alchemist - 29/6/2017 12:15

It's pretty common practice everywhere but in England but is catching on over here now.

The simple answer is without seeing exactly what the clause says, we won't know the answers.

Usually, it means that Chelsea can buy Ake back at a set price (whatever the clause says) until that clause expires (which could be a year or two or over the length of the contract - again without seeing what the clause says, we won't know).

It does not stop another club buying him for whatever we want to charge them - what you described above is a first option clause which the buy back clause isn't.

Just as an example, throwing figures in the air, we sign Ake for £20 million, Chelsea have the chance to buy him back at a later date for say £30 million even if he is worth more than that.

The key questions with these clauses are 1. what's the figure they can buy him back for and 2. how long does the buy back cause exist for (does it have any expiry date ?).

Will they ever want him back ? Who knows. We are still fishing in a different pool of players than Chelsea for transfers so though the clause being there is unfortunate, personally I doubt they will ever exercise it.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much it and the buy back clause does have a expiry date it is usually for the first 2 to 3 seasons depending on the players contract. Also we can have add on clauses to the agreement which means the buy back price could increase think normal add-ons appearances, goals etc. As well as the add-ons we can have a sell on clause if Chelsea do buy him back and then sell him at some point.
 
blandford_cherry - 29/6/2017 12:08

I don't like it either I can't think of any benefits for us
Click to expand...

There isn't supposed to be a benefit for the buying club.

Point is would Chelsea have agreed to sell him without the buy back clause ?

Let's hope in a few years time, we get into the position where we can sell players to other teams and include our own buy back clauses in the deal.
 
Sam AFCB - 29/6/2017 12:24

The Alchemist - 29/6/2017 12:15

It's pretty common practice everywhere but in England but is catching on over here now.

The simple answer is without seeing exactly what the clause says, we won't know the answers.

Usually, it means that Chelsea can buy Ake back at a set price (whatever the clause says) until that clause expires (which could be a year or two or over the length of the contract - again without seeing what the clause says, we won't know).

It does not stop another club buying him for whatever we want to charge them - what you described above is a first option clause which the buy back clause isn't.

Just as an example, throwing figures in the air, we sign Ake for £20 million, Chelsea have the chance to buy him back at a later date for say £30 million even if he is worth more than that.

The key questions with these clauses are 1. what's the figure they can buy him back for and 2. how long does the buy back cause exist for (does it have any expiry date ?).

Will they ever want him back ? Who knows. We are still fishing in a different pool of players than Chelsea for transfers so though the clause being there is unfortunate, personally I doubt they will ever exercise it.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much it and the buy back clause does have a expiry date it is usually for the first 2 to 3 seasons depending on the players contract. Also we can have add on clauses to the agreement which means the buy back price could increase think normal add-ons appearances, goals etc. As well as the add-ons we can have a sell on clause if Chelsea do buy him back and then sell him at some point.
Click to expand...

With the inflating transfer market year on year, let's hope that inflation is taken into account in the prices set in the clause at least to an extent.
 
The only concern for me would be if say in a years time Liverpool or whoever were sniffing around Ake for £50m but the buy-back is in place with Chelsea for £30m. They could then activate the buy-back and then sell him onto Liverpool for a profit at a later date.

This is exactly what Real Madrid did with Morata from Juventus. If he goes to Man Utd this summer for £70m they've done very well on the clause. The one thing in our favour is the rule stating you can't play for 3 clubs in same season, so if this did happen, like Morata, Chelsea would need to wait 12 months to exploit it
 
there is a rule about registration with no more than three clubs in a 'season' to try to prevent 'spinning' an asset like that, but it's not very tight and as you described it's been worked around in the past

edit: ahh you mentioned the three clubs thing already

So it kinda sucks but if that's the only way we can get these players initially it's a necessary evil, but hey two years time when we've got regular european football we'll be able to hardball these clubs into better deals ;)
 
No clause is a problem so long as it's properly negotiated. I guess that's what most of us are concerned about :37:
 
Tinpot Club - 29/6/2017 12:48

The only concern for me would be if say in a years time Liverpool or whoever were sniffing around Ake for £50m but the buy-back is in place with Chelsea for £30m. They could then activate the buy-back and then sell him onto Liverpool for a profit at a later date.

This is exactly what Real Madrid did with Morata from Juventus. If he goes to Man Utd this summer for £70m they've done very well on the clause. The one thing in our favour is the rule stating you can't play for 3 clubs in same season, so if this did happen, like Morata, Chelsea would need to wait 12 months to exploit it
Click to expand...

That's why we can have a sell on clause, also if the buy back is activated the player just like a normal transfer does have to go if he doesn't want to.
 
Tinpot Club - 29/6/2017 12:48

The only concern for me would be if say in a years time Liverpool or whoever were sniffing around Ake for £50m but the buy-back is in place with Chelsea for £30m. They could then activate the buy-back and then sell him onto Liverpool for a profit at a later date.

This is exactly what Real Madrid did with Morata from Juventus. If he goes to Man Utd this summer for £70m they've done very well on the clause. The one thing in our favour is the rule stating you can't play for 3 clubs in same season, so if this did happen, like Morata, Chelsea would need to wait 12 months to exploit it
Click to expand...

Whilst there is a rule to limit how many clubs you can register for in a year, ultimately if the deals happen over 18 months there's nothing we could do to prevent that situation you describe.

We would be able to console ourselves with the fact that such a talent choose to develop himself at our club, and in earning that kind of interest most likely help secure AFCB's Premier League status (and it's money) for the seasons he was here. And that track record would likely bring us a pipeline of similar talents.
 
Expect another ropey season from Ibe as EH and JT brief him to hold back on doing anything decent. In 12 months time, after Liverpool's buy-back expires, he'll have all the defenders lulled into a false sense of security and he can tear the league apart.

That's the genius of Howe.
 
This buy back clause malarkey could explain why Ibe has been so carp, he is secretly running down the clause until it's expiry before he shows us that he is actually not a duff. He just doesn't want to go back to Liverpool. :think:
 
OK, my impression (and please correct me if I'm wrong) was that the buy-back clause gave the club exclusive rights to re-sign the player, but was contingent on the player actually agreeing.
So, say in one season Chelsea says "come home Nathan!", but Ake says "no thanks, I love the beaches here", then he stays in Bournemouth.
Am I wrong?!
 
You're wrong. There's nothing to stop another club bidding but the club with the buyback clause would be able to bid that amount whereas another club would have to pay market rate.

Let's say Ake or Ibe has immense seasons with us and next summer the vultures were circling. Chelsea or Liverpool would be able to buy them at whatever the contract said but, for example, if Arsenal wanted to buy one they'd probably be looking at circa £50-60 million (based on the van Dijk figures being bandied around).

The player could then choose to stay with us, move back to their original club where we get a knockdown fee or move onto the third club where we get the full market value.
 
canadiancherry - 29/6/2017 15:31

OK, my impression (and please correct me if I'm wrong) was that the buy-back clause gave the club exclusive rights to re-sign the player, but was contingent on the player actually agreeing.
So, say in one season Chelsea says "come home Nathan!", but Ake says "no thanks, I love the beaches here", then he stays in Bournemouth.
Am I wrong?!
Click to expand...

Yes. They do not get exclusive rights to sign Ake.
 
The Alchemist - 29/6/2017 15:39

canadiancherry - 29/6/2017 15:31

OK, my impression (and please correct me if I'm wrong) was that the buy-back clause gave the club exclusive rights to re-sign the player, but was contingent on the player actually agreeing.
So, say in one season Chelsea says "come home Nathan!", but Ake says "no thanks, I love the beaches here", then he stays in Bournemouth.
Am I wrong?!
Click to expand...

Yes. They do not get exclusive rights to sign Ake.
Click to expand...
OK, I see.
But as Kirskikka said, the player doesn't have to leave Bournemouth if he doesn't want to. To me, that's the most important thing.
If we keep improving, what player (who is getting regular playing time) would want to leave?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;