Archer, what's with buy-back contracts?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

W

Wiggers

New Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2020
Messages
3
Reaction score
9
Rumour has it we are interested in Archer from Villa. It is reported that Villa wants a buy-back clause.

The way I read this is "we sell you a player, you develop him, you pay him, you increase his value, we decide when we can buy him back and for a price we want you can't do anything but thank you for making us more money"

This is a disgusting type of contract as it allows bigger clubs to monopolize and control the transfer market using all other clubs as feeder clubs and keeping them poor.
Sure, give them first refusal at the point of sale for market price but this kind of deal would never benefit smaller clubs..

Imagine if we developed another illy and then we had to sell him for a fraction of his value while the other club gets Grealish type money for him...disgusting

This type of restrictive contract should be stopped and if we have to miss out on a player because of it then it's ok by me.
 

Gimli said:
Yeah kind of but the buy back clause is usually much higher than what the buying club pays - see brewster’s alleged £40m buy back clause
Click to expand...
Alleged is still secretive and can be misleading
 
Wiggers said:
Rumour has it we are interested in Archer from Villa. It is reported that Villa wants a buy-back clause.

The way I read this is "we sell you a player, you develop him, you pay him, you increase his value, we decide when we can buy him back and for a price we want you can't do anything but thank you for making us more money"

This is a disgusting type of contract as it allows bigger clubs to monopolize and control the transfer market using all other clubs as feeder clubs and keeping them poor.
Sure, give them first refusal at the point of sale for market price but this kind of deal would never benefit smaller clubs..

Imagine if we developed another illy and then we had to sell him for a fraction of his value while the other club gets Grealish type money for him...disgusting

This type of restrictive contract should be stopped and if we have to miss out on a player because of it then it's ok by me.
Click to expand...
It’s only disgusting if the buy back figure is the same or less than the purchase price.
If we can have a player for a year or two, improve him and then sell at a profit, having had the benefits of him playing a load of matches then it’s fine.
We wouldn’t object to Liverpool having bought back Brewster !
 
Have a look at Xavi Simons, sold to PSV with a 6m buyback a year ago. Simons smashes it at PSV, PSG buy him back for 6m and he's worth 50m already apparently.
 
Villa's desire for such a clause is why there's still a very good chance Archer just leaves on loan
 
Wiggers said:
Rumour has it we are interested in Archer from Villa. It is reported that Villa wants a buy-back clause.

The way I read this is "we sell you a player, you develop him, you pay him, you increase his value, we decide when we can buy him back and for a price we want you can't do anything but thank you for making us more money"

This is a disgusting type of contract as it allows bigger clubs to monopolize and control the transfer market using all other clubs as feeder clubs and keeping them poor.
Sure, give them first refusal at the point of sale for market price but this kind of deal would never benefit smaller clubs..

Imagine if we developed another illy and then we had to sell him for a fraction of his value while the other club gets Grealish type money for him...disgusting

This type of restrictive contract should be stopped and if we have to miss out on a player because of it then it's ok by me.
Click to expand...

It’s not too dissimilar to the Ndiaye sale where we got a pre-emption (referred to as matching rights), but yes the distinction is we’re fixing a price - presumably it’s index linked and high enough to give us a profit? If the figure is inflated enough and increases subject to appropriate indexation I don’t have a major issue with it.
 
Last edited:
paidsy said:
The clause we have is that if Marseille accept a bid for Ndiaye we get the right to match it before they accept. Slightly different.
Click to expand...

Does that clause actually mean anything because we’re allowed to match it, Marseille accept our bid
but Illy could reject it and prefer to go the club with the other bid.
 
Hamandcheese said:
Villa's desire for such a clause is why there's still a very good chance Archer just leaves on loan
Click to expand...

That’s the reality of the situation.

with that clause very few clubs are interested in potentially a top player.
It’s the reason we have a realistic chance of bringing in a top striker for not excessive money.
It’s short termism but in our situation the priority is short term over long term.
Once we’ve stabilised in the PL for 2 or 3 seasons…..then we can introduce some long term planning.
 

Sheffsteel said:
Does that clause actually mean anything because we’re allowed to match it, Marseille accept our bid
but Illy could reject it and prefer to go the club with the other bid.
Click to expand...
We are allowed to match any bid for any player from any team so I struggle to see the point of it. The only thing I can think of is if someone places a bid and they’re prepared to accept it then they have to call us to let us know rather than finding out when that Italian berk just tweets “here we go”
 
I think the main benefit of the buy-back clause is that you usually get first choice over the clubs who want to buy him, the clause is usually higher than the fee you originally paid for him.
 
Gimli said:
Yeah kind of but the buy back clause is usually much higher than what the buying club pays - see brewster’s alleged £40m buy back clause
Click to expand...
They fucking conned us with that one didn't they. There should be a compensation scheme for scams like this! :D
 
Sheffsteel said:
Does that clause actually mean anything because we’re allowed to match it, Marseille accept our bid
but Illy could reject it and prefer to go the club with the other bid.
Click to expand...
I mean, the bigger hurdle is likely to be us being able to match a bid that Marseille receive.

Maybe he stagnates, but I can't see him moving for less that 25m next time - and we don't have that cash available.
 
Wiggers said:
Rumour has it we are interested in Archer from Villa. It is reported that Villa wants a buy-back clause.

The way I read this is "we sell you a player, you develop him, you pay him, you increase his value, we decide when we can buy him back and for a price we want you can't do anything but thank you for making us more money"

This is a disgusting type of contract as it allows bigger clubs to monopolize and control the transfer market using all other clubs as feeder clubs and keeping them poor.
Sure, give them first refusal at the point of sale for market price but this kind of deal would never benefit smaller clubs..

Imagine if we developed another illy and then we had to sell him for a fraction of his value while the other club gets Grealish type money for him...disgusting

This type of restrictive contract should be stopped and if we have to miss out on a player because of it then it's ok by me.
Click to expand...
Also sounds like a loan, with a guaranteed return.........
 
Buy-back clauses are becoming more common because the loan rules are changing soon.

Clubs will no longer be able to stockpile young talent and loan them out.

The solution is to sell them, but with the security of a buy-back clause in case that player turns into something special.

As long as the buying club negotiates the deal well, ie the opposite of what PSV did with Simons, then I don't really see a problem with it.

"Developing someone else's player" is much more appropriate to the current loan system. At least the new system will mean the 'smaller' club is better off.
 
Wiggers said:
Rumour has it we are interested in Archer from Villa. It is reported that Villa wants a buy-back clause.

The way I read this is "we sell you a player, you develop him, you pay him, you increase his value, we decide when we can buy him back and for a price we want you can't do anything but thank you for making us more money"

This is a disgusting type of contract as it allows bigger clubs to monopolize and control the transfer market using all other clubs as feeder clubs and keeping them poor.
Sure, give them first refusal at the point of sale for market price but this kind of deal would never benefit smaller clubs..

Imagine if we developed another illy and then we had to sell him for a fraction of his value while the other club gets Grealish type money for him...disgusting

This type of restrictive contract should be stopped and if we have to miss out on a player because of it then it's ok by me.
Click to expand...
be ok . liverpool put a buy back clause in Brewster sale , theyve not been beck for him

its like gertting suckered in to a five year 100 quid insurance policy to buy a 40 quid Alexa dot,,, nah be reet pal , Ill risk it
 
Selly said:
I mean, the bigger hurdle is likely to be us being able to match a bid that Marseille receive.

Maybe he stagnates, but I can't see him moving for less that 25m next time - and we don't have that cash available.
Click to expand...

Chances are with Ndiaye, we wouldn’t be able to afford to buy him back. Hence wondering if a 20%-25% sell on clause would make more sense?
 
I've read somewhere that the matching rights with Marseille are so we don't get screwed out of the sell on clause. So if Marseille sell Iliman + a random for £50 mil but try to tell us only £10 mil was for Iliman then we can say ok, we'll buy Iliman back for £10 mil
 
I asked this somewhere before, but are there any examples of a club actually exercising the buy-back clause ?
 
Just imagine is we had put a buy back clause in the sale sod

Kyle walker
Harry Maguire
DCL
Ramsdale
brooks….


We might have been able to exercise one of them if we were in the prem or be cheeky and buy then back and sell them on to someone else for more money.
 
Colombia Blade said:
I've read somewhere that the matching rights with Marseille are so we don't get screwed out of the sell on clause. So if Marseille sell Iliman + a random for £50 mil but try to tell us only £10 mil was for Iliman then we can say ok, we'll buy Iliman back for £10 mil
Click to expand...
Clever, I like that. Whoever put that in has done well.
 
Selly said:
I mean, the bigger hurdle is likely to be us being able to match a bid that Marseille receive.

Maybe he stagnates, but I can't see him moving for less that 25m next time - and we don't have that cash available.
Click to expand...
I assume the only way he would come back is if we were an established PL team i.e we survive for say the next 3 seasons. In theory under that scenario we should be able to afford him even at £25M??
 

It seems to be more and more common these days. Just shows teams have too many good players on their books if anything. Despite this, they daren't risk "just" selling said player incase they become class elsewhere!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom