Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
SheppyFox

Iheanacho

By SheppyFox, in Transfer Talk

Recommended Posts

Gerard

Gerard

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Worthington said:

Correct:

The current, (EU mind), employment law wouldn't allow an 'enforced return' clause...UNLESS the player is in agreement with such an inclusion.

That's where Morata went wrong.....Initially agreed to such a clause, then tried, (and failed), to have it retracted !

 

I would guess that Man City and Iheanacho have a water tight legal agreement that he goes back there if Man City decided to activate the buy back clause.

 

If the agreement is only with Leicester and not the player it renders the whole buy back clause virtually worthless. I would imagine Man City have already agreed wages and any other financial compensation with Iheanacho that he's legally bound to except. 

 

 

 

 

Gerard

Gerard

Posted
Posted

Just to hammer home my point here I'll give an example how Man City get stitched up and why they wouldn't leave themselves open to being shafted.

 

Lets assume Iheanacho scores 30 PL goals and 25 PL assists next season and we finish fourth and qualify for the Champions League. He's now considered one of the best players in the world and every elite club wants him as he's considered one of the best players in the world.

 

Man City trigger the £50m buy back clause.

Real Madrid, Barcelona and Man Utd offer Leicester £150m.

 

Leicester are legally obligated to accept the £50m from Man City but Iheanacho wants to go to Real Madrid so he refuses to go back there.

 

Leicester, Real Madrid and Iheanacho have rendered the previous buy back clause worthless.

ajthefox

ajthefox

Posted
Posted

Why would Iheanacho leave Man City to sign a contract with us where he is then obliged to return to them if they want him? I don't buy what you're saying at all. Man City don't want to lose out but there is only so much they can do to give themselves a chance of getting him back.

 

I think you are making a lot of assumptions and claiming you're pretty confident about this but none of us really have a clue what's in the clause.

HankMarvin

HankMarvin

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, ajthefox said:

Why would Iheanacho leave Man City to sign a contract with us where he is then obliged to return to them if they want him?

 

I think you are making a lot of assumptions and claiming you're pretty confident about this but none of us really have a clue what's in the clause.

there would be no point in having buy back options if the choice was down to the player, as the current club would just offer shit loads in a new contract as a sweetner to stop the player wanting to leave.

The club could then get that money back when they sell for say 80m

 

Plus its a stipulation in the agreement being reached, so he has all ready agreed to rejoin if Man City decide to activate the buy back within the minimum duration specified. 

 

 

“We’ll have an option to have the opportunity in a few years to bring him back.

But he's a young player and we believe he deserves to play, he needs to play at that age and that's why the club will decide what's best for him."

 

 

 

Alvaro Morata insists his agent did not speak to Real Madrid about his future. “I’d be sad to leave Juventus, but it’s not up to me.”

The striker spent two years in Turin, but Real Madrid have a buy-back option worth €30m and reportedly plan to sell him on at a profit to Chelsea, Arsenal or Manchester United.

Bluetintedspecs

Bluetintedspecs

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Gerard said:

 

He will have to go back if they want him even if he didn't want to go.

 

Still it's a brilliant signing for us, he's right up there with the best young players in the world, he's as much chance of being a future world class player as anyone his age or younger in the world.

 

The only downside is that any future profit is limited but cest la vie.

I believe you are wrong, unless football is going back over 200 years and reintroducing slavery and abolishing human rights!

st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted

I hope either stringer or tanner will ask the relevant questions re the buy back clause. The more vague the answer, the more likely we are hamstrung on it. It shouldn't be too tough to ask whether the player or Man City are in control of his future. 

Finnegan

Finnegan

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, ajthefox said:

Why would Iheanacho leave Man City to sign a contract with us where he is then obliged to return to them if they want him? I don't buy what you're saying at all. Man City don't want to lose out but there is only so much they can do to give themselves a chance of getting him back.

 

I think you are making a lot of assumptions and claiming you're pretty confident about this but none of us really have a clue what's in the clause.

 

He isn't obliged to go back. He can turn down Man City. 

 

It's not a loan, he's our player. 

 

We've just agreed to sell him back to them for a fixed fee. 

Finnegan

Finnegan

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Gerard said:

 

I would guess that Man City and Iheanacho have a water tight legal agreement that he goes back there if Man City decided to activate the buy back clause.

 

If the agreement is only with Leicester and not the player it renders the whole buy back clause virtually worthless. I would imagine Man City have already agreed wages and any other financial compensation with Iheanacho that he's legally bound to except. 

 

 

 

 

 

Complete and utter rubbish. 

Jimothy

Jimothy

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Gerard said:

 

I would guess that Man City and Iheanacho have a water tight legal agreement that he goes back there if Man City decided to activate the buy back clause.

 

If the agreement is only with Leicester and not the player it renders the whole buy back clause virtually worthless. I would imagine Man City have already agreed wages and any other financial compensation with Iheanacho that he's legally bound to except. 

 

 

 

 

Not a chance. All it means is they are front of the queue if or when he decides to leave Leicester and the fee is already agreed. If he turns them down then tough. He's not going to agree wages years before joining a club, he's not going to agree to join a club when he may get offers from elsewhere. We have to accept their £50m offer whenever it comes, after that nothing is certain.

 

Also the idea that Iheanacho has any kind of water right legal agreement is laughable lol

FraserSorensen

FraserSorensen

Posted
Posted

Is it just me that feels like a kid at Christmas who unwrapped his present 73 days early so knew exactly what he was getting but it took so long to get I was certain at one stage that I wasn't going to get it and then I found out on Christmas Eve that my present had lied to a court in Pennsylvania and was potentially going to be jailed for up to six months but in the end I'm still going to unwrap it on Christmas morning as if it's a surprise? Anyone?

PaulW

PaulW

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Gerard said:

 

I'm not 100% sure either but I'd bet you're wrong.

 

It will have been part of the contract that Man City can exercise their right to buy. I believe Morata had to go back to Real Madrid last season as he had a similar clause.

 

Otherwise these buy back clauses are almost worthless if they depend on third party agreements to enforce them.

The player involved in the contract is hardly a 'third party'.  Plus players aren't modern-day slaves, to be traded as pieces of meat without their consent.

sdb

sdb

Posted
Posted

So we're signing him for £27mill, he's going to jail for 2 years and then Man City can buy him back for £37mill in 2020 after he's had his good season with us. Excellent!

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...