Jadon Sancho - Chelsea (loan) watch | £5M opt-out fee

[GoldanoGraham]

If I was Chelsea I would look to get out of the deal too.

He simply isn’t good enough, doesn’t have the right mentality for a fight.

Looks like an unexpected issue we have to deal with again this summer.

 

[Battery]

If it wasn’t for his exorbitant wages, would any of you had been open to have him back in the squad and be used in one of the #10 roles?

No, but at least other teams might look at signing him.

 

[JBG]

Not gonna lie, Jadon Mandela is actually funny

 

[stevoc]

I'm sorry but real life football doesn't operate as football manager where, the way you make it sound... oh they should have sold him earlier. It was obvious from the January before they were looking at selling /loaning Sancho, there were no takers, because he is on high wages and he is not a good player, add to that his stinky attitude, no one wants him.

Am I making it sound like Football manager though? I don't believe that I am to be honest.

There were absolutely no takers in the summer of 2023? But then we had no problem loaning him out to two different clubs in the next two windows. I'm not buying that one to be honest.

I get Ten Hag was not the best manager but the Varane situation is actually a brilliant example of a player who has the right attitude, when you have that, you give a manager 0 excuses. Varane was frozen out for a bit but unlike Sancho who went crying on twitter, respected the manager and then got back in the fold and started the FA cup final.

Bear in mind I'm not defending Sancho's attitude, I'm criticising Ten Hag and the clubs handling of the situation.

How long after tweeting did he delete it? he didnt apologise to the manager. I think its natural for a manager to come out and say, he didnt get selected because he didn't train well, every manager does it.

I guess you feel the same way about Amorim then? he has come out and spoken about players in training.

I don't think the manager of Manchester United should ever be speaking about private club matters in the press, full stop. I'm of the same opinion as SAF on the matter. Internal club matters especially relating to players should stay internal as nothing positive will come from speaking about internal player issues publicly.

 

[criticalanalysis]

Am I making it sound like Football manager though? I don't believe that I am to be honest.

There were absolutely no takers in the summer of 2023? But then we had no problem loaning him out to two different clubs in the next two windows. I'm not buying that one to be honest.



Bear in mind I'm not defending Sancho's attitude, I'm criticising Ten Hag and the clubs handling of the situation.



I don't think the manager of Manchester United should ever be speaking about private club matters in the press, full stop. I'm of the same opinion as SAF on the matter. Internal club matters especially relating to players should stay internal as nothing positive will come from speaking about internal player issues publicly.

I don't think it's that black or white, especially when you're comparing it to Fergie aka Mr Manchester United i.e totally different context, hierarchy and situations etc. ETH said a really tame criticism of Sancho because he felt the need to say it publicly, which plenty of mangers in the past, present and future will continue to do so. He couldn't get a tune out of him after giving him 3 months off in the middle of the season previously and didn't feel he stepped up his game the next year. Look at Maresca showering Sancho with praise and love. The end result? Still all around shite performances.

Keeping it 'internal' and just meandering along with whatever Sancho/Rashford do as they please in the background is as 'detrimental' as not shaming/criticising them in public. Sometimes enough is enough.

 

[USREDEVIL]

He's hiding his amazing talent. Just wait until he signs and wears that blue shirt as a player. It will come out of him like that alien in Alien.

 

[romufc]

Am I making it sound like Football manager though? I don't believe that I am to be honest.

There were absolutely no takers in the summer of 2023? But then we had no problem loaning him out to two different clubs in the next two windows. I'm not buying that one to be honest.

I think you are saying oh.. we should have sold him. Its like if you have a car that no one wants.. you cant just say sell it.. there has to be a buyer.

It gets to a point where you are so desperate to sell the player, a club comes and says, we will loan with obligation, the club will take that.

We loaned him to Dortmund because they were never paying him 300k in wages... which is why only a short loan... they didn't even come back in the summer shows how bad Sancho is.

You say you dont buy it, so are you in the opinion the club dont want to sell him?

Bear in mind I'm not defending Sancho's attitude, I'm criticising Ten Hag and the clubs handling of the situation.

What did Ten Hag do that was wrong?

I don't think the manager of Manchester United should ever be speaking about private club matters in the press, full stop. I'm of the same opinion as SAF on the matter. Internal club matters especially relating to players should stay internal as nothing positive will come from speaking about internal player issues publicly.

Well, lets just cancel all media from the players and managers then right? If they cant be honest..

How is it an internal private matter when the manager says, I select players based on who is good in training?

When a manager is asked in the presser, you want him to say, next question, my team selection is a private club matter?

 

[giorno]

When a manager is asked in the presser, you want him to say, next question, my team selection is a private club matter?

Ideally, yes

 

[Posh Red]

Am I making it sound like Football manager though? I don't believe that I am to be honest.

There were absolutely no takers in the summer of 2023? But then we had no problem loaning him out to two different clubs in the next two windows. I'm not buying that one to be honest.



Bear in mind I'm not defending Sancho's attitude, I'm criticising Ten Hag and the clubs handling of the situation.



I don't think the manager of Manchester United should ever be speaking about private club matters in the press, full stop. I'm of the same opinion as SAF on the matter. Internal club matters especially relating to players should stay internal as nothing positive will come from speaking about internal player issues publicly.

But Ferguson didn’t stick to that mantra, though.

 

[Bobby_2024]

Wondering how much % of his waged paid by Chelsea in this year, they can get out of this by paying 5M means we will have him for next season on 15M a year wages. In this scenario we might try again to send him on loan to fetch 5-10 millions overall (including loan fees and his wages), we are are in a bad situation overall with this guy. what are the options we have here?

 

[Zumbi]

I think you are saying oh.. we should have sold him. Its like if you have a car that no one wants.. you cant just say sell it.. there has to be a buyer.

It gets to a point where you are so desperate to sell the player, a club comes and says, we will loan with obligation, the club will take that.

We loaned him to Dortmund because they were never paying him 300k in wages... which is why only a short loan... they didn't even come back in the summer shows how bad Sancho is.

You say you dont buy it, so are you in the opinion the club dont want to sell him?



What did Ten Hag do that was wrong?



Well, lets just cancel all media from the players and managers then right? If they cant be honest..

How is it an internal private matter when the manager says, I select players based on who is good in training?

When a manager is asked in the presser, you want him to say, next question, my team selection is a private club matter?

Originally he said sold or loaned.

 

[Daydreamer]

The deal really isn't all that remarkable - in any way.

• Having a penalty clause doesn't mean there wasn't an obligation to buy. Quite the opoosite. Chelse are obligated to buy Sancho and will have to pay a penalty for not doing so. Just as outfield footballers are obligated to not control the ball with their hands and are penalised for doing so (with a penalty kick if they do so in the penalty area).
• Also, penalty clauses are not that uncommon and are always a fraction of the total deal price, frequently 5-10%. So actually, a 20% clause is actually a decent level of downside protection for United.
• As has been mentioned, United didn't negotiate a way to share in any upside if Sancho performed brilliantly, but he didn't and was always unlikely to, so I don't see the huge problem here.

All in all this was about the best deal United could have agreed considering the circumstances. The poor negotiation didn't take place last summer, it was when you signed him for £73m on wages of £250k per week. That's a £138m outlay over the course of his deal. That put United in an incredibly weak position from which they struck a deal that was pretty fair for both sides.

 

[Nick7]

The deal really isn't all that remarkable - in any way.

• Having a penalty clause doesn't mean there wasn't an obligation to buy. Quite the opoosite. Chelse are obligated to buy Sancho and will have to pay a penalty for not doing so. Just as outfield footballers are obligated to not control the ball with their hands and are penalised for doing so (with a penalty kick if they do so in the penalty area).
• Also, penalty clauses are not that uncommon and are always a fraction of the total deal price, frequently 5-10%. So actually, a 20% clause is actually a decent level of downside protection for United.
• As has been mentioned, United didn't negotiate a way to share in any upside if Sancho performed brilliantly, but he didn't and was always unlikely to, so I don't see the huge problem here.

All in all this was about the best deal United could have agreed considering the circumstances. The poor negotiation didn't take place last summer, it was when you signed him for £73m on wages of £250k per week. That's a £138m outlay over the course of his deal. That put United in an incredibly weak position from which they struck a deal that was pretty fair for both sides.

For me, the issue isn’t the £5m, it’s that it’s going to be tough to get rid of him in the summer. He’ll stick around like a bad smell until we get a loan with us subsidising his wages until he leaves on a free next year.

 

[BuzzKillington]

Just checking, but I assume we wouldn’t have counted that “obligation” to buy fee within our FFP calculations already would we? This £25m would only have been counted once we actually got the money in the summer?

 

[Krakenzero]

The deal really isn't all that remarkable - in any way.

• Having a penalty clause doesn't mean there wasn't an obligation to buy. Quite the opoosite. Chelse are obligated to buy Sancho and will have to pay a penalty for not doing so. Just as outfield footballers are obligated to not control the ball with their hands and are penalised for doing so (with a penalty kick if they do so in the penalty area).
• Also, penalty clauses are not that uncommon and are always a fraction of the total deal price, frequently 5-10%. So actually, a 20% clause is actually a decent level of downside protection for United.
• As has been mentioned, United didn't negotiate a way to share in any upside if Sancho performed brilliantly, but he didn't and was always unlikely to, so I don't see the huge problem here.

All in all this was about the best deal United could have agreed considering the circumstances. The poor negotiation didn't take place last summer, it was when you signed him for £73m on wages of £250k per week. That's a £138m outlay over the course of his deal. That put United in an incredibly weak position from which they struck a deal that was pretty fair for both sides.

Which brings us back to, if it was such a great deal considering the circunstances, why lie about it for six months and disguise it as an obligation to buy?

Incidentally, was a 5M loan fee with a 20M buy (same output) option completely out of the table? Cause that would've been better for United (especially if they're short on cash).

 

[sincher]

They've realised he isn't very good.

To be fair, it took me a while as well.

 

[Gandalf]

Which brings us back to, if it was such a great deal considering the circunstances, why lie about it for six months and disguise it as an obligation to buy?

Incidentally, was a 5M loan fee with a 20M buy (same output) option completely out of the table? Cause that would've been better for United (especially if they're short on cash).

Well we didn't lie about it, the obligation exists or else there would not be a penalty for breaking it. For what it's worth Chelsea were the ones to confirm the obligation to buy in their own statement about the signing.

 

[Mike Smalling]

Not much of a confidence booster that a club has to pay for you not to play there.

 

[tomaldinho1]

Which brings us back to, if it was such a great deal considering the circunstances, why lie about it for six months and disguise it as an obligation to buy?

Incidentally, was a 5M loan fee with a 20M buy (same output) option completely out of the table? Cause that would've been better for United (especially if they're short on cash).

Probably as journos tend to not really know everything?

The reality is one tier 1 journo likely got the rough number, then the waterfall of retweets, rehashing the same info and speculation followed and muddied the water.

 

[WeePat]

Probably as journos tend to not really know everything?

The reality is one tier 1 journo likely got the rough number, then the waterfall of retweets, rehashing the same info and speculation followed and muddied the water.

Chelsea literally announced it as an obligation on the official announcement.

 

[tomaldinho1]

Chelsea literally announced it as an obligation on the official announcement.

As in specifying what the poster is asking about how it's structured?

 

[Daydreamer]

Which brings us back to, if it was such a great deal considering the circunstances, why lie about it for six months and disguise it as an obligation to buy?

Which brings us back to this...

• Having a penalty clause doesn't mean there wasn't an obligation to buy. Quite the opposite. Chelsea are obligated to buy Sancho and will have to pay a penalty for not doing so. Just as outfield footballers are obligated to not control the ball with their hands and are penalised for doing so (with a penalty kick if they do so in the penalty area).

A penalty, by it's very definition can only be applied when there is an obligation. "A penalty clause in a contract is a provision that imposes a monetary or other detriment on a party for breaching a contractual obligation". A quick Google.

 

[Zumbi]

The deal really isn't all that remarkable - in any way.

• Having a penalty clause doesn't mean there wasn't an obligation to buy. Quite the opoosite. Chelse are obligated to buy Sancho and will have to pay a penalty for not doing so. Just as outfield footballers are obligated to not control the ball with their hands and are penalised for doing so (with a penalty kick if they do so in the penalty area).
• Also, penalty clauses are not that uncommon and are always a fraction of the total deal price, frequently 5-10%. So actually, a 20% clause is actually a decent level of downside protection for United.
• As has been mentioned, United didn't negotiate a way to share in any upside if Sancho performed brilliantly, but he didn't and was always unlikely to, so I don't see the huge problem here.

All in all this was about the best deal United could have agreed considering the circumstances. The poor negotiation didn't take place last summer, it was when you signed him for £73m on wages of £250k per week. That's a £138m outlay over the course of his deal. That put United in an incredibly weak position from which they struck a deal that was pretty fair for both sides.

Well said. It’s interesting that a few of the people saying it was a pretty good deal in the circumstances are rival fans whereas lots of Utd fans think it was the worst deal ever. Seems like it’s easier to recognise just how limited our options were when the emotion is removed.

 

[Grande]

Which brings us back to this...

A penalty, by it's very definition can only be applied when there is an obligation. "A penalty clause in a contract is a provision that imposes a monetary or other detriment on a party for breaching a contractual obligation". A quick Google.

Ah, so it was hiding in plain sight! An obligation disguised as an obligation. Genius!

 

[bosnian_red]

Probably safe to just assume he's a squad option as one of the 2 #10's for next season, which incidentally is probably his best position anyway if you ignore he isn't cut for the prem or the expectation of a big club. Doubt we'll be able to sell him after this situation with Chelsea.

 

[romufc]

Probably safe to just assume he's a squad option as one of the 2 #10's for next season, which incidentally is probably his best position anyway if you ignore he isn't cut for the prem or the expectation of a big club. Doubt we'll be able to sell him after this situation with Chelsea.

Interesting you say his best position is the 10... what makes you say that when he has never really played in the 10 for a period of time?

Sancho to me is more suited a certain manager, someone who doesn't want to press , in the ilk of Big Game or Sean Dyche, which highlights he is a lower table player.

 

[Gandalf]

Probably safe to just assume he's a squad option as one of the 2 #10's for next season, which incidentally is probably his best position anyway if you ignore he isn't cut for the prem or the expectation of a big club. Doubt we'll be able to sell him after this situation with Chelsea.

The safe assumption is that he is gone. The only reliable reporting on this is that whilst the existence of the clause has been confirmed both Chelsea and Sancho are intending to go through with the permanent deal and contract negotiations won't be an issue. If someone like Whitwell or Ornstein starts reporting that the situation has changed then I will be concerned but right now the only scaremongering is coming from clickbait merchants and fan channels.

 

[sherrinford]

Interesting you say his best position is the 10... what makes you say that when he has never really played in the 10 for a period of time?

Sancho to me is more suited a certain manager, someone who doesn't want to press , in the ilk of Big Game or Sean Dyche, which highlights he is a lower table player.

He has. Dortmund played a 3-4-2-1 and he played as the left-sided forward/ no.10, at his best.

 

[bosnian_red]

Interesting you say his best position is the 10... what makes you say that when he has never really played in the 10 for a period of time?

Sancho to me is more suited a certain manager, someone who doesn't want to press , in the ilk of Big Game or Sean Dyche, which highlights he is a lower table player.

At Dortmund his best form came when he was basically in that roaming 10 role off to one side of the other. He didn't play as a proper winger, and often they used a 3-4-3 type system where he played as one of the 2 behind the striker. Similar to Mount under Tuchel at Chelsea. Amorim doesn't use wingers or wide forwards, and that's what Ole/Ten Hag and Chelsea have tried to use Sancho as.

Not saying it'll work, there are other reasons for his failure. But it's a different role and Sancho does suit Amorim's system more than someone like Rashford who thrived under Ole for example.

 

[bosnian_red]

The safe assumption is that he is gone. The only reliable reporting on this is that whilst the existence of the clause has been confirmed both Chelsea and Sancho are intending to go through with the permanent deal and contract negotiations won't be an issue. If someone like Whitwell or Ornstein starts reporting that the situation has changed then I will be concerned but right now the only scaremongering is coming from clickbait merchants and fan channels.

Best prepare yourself. If Ornstein feels the need to actually report that the exit clause exists, it's probably because there's people actually considering it.

 

[ManRed]

He started 4 out of the last 5 games for Chelsea. A starting XI player for 25m quid is a deal.

 

[Dancfc]

Probably safe to just assume he's a squad option as one of the 2 #10's for next season, which incidentally is probably his best position anyway if you ignore he isn't cut for the prem or the expectation of a big club. Doubt we'll be able to sell him after this situation with Chelsea.

Out of curiosity what type of reception would he get if he actually returned as a player? I was/am under the impression it would make our reaction to Benitez look like a massive love in.

 

[Gandalf]

Best prepare yourself. If Ornstein feels the need to actually report that the exit clause exists, it's probably because there's people actually considering it.

Ornstein reported it because rage merchants were posting all manner of nonsense on social media and YouTube and so he confirmed that yes it does exist but Chelsea are not looking to use the clause as their preference is still to keep Sancho and the player wants to stay. The only reporting saying otherwise is from fairly unreliable sources whereas the Athletic put out a piece a few days back essentially underlining that despite the lack of stats Chelsea remain happy with Sancho, his attitude and professionalism have been good and Maresca wants him. The biggest potential issue would be if Chelsea were to decide to dump Maresca as he does seem to be the one most supportive of keeping Sancho. Chelsea are having an ok season but the excitement of a possible title challenge at Christmas has receded to a CL finish and if the ho hum results continue and they slip out of the top 5 it would not be that shocking to see Maresca given the boot.

 

[pascell]

Not even Dortmund want him.

https://www.reddit.com/r/reddevils/s/yBDiQryiB2

 

[Pexbo]

Outside chance but it’s possible Chelsea leaked this because:

1. They wanted to light a fire under Sancho for the remaining part of the season.

2. They putting pressure on United, hinting they might just pay the £5m in the hope the £25m fee becomes £20m or £15m.

 

[Herman Toothrot]

Ornstein reported it because rage merchants were posting all manner of nonsense on social media and YouTube and so he confirmed that yes it does exist but Chelsea are not looking to use the clause as their preference is still to keep Sancho and the player wants to stay. The only reporting saying otherwise is from fairly unreliable sources whereas the Athletic put out a piece a few days back essentially underlining that despite the lack of stats Chelsea remain happy with Sancho, his attitude and professionalism have been good and Maresca wants him. The biggest potential issue would be if Chelsea were to decide to dump Maresca as he does seem to be the one most supportive of keeping Sancho. Chelsea are having an ok season but the excitement of a possible title challenge at Christmas has receded to a CL finish and if the ho hum results continue and they slip out of the top 5 it would not be that shocking to see Maresca given the boot.

He comes back to as at turning of the tide with some straightforward facts.

 

[stevoc]

I don't think it's that black or white, especially when you're comparing it to Fergie aka Mr Manchester United i.e totally different context, hierarchy and situations etc. ETH said a really tame criticism of Sancho because he felt the need to say it publicly, which plenty of mangers in the past, present and future will continue to do so. He couldn't get a tune out of him after giving him 3 months off in the middle of the season previously and didn't feel he stepped up his game the next year. Look at Maresca showering Sancho with praise and love. The end result? Still all around shite performances.

Keeping it 'internal' and just meandering along with whatever Sancho/Rashford do as they please in the background is as 'detrimental' as not shaming/criticising them in public. Sometimes enough is enough.

It doesn't achieve anything.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

Outside chance but it’s possible Chelsea leaked this because:

1. They wanted to light a fire under Sancho for the remaining part of the season.

2. They putting pressure on United, hinting they might just pay the £5m in the hope the £25m fee becomes £20m or £15m.

I think (hope) it’s 2. He’ll have £17m left on our book value which they’ll know and maybe they’re aiming for that… which we may well accept (saves wages)

 

[stevoc]

I think you are saying oh.. we should have sold him. Its like if you have a car that no one wants.. you cant just say sell it.. there has to be a buyer.

It gets to a point where you are so desperate to sell the player, a club comes and says, we will loan with obligation, the club will take that.

We loaned him to Dortmund because they were never paying him 300k in wages... which is why only a short loan... they didn't even come back in the summer shows how bad Sancho is.

You say you dont buy it, so are you in the opinion the club dont want to sell him?

No I'm obviously not buying this idea that there wasn't a club on the planet who wanted to buy Sancho or take him on loan in the summer of 2023. When we managed to find two clubs to take him on loan in the next two windows.

How do you know no club wanted to buy or loan him?

What did Ten Hag do that was wrong?

I'd say from the Sancho tweet onwards he handled it very poorly.

Well, lets just cancel all media from the players and managers then right? If they cant be honest..

How is it an internal private matter when the manager says, I select players based on who is good in training?

When a manager is asked in the presser, you want him to say, next question, my team selection is a private club matter?

So was Fergie dishonest for 26 years then?

What I would like is for the manager of Manchester United to not feed stories to the British media.

As for what he could have said anything he wanted that couldn't be spun into a drama by the British tabloids. Say he wasn't quite ready for the game today but will hopefully be ready for the next one or similar.

 

[Happy Head]

Outside chance but it’s possible Chelsea leaked this because:

1. They wanted to light a fire under Sancho for the remaining part of the season.

2. They putting pressure on United, hinting they might just pay the £5m in the hope the £25m fee becomes £20m or £15m.

Is there not an option 3, to increase their leverage in the contract negotiations with Sancho, I think option 3 is the most likely.