CONFIRMED Rhian Brewster

[FTPE]

Football Transfers: Buy-Back Clauses Explained

Welcome to my football blog. I’m a sports lawyer at Sheridans and write about topical football issues.

www.danielgeey.com

Owwwwww, so Liverpool could set the buy back value before they even sell him? That puts them in an even stronger position than merely adding a first refusal close.
Suppose, thats why he's valued slightly lower.

Again, still comes down to negotiations.

Not all bad news, City haven't triggered theirs for Bryan yet

 

[FTPE]

Does a buy back happen at a drop of a hat? If he's our player surely we can't be made to sell him?

Read that article Addison has attached above, its not as straight forward as you would think.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Owwwwww, so Liverpool could set the buy back value before they even sell him? That puts them in an even stronger position than merely adding a first refusal close.
Suppose, thats why he's valued slightly lower.

Again, still comes down to negotiations.

Not all bad news, City haven't triggered theirs for Bryan yet

They have, just offered us a bag of wasits and a broken microwave.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Read that article Addison has attached above, its not as straight forward as you would think.

Read it so just buy him with a no fucking chance buy back clause.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

I think it's if we want to sell him the selling club get 1st refusal at an agreed price. What's the point otherwise? May as well just take him on loan for 2 years.

No we if Liverpool meet the release price for that window then we can’t stop it, which is why you include it to be between May 31 and July 31st each summer. Outside those dates the clause isn’t active. So long as we step up the buyback value each season at a sensible level then it’s win win for us.
No buy back clause and they’ll not sell.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

No we if Liverpool meet the release price for that window then we can’t stop it, which is why you include it to be between May 31 and July 31st each summer. Outside those dates the clause isn’t active.

Make the condition first refusal then.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Make the condition first refusal then.

I’d guess that they’ll not want that as it gives them no real advantage.
Why not set it so there’s no buy back next summer but in June 2022 it’s double what we paid, say £40M. June 2023 it’s £55M and then that’s it. We get the player for 2 seasons guaranteed and if they want him back we get a significant return without it being out of the realms of being sensible for them.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I’d guess that they’ll not want that as it gives them no advantage.
Why not set it so there’s no buy back next summer but in June 2022 it’s double what we paid, say £40M. June 2023 it’s £55M and then that’s it. We get the player for 2 seasons guaranteed and if they want him back we get a significant return without it being out of the realms of being sensible for them.

Makes sense financially - but he won't ever be ours which pisses me off a bit, don't want to be anyones whore.

 

[JayGreen17]

I’d guess that they’ll not want that as it gives them no real advantage.
Why not set it so there’s no buy back next summer but in June 2022 it’s double what we paid, say £40M. June 2023 it’s £55M and then that’s it. We get the player for 2 seasons guaranteed and if they want him back we get a significant return without it being out of the realms of being sensible for them.

add into this mix that the player and agent will want to have a say in terms of minimum contact length before the clause is activated, the player may say after 12 months if he’s keen to return to liverpool.

i think the maim thing we have in our advantage is that he’s be our number 1 striker and pretty much guaranteed to start, I can’t say the same for the other clubs in for him, they’ve all strengthened in the striker dept or play 1 up top and already have good options.

ive got a really good feeling that this is going to happen.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Makes sense financially - but he won't ever be ours which pisses me off a bit, don't want to be anyones whore.

Well, I get the point but otherwise they’d be wanting £30M plus I’d guess, or they’d not entertain it. £40-55M is still a serious chunk of change and the only negative is if Liverpool play the twat and activate the clause just to sell him on.
There is also the fact that he may not want to sign for us if he doesn’t believe there is a route back to Liverpool if he performs. There is also the possibility that Liverpool don’t trigger the release as they’re aiming hirer in which case he’s ours. I’d still rather sign King for a likely less upfront fee but he’d be an exciting talent for the next couple of years so long as he’s with us; and who knows where we may be at that point?

i think the maim thing we have in our advantage is that he’s be our number 1 striker and pretty much guaranteed to start, I can’t say the same for the other clubs in for him, they’ve all strengthened in the striker dept or play 1 up top and already have good options.

ive got a really good feeling that this is going to happen.

I don’t see him as our number one striker yet. He’s not at that level and will be fighting it out with McBurnie, Dids and Moose for that starting berth but he’s lots to learn.

 

[Addison]

So we have to want to sell then? Otherwise it's just a loan.

We only have to sell if the clause is activated in an agreed period and the fee agreed is paid. Of course the better success a player is the bigger the risk. Its fair to say while ever a buy back exists the player is not 100% your own.

Nathan Ake is a good example of a buy back. In 2017 he was bought for £20 million his buy back with Chelsea was set at £40m. Both clubs should negotiate the date by which the buy back can be activated. I'm guessing in Akes case as he had a 5 year contract Chelsea would not have been able to invoke the buy back in the first 3 years until this season. Chelsea declined to take up the option and he was sold to Man City for £41m in the summer. Of course if you want to move the player on before the agreed buy back date it is normal for the selling club to be given first refusal.

The problem with a buy back clause is apart from obtaining a players services it restricts your ability to sell in the future and limits the potential profit if he's a roaring success. The buying club have to sell him back to the selling club at the point they invoke the clause so careful consideration has to be given as to how the wording of the clause is constructed. For example it would be remiss of the buying Club to concede to the request that the player could be bought back during the season e.g January transfer window. If your in a Champions league spot and lose your top scorer half way through the season that has a big impact.

IMO buy back clauses benefit the top 6 and we should avoid arrangements of this nature as the player can never fully feel part of the club.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Well, I get the point but otherwise they’d be wanting £30M plus I’d guess, or they’d not entertain it. £40-55M is still a serious chunk of change and the only negative is if Liverpool play the twat and activate the clause just to sell him on.
There is also the fact that he may not want to sign for us if he doesn’t believe there is a route back to Liverpool if he performs. There is also the possibility that Liverpool don’t trigger the release as they’re aiming hirer in which case he’s ours. I’d still rather sign King for a likely less upfront fee but he’d be an exciting talent for the next couple of years so long as he’s with us; and who knows where we may be at that point?

King is proven but likely to way outside what we are willing to offer in wages.

Dennis and his big fuck off camera more likely.

 

[Barney]

Certainly seems like this is the more likely signing out of him and Dennis.

 

[BrisBlade]

I'd love it if there was no buy back / absurdly high buy back / first refusal. However, I suspect if we don't give them good terms on a buy back he's going to cost us a lot more and put him out of reach - that clause is worth millions to Liverpool. Also it sounds like it would suit Brewster as he's basically said he wants to be Liverpool's main man one day (fair play to the lad for backing himself).

We get a player we otherwise couldn't afford and if he bangs in 20 and Liverpool grab him back we get a bit of profit, Liverpool get readies in their hands and a future option, Brewster gets the chance to prove himself. I'm all for it if we have the spondoolicks.

 

[SufcBilly]

But surely the risk is with any player we sign, if they are a success they could leave? Why is this any different

 

[Andy67]

We need a younger man to play the Dids/link role. King would fit in nicely into that and with the added bonus that he can also score goals.
A far superior option than Brewster is right now, as he's not ready to be starting PL games regularly.

I'd love it if there was no buy back / absurdly high buy back / first refusal. However, I suspect if we don't give them good terms on a buy back he's going to cost us a lot more and put him out of reach - that clause is worth millions to Liverpool. Also it sounds like it would suit Brewster as he's basically said he wants to be Liverpool's main man one day (fair play to the lad for backing himself).

We get a player we otherwise couldn't afford and if he bangs in 20 and Liverpool grab him back we get a bit of profit, Liverpool get readies in their hands and a future option, Brewster gets the chance to prove himself. I'm all for it if we have the spondoolicks.

i know an academy player who was at ManCity but wouldn’t stop talking about the team he supported so city asked him not to wear the kit when he came to training, he then said no and they started to talk money and what they would give him for his commitment. The boy said no but City told the boy he was going to be a top top talent and if he wanted to leave so be it but they did say whatever happens that one day we will buy you again. To get to my point if Liverpool would want Brewster back (if they sell him) they can do it without a buy back clause. Only Liverpool and a couple of clubs don’t need buy back clauses as they are 1)minted2) challenging for the league and in Europe and every young player would see it as a dream to play for them.

 

[Moan? Nope-I saw Longhorn]

Please don't be another stalker, I have enough already.

Not sure I comprehend why my (apparently) ill judged attempt at humour earns the epithet of (potential) stalker ?
I fear you possess an over inflated (paranoid) estimation of your status albeit quite bizarre given your regular / frequent posting - may be worth considering not posting?
Rest assured I'll respect your fragility & never knowingly respond to any future posts you throw into the public domain (good bad or indifferent)
Hope that assists you hon ? (NB NOT Hun as in a derogatory reference to followers of Glasgow Rangers)

NB#2 I do know where you live mind - Wayne Manor - or should I edit that (bear with me - I'm a 'slow learner)

NB#3 Just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean they're (I'm) not out to get you

 

[designedbyross]

I was really excited about Brewster until finding out he’s a West Ham fan

 

[SufcBilly]

I was really excited about Brewster until finding out he’s a West Ham fan

It is a risk I’m willing to allow.

 

[Moan? Nope-I saw Longhorn]

But surely the risk is with any player we sign, if they are a success they could leave? Why is this any different

Aye
& Ill hazard a guess we may have folk on the books that have (undisclosed / unpublicised) 'release clauses' which in effect is a similar / parallel arrangement / agreement

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Not sure I comprehend why my (apparently) ill judged attempt at humour earns the epithet of (potential) stalker ?
I fear you possess an over inflated (paranoid) estimation of your status albeit quite bizarre given your regular / frequent posting - may be worth considering not posting?
Rest assured I'll respect your fragility & never knowingly respond to any future posts you throw into the public domain (good bad or indifferent)
Hope that assists you hon ? (NB NOT Hun as in a derogatory reference to followers of Glasgow Rangers)

NB#2 I do know where you live mind - Wayne Manor - or should I edit that (bear with me - I'm a 'slow learner)

NB#3 Just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean they're (I'm) not out to get you

That's just a noise

 

[SufcBilly]

Aye
& Ill hazard a guess we may have folk on the books that have (undisclosed / unpublicised) 'release clauses' which in effect is a similar / parallel arrangement / agreement

As far as I’m aware United don’t do release clauses, whether that changes in the future I’m unsure.

so not sure if United would go for this buyback clause deal but you never know, to me if it’s the only way we get Brewster I’d take a chance

 

[Keen Blade]

King is proven but likely to way outside what we are willing to offer in wages.

Dennis and his big fuck off camera more likely.

Villa already bidding for King so we can forget him.
Realistically , we'll not get any striker who is wanted by a rival PL club , coz we can't compete on wages.

 

[Keen Blade]

If Liverpool insist on a buyback clause , it might dissuade other clubs from bidding and give us a chance , if we are keen enough to tolerate it.
But if his market value is 20m without a buyback , it ought to be less with a buyback.
It will come down to how keen we are and how late it gets in the window.
And Liverpool seem desperate to raise funds just now.
All this lad has done is score in the Championship at the same rate as McB & Watkins.

 

[bonnet de douche]

We didn’t know that mcburnie/Osborne/moussett/bogle/Lowe/ampadu would be premier league quality

We don’t know if bogle or Lowe Are premier league quality yet.....Osborne a good worker at championship and maybe low end prem ..( let’s wait and see ) ..ampadu you would think should be ..mousse is mousse..flashes Of brilliance ....and McBurnie did ok after lockdown ...hoping he kicks on ....so all in all none are yet proven premier League quality....

 

[HVR]

But surely the risk is with any player we sign, if they are a success they could leave? Why is this any different

Yes, if we buy him without the BB Clause and he becomes a world beater, then Chelsea, Man City will offer him £130k per week and us £40 / £50 million and he will still leave.

For the same reason our players are overlooked by England, we will have a lower ceiling than say, Spurs, when it comes to selling because we are currently an unfashionable and not an established EPL Club - Barcelona won’t yet be tracking our players and offering us £100 million.

We will sell anyway if a £50 million offer comes in. That’s because we, as a club, already have a ‘buyout figure‘ in mind for every player.

The difference being we might not be able to buy him within our budget without the clause, because Liverpool see his potential.

This could all be resolved if we offer Liverpool £40 million now and Brewster £90k per week. We buy him, no clause. But he might not turn out to be that good!

But we can’t risk that much on a young player, or pay those wages.

 

[BrisBlade]

Can see McBurnie and Brewster having some interesting conversations about optimal sock length if he signs.

 

[FallowfieldBlade]

We don’t know if bogle or Lowe Are premier league quality yet.....Osborne a good worker at championship and maybe low end prem ..( let’s wait and see ) ..ampadu you would think should be ..mousse is mousse..flashes Of brilliance ....and McBurnie did ok after lockdown ...hoping he kicks on ....so all in all none are yet proven premier League quality....

Yeah but it’s shows that we will sign players for big money who are un-proven at premier league level for big money

 

[Tynemouth Blade]

Is this the "Liverpool type" signing The Price talked about way back?

 

[LoughboroBlade]

Is this the "Liverpool type" signing The Price talked about way back?

“Think Liverpool players”