I think the main thing here is that it's totally believable that Sancho would do something like that
Jadon Sancho - Chelsea (loan) watch | £5M opt-out fee
- Thread starter horsechoker
- Start date
I think the main thing here is that it's totally believable that Sancho would do something like that
Despite the account being explicitly fake and for parody, 90% of the replies to that tweet are "is this real?!"
The few times I log in to Twitter, it feels like I'm experiencing everyone else's first day on the internet.
I fear for these guys with the kind of stuff (videos etc) that can be generated with a few mouse clicks these days
That’s not the main thing, but it’s cool to want to make that the main thing because flabby redcafe posters believe everything they see online and want to push angles. The Mainoo £180K thread is another example - someone read something in some obscure subreddit and ran straight here with “omg!!”
A large percentage of people on Twitter are morons, especially those who follow those kind of accounts.
"But you could believe it was true" is the song that the fooled sing.
We accepted a lower fee so its an obligation to buy. Since then things got even worse as Sancho had burnt bridges with United and had proven again at Chelsea that he's attitude is simply not good enough. His return will have implications financially and in the dressing room + it will make INEOS and United look silly. He can't return and he shouldn't return.
But if we get £20m we can probably flog him for £5m-£10m... Maybe even make more that way. Problem sorted.
If its that easy then they'll sign him and then they'll sell him themselves. But that's irrelevant. The guy is toxic and lazy and had been a problem wherever he went. We agreed an obligation to buy on lower terms simply to have him out of the door. We should have never allowed a loophole were he could come back. It would have never happened under SAF
If they don’t want him, they have to pay a fee to waive the condition to buy, but the conditions to buy have to be met first, which the suggestion is that they haven’t been met so far.
The Fraudigal Son returns
He knows Amorim won't tolerate him for a second, so he'll most likely try to find another club to take him on permanent basis, he might entertain Saudi offers if they come, or even accept lower wages somewhere in Italy or Spain or even go back to Germany
I thought they just had to finish above 14th to trigger the clause? Pretty sure they’re on track for that.
Guidelines to follow when checking for fake news:
1/ Does it sound utterly ridiculous and be completely bizarre if it happened? If yes, probably fake news.
2/ Does it say "Follow for fake news" front and centre on their page? If yes, probably fake news.
Thank Christ this wanker is gone for good.
https://www.reddit.com/r/reddevils/s/XJaVFhdD28
You might want to rethink that line of thought. I think he'll end up back here with Chelsea paying the fee.
1) It doesn’t sound utterly ridiculous and completely bizarre tbf…because it’s Sancho.
2) It only says that if you click into the account.
3) I take your point
Last edited:
Is there actually any indication that Chelsea are considering paying a fee to send him back. This all feels like a bit of a hypothetical non-story.
No indication from Chelsea side other than the fanbase who are smart enough to see what a waste he is. It does seem official that the penalty clause exists but the exact parameters under which it can be used and how much it is are completely unknown. Wheeler started the rumor mill going and it might have looked like nonsense but much more credible sources have now confirmed it is a real thing but have not given any context as to whether it is under serious consideration, hopefully it is just Wheeler stirring the pot.
Have to hope the penalty is significant enough they just bite the bullet and go forward with the obligation. Being unable to unload the loaned players is pure nightmare scenario for the summer transfer window.
If it’s against Trump, I can sacrifice living under the monicker ‘people’.
This will be my epithet if I ever get the chance in the United dug-out.
It’ll be more than the purchase value as it’ll account for his stupid wages.
I reckon 30-40m
I mean, technically, you can write pretty much anything in your contracts. This is different because (in these cases) usual procedure would be to have loan fee and option to buy. But legally speaking penalty clauses in contracts are always there as a penalty if certain obligation that should be done in the future isn't fulfilled.
By some logic, in this case such penalty should be higher than let's say "common" loan fee for a high profile player (Kulusevski, Griezmann, Felix were all around €10m), but still slightly lower than what the obligation is. So, purely guessing it could be around 15 million pounds as a significant penalty for Chelsea not going through with the obligation and solid compensation for United which should still find ways to sell him to some other club after receiveing such amount. It is not ideal (if it even comes to this scenario) but calls for club being incompetent here are misplaced imo if Chelsea insisted on such clause and no other club was interested in buying or loaning Sancho considering his wages.
What is an example of terrible business while looking at loan fees in past few seasons was us sanctioning a €12m loan deal for Odion Ighalo. Or giving Sancho such wages in the first place.
Hopefully, Chelsea goes on with the obligation. It would say more than anything about Sancho that they are willing to pay a significant penalty not to have him as an asset at the age of 24. And they pay for feckin everyone.
By some logic, in this case such penalty should be higher than let's say "common" loan fee for a high profile player (Kulusevski, Griezmann, Felix were all around €10m), but still slightly lower than what the obligation is. So, purely guessing it could be around 15 million pounds as a significant penalty for Chelsea not going through with the obligation and solid compensation for United which should still find ways to sell him to some other club after receiveing such amount. It is not ideal (if it even comes to this scenario) but calls for club being incompetent here are misplaced imo if Chelsea insisted on such clause and no other club was interested in buying or loaning Sancho considering his wages.
What is an example of terrible business while looking at loan fees in past few seasons was us sanctioning a €12m loan deal for Odion Ighalo. Or giving Sancho such wages in the first place.
Hopefully, Chelsea goes on with the obligation. It would say more than anything about Sancho that they are willing to pay a significant penalty not to have him as an asset at the age of 24. And they pay for feckin everyone.
This whole thread reads like some sort of bizarre fan fiction, so why not include some fake news to liven things up?
Good lord can that little rat not at least put some half decent performances in here and there?
I am very interested to know the clause to back from the obligation. But I would guess it will not be less than the full sell value around 30m bonuses included.
You really need to work on your media literacy.
If I understand it correctly…
Chelsea didn’t pay United a loan fee.
Chelsea covered most but not all of his wages.
Chelsea have an obligation to buy for around £20M-£25M
Chelsea can opt out and pay a penalty fee.
United could get totally played here, the penalty fee could easily be seen as a loan fee by Chelsea and United end up with a huge problem trying to move him on in the summer.
Feck this guy…utterly useless!
Chelsea didn’t pay United a loan fee.
Chelsea covered most but not all of his wages.
Chelsea have an obligation to buy for around £20M-£25M
Chelsea can opt out and pay a penalty fee.
United could get totally played here, the penalty fee could easily be seen as a loan fee by Chelsea and United end up with a huge problem trying to move him on in the summer.
Feck this guy…utterly useless!
If should've reported as a loan with an option to buy at £20 to25 mil or else a loan fee would apply.
Man United haven't been played here, it's the journalists who incorrectly reported it as if they knew everything that look dumb.
It's not just us getting played to be fair. Chelsea as well. He's played both of us and any club silly enough to employ him in the future.
Exactly. You always need to be skeptical of the reporting of all things transfers, and especially of the reporting of contractual clauses as it's extremely unlikely the "reporter" has had access to the actual documents, and even if they did, they may not fully understand the wording and its legal implications.
Would be hilarious in a way if this charlatan returns, but I really hope he’s gone for good.
How do you opt out of an obligation? That’s an option
Another way of looking at it is that we had a problem player we couldn't sell, but Chelsea took that problem off our hands for a season and gave us some cash for the privilege. I mean, we might have been paying his entire wages to train with the youngsters all season. So it could be worse.
No one is getting played. All three parties would have had legal experts writing up the contracts. The reaction to the loan from United fans was close to unanimous amazement that Chelsea would agree to it, so it’s hardly surprising that there’s more detail than initially thought.
I imagine any kind of break clause would cover a years worth of PSR costs, and we have ended up in a neutral position with another opportunity to loan/sell this summer.
I imagine any kind of break clause would cover a years worth of PSR costs, and we have ended up in a neutral position with another opportunity to loan/sell this summer.
Bright side, Sancho might be decent as a 10…
*hides under my desk*
*hides under my desk*
In an alternate universe.
Let’s face it, if he’s written off by Chelsea we can’t blame ETH anymore. It is totally Sancho for being a lazy twat and being lazy will not work in an Amorim system
Can you really see Sancho giving the level of effort and physicality Amorim wants out of his players.
