Kelechi Iheanacho

[foxfanazer]

4 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

Sounds like a shit clause to me. So if we sell him before they ask for him back they'll lose him forever? Also, if there's news on an offer, can't Man City then exercise the clause, it taking precedence, and he's back at Man City?

 

Eh, if he can create chances for us, rather than our midfield being a barren wasteland wih an isolated Vardy, which I know don't enough about the player to say if it's true or not, then I'm happy with a crazy one season loan.

We could value him at £60m and want to sell him to other clubs but if Man City have a £40m buy back clause we have to honour that. Doesn't mean he has to go back to Man City. As Finnegan said they can't dictate that the player has to rejoin them

[Finnegan]

Just now, Foxxed said:

Sounds like a shit clause to me. So if we sell him before they ask for him back they'll lose him forever? Also, if there's news on an offer, can't Man City then exercise the clause, it taking precedence, and he's back at Man City?

 

Eh, if he can create chances for us, rather than our midfield being a barren wasteland wih an isolated Vardy, which I know don't enough about the player to say if it's true or not, then I'm happy with a crazy one season loan.

 

The clause would be with us, the buying club, it doesn't follow the player. That would be third party ownership which isn't legal in English football.

 

Man City relinquish all ownership of Ihenacho if they sell him but under this alleged clause, he'd essentially have a minimum fee release clause in his contract that would only apply to Manchester City.

 

It means that if they meet this value we can't stop him negotiating terms with them. He can refuse them.

 

We can also accept a bid from another club, even for less than the value of the clause if he turns out to be a flop.

 

If Man City also have an option clause it means that if anyone makes a bid that we accept, we also have to accept a bid of that value from City.

 

But to reiterate, at all times he has to be willing to move. When he is sold, Man City revoke all ownership of the player and have zero rights to enforce any contract on him that he is unwilling to sign. Hence why they couldn't force Leicester to not sell to another club.

[Babylon]

4 minutes ago, foxfanazer said:

Don't think it works like that. Just means they need to offer the figure in the clause and we have to accept. 

A first refusal clause is something entirely different and as I said I'm sure would go hand in hand with the buyback clause to protect themselves. Without it they would leave themselves open to exactly what Finners suggested.

 

With it we'd have no right to negotiate with anyone but them until the point that they decide to not take the option up.

[lgfualol]

#announcenacho

[Slim Dog]

How many buyback clauses have you seen in the premier league? They use it a lot in Spain where the lower teams have little money but for the premier league teams don't need to sell. I'll be very surprised if we buy him with a buyback clause.

 

Although, it is Rudkin, so anything can happen.

[foxfanazer]

3 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

The clause would be with us, the buying club, it doesn't follow the player. That would be third party ownership which isn't legal in English football.

 

Man City relinquish all ownership of Ihenacho if they sell him but under this alleged clause, he'd essentially have a minimum fee release clause in his contract that would only apply to Manchester City.

 

It means that if they meet this value we can't stop him negotiating terms with them. He can refuse them.

 

We can also accept a bid from another club, even for less than the value of the clause if he turns out to be a flop.

 

If Man City also have an option clause it means that if anyone makes a bid that we accept, we also have to accept a bid of that value from City.

 

But to reiterate, at all times he has to be willing to move. When he is sold, Man City revoke all ownership of the player and have zero rights to enforce any contract on him that he is unwilling to sign. Hence why they couldn't force Leicester to not sell to another club.

What I was trying to say just put 10 times better

[les-tah]

I read a few articles that we have promised him his favorite role.. Just behind the striker..

 

Does that mean we can put to be the sigurdssson rumors? 

[foxfanazer]

1 minute ago, Babylon said:

A first refusal clause is something entirely different and as I said I'm sure would go hand in hand with the buyback clause to protect themselves. Without it they would leave themselves open to exactly what Finners suggested.

 

With it we'd have no right to negotiate with anyone but them until the point that they decide to not take the option up.

As Finners said it's essentially just a minimum fee release clause exclusive to Man City which entitles them to begin negotiations with the player. After that it's an open market

[AKCJ]

NACHO NACHO MAN

 

I WANNA BE LIKE IHEANACHO MAN

[urban.spaceman]

Can people stop referring to Man City as City? Leicester City are City. Stop it 

[RODNEY FERNIO]

So what happens if say there is a £30 million buy back clause, the guy is a resounding success and PSG come in with a

£50 million bid and the player wants to go ... do we pocket all of the fee or is some/ most of the fee going to Man City ?

[foxfanazer]

1 minute ago, RODNEY FERNIO said:

So what happens if say there is a £30 million buy back clause, the guy is a resounding success and PSG come in with a

£50 million bid and the player wants to go ... do we pocket all of the fee or is some/ most of the fee going to Man City ?

Unless there's a percentage of profit from next sale clause we'd get the lot. Different clause altogether 

[Foxxed]

13 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

The clause would be with us, the buying club, it doesn't follow the player. That would be third party ownership which isn't legal in English football.

 

Man City relinquish all ownership of Ihenacho if they sell him but under this alleged clause, he'd essentially have a minimum fee release clause in his contract that would only apply to Manchester City.

 

It means that if they meet this value we can't stop him negotiating terms with them. He can refuse them.

 

We can also accept a bid from another club, even for less than the value of the clause if he turns out to be a flop.

 

If Man City also have an option clause it means that if anyone makes a bid that we accept, we also have to accept a bid of that value from City.

 

But to reiterate, at all times he has to be willing to move. When he is sold, Man City revoke all ownership of the player and have zero rights to enforce any contract on him that he is unwilling to sign. Hence why they couldn't force Leicester to not sell to another club.

 

But consensual, and if we sell Cage before Scorpion can issue his trade mark move, and there's no option on Cage, then it's a sad, sad Scorpion. Gotcha.

[Babylon]

2 minutes ago, RODNEY FERNIO said:

So what happens if say there is a £30 million buy back clause, the guy is a resounding success and PSG come in with a

£50 million bid and the player wants to go ... do we pocket all of the fee or is some/ most of the fee going to Man City ?

Probably a bullshit % sell on fee above a certain amount in the deal as well. They seem  determined to be in a no lose position with him if they are inserting buy backs.

[SheppyFox]

Has he signed yet? I always get excited when I see "hot" near the topic, come on and we're still just trying to figure out how much Man City will **** us for next season

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

Remember when Vardy was linked with Arsenal and people on here were using Captial FM as a source ahahah

 

Until Absolute 90s say it's done then I believe nothing

[CockneyFox]

5 minutes ago, RODNEY FERNIO said:

So what happens if say there is a £30 million buy back clause, the guy is a resounding success and PSG come in with a

£50 million bid and the player wants to go ... do we pocket all of the fee or is some/ most of the fee going to Man City ?

That would be a sell-on clause

[crisp packet]

As long as the only thing we lose is a good player after a couple of seasons.. I'd be happy.

We are Leicester City!

[SheppyFox]

Summon the ITK! I need to know what's going on, can't focus on my day

[AKCJ]

7 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Can people stop referring to Man City as City? Leicester City are City. Stop it 

Could be worse. They could start calling them "Citeh".

 

 

**** me that does my swede right in.

[Lcfcwigstonblue]

I'm told West Ham are very much still in for him also.

I get a few snippets of info about the Hammers through a guy I work with and he is very reliable on West Ham news.

[SheppyFox]

Just now, AKCJ said:

Could be worse. They could start calling them "Citeh".

 

 

**** me that does my swede right in.

Broad Leicester accents are, well trampy sounding right? I always argue this at work!

[Foxxed]

2 minutes ago, SheppyFox said:

Has he signed yet? I always get excited when I see "hot" near the topic, come on and we're still just trying to figure out how much Man City will **** us for next season

It's been a productive thread. Finnegan has informed us we may be able to choose who ****s us, and even get ****ed by the highest bidder, or even not get ****ed by anyone if Kelechi falls madly in love with us.

[AKCJ]

1 minute ago, SheppyFox said:

Broad Leicester accents are, well trampy sounding right? I always argue this at work!

Not got a problem with the accent, just when helmets feel the need to write it as they say it.

[SheppyFox]

Just now, Foxxed said:

It's been a productive thread. Finnegan has informed us we may be able to choose who ****s us, and even get ****ed by the highest bidder, or even not get ****ed by anyone if Kelechi falls madly in love with us.

Sounds a conclusive ****ing to me.