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

Pexbo said:
If it’s a true obligation, it’s a contract. It’s the equivalent of us giving Sancho back to Dortmund now.
Click to expand...
A key element in the whole saga seems to be that Chelsea and Sancho didn’t agree wages at the time of the loan. That in an “ obligation to buy type of loan” is very unusual an to be honest Sancho would be well within his rights to turn down any offer made by Chelsea and irrespective of any agreements between Chelsea and Utd would then become meaningless. It may well be it is at that point Chelsea would be obliged to stump up monies to Utd.
 
duffer said:
You lot agreed to the 5 mil in the first place. It's not a low blow.
Click to expand...
It’s not in the spirit of the deal to evoke that though is it

It won’t do Chelsea any favours if down the line Mainoo or something needs to be sold & Chelsea want him, for example
 
Adam McNeill said:
Morning gents. Can somebody help me to understand something? Why is it that footballers are so protected in their jobs. If I did the equivalent of Sanco in any of my jobs over the years I have been working I would maybe last 2/3 months and be sacked with no severance pay. After 6 months probation-to maybe a few years, I would get 1 months pay.

Why isnt it the same in football...?

That's a genuine question, I don't understand it.

They are a UK business so why isnt the employer protected against shit employees?

Is it because of the transfer window? (The player/employee couldn't get another job?) If that's the case their settlement for being sacked should just be their salary to the next transfer window?

Cheers
Adam
Click to expand...
Dear Adam,

Firstly, thank you for using Redcafe Legal Services, we recognise that you have a wide choice of Football Forum related Legal Professionals to choose from, and we are delighted you see value in selecting us.

Reading between the lines here, you’re concerned that your conduct at work could lead you to be removed from your post. We are adept at dealing with these kinds of issues, however it will be difficult to explain your “non-consensual wobbling of co-workers breasts and trying to guess their bra size,” David from accounts was particularly hurt by this. Nor your farting in the kitchen fridges and telling everyone to “leave the door shut for at least 20 minutes to let all the fresh produce marinate properly.” We do not see a way to spin your constant disappearing to the disabled toilet to play loud fart sounds on your work phone, interjecting occasionally with “blimey, that was a big one!” intertwined with bursts of “Candy Crush is screwing me again,” whilst beating your fist on the cubicle wall.

We will fight your case, Adam, but based on the sheer weight of evidence, we do not expect to overturn your dismissal.

Kind regards

RLT
(Redcafe Legal Team)
 
terraloo said:
A key element in the whole saga seems to be that Chelsea and Sancho didn’t agree wages at the time of the loan. That in an “ obligation to buy type of loan” is very unusual an to be honest Sancho would be well within his rights to turn down any offer made by Chelsea and irrespective of any agreements between Chelsea and Utd would then become meaningless. It may well be it is at that point Chelsea would be obliged to stump up monies to Utd.
Click to expand...
reporting of the deal in media was all smoke and mirrors then
 
GMoore23 said:
So it was essentially a season long loan for £5m with an option to buy for £20m.

This club's an embarrassment.
Click to expand...

I said this weeks ago and it still stands...
duffer said:
It should've reported as a loan with an option to buy at £20 to 25 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.
Click to expand...
 
It's not a foregone conclusion that Chelsea will pay the 5M and send him back to OT. This is from today's article in the Athletic about what's next for Sancho. (you can see the full article here https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/62...ho-chelsea-manchester-united-transfer-latest/)

Football clubs don't always do what the fans think is the sensible move!
But there is no indication yet that Chelsea are inclined to go down that route [pay the set fee to avoid the obligation to buy]. Despite the dip in his production in the final third, Sancho has impressed with his professionalism and committed approach to training at Cobham, as well as his work rate with and without the ball in matches.

Sancho has also given no sign that he is unhappy at Chelsea, or with the way this season is going — though he did acknowledge in an interview with the club’s in-house media after the 1-0 home win over Leicester earlier this month that his return of two goals in 23 Premier League appearances leaves plenty of room for improvement.

“Step by step,” he said when asked to reflect on his recent form. “I know I can do better, especially in front of goal. It’s annoying not to score. I just need to take time and be patient.”

Chelsea are expected to assess Sancho’s situation in dialogue with the player and his representatives at the end of the season. There is no reason at this point to believe that agreement on a salary or personal terms will be a problem, so the conversation will focus more on whether all parties are happy to continue together. Chelsea are paying around half of the winger’s United salary for the duration of the loan.
Click to expand...
 
Leftback99 said:
Why would Saudi want him when they can get a better player for less money like everyone else.
Click to expand...

He's got a bit of name value.

Money's no object for them so it doesn't really matter if they can get cheaper players elsewhere. Also, despite being absolutely fecking terrible, I'm sure Sancho would probably do alright in the Saudi league
 
Seems absurd that there’s such a low fee for an out of the deal, it makes the obligation clause completely redundant

I think there's little to no chance Chelsea pay the 25m fee plus his wage package.

Ridiculous
 
LawCharltonBest said:
It’s not in the spirit of the deal to evoke that though is it

It won’t do Chelsea any favours if down the line Mainoo or something needs to be sold & Chelsea want him, for example
Click to expand...

Why agree to the contract if you're not satisfied with the contract?

Sir Jim and Ineos aren't new to this and they've surely proved many times with various decisions that ultimately, they will do what they think is financially best regardless of sentiment.
 
giorno said:
reporting of the deal in media was all smoke and mirrors then
Click to expand...
Not sure why because even looking at the report today it clearly is suggesting that there isn’t an agreement in place regarding wages
 
terraloo said:
Again as was stated earlier an obligation if certain clauses are met. We knew about finishing in a certain position but it appears that there are other conditions attached
Click to expand...

When the main clause is "If we can be fecked to sign him" it's not an obligation at all.
 
Imagine being so shit clubs are paying money for you not to play for them

His contract is up next summer he would do well to get a contract on half his current wage from here on out.
 
Interesting that the club briefed it very definitively as a loan with an obligation, the price of which would vary depending on final lead position. No mention of an exit penalty clause.Now we’re hearing that it could, in essence, simply be turned into a paid loan if they chose not to sign them on a permanent basis.

Another 20 or 30 incidents like this, and I might start to think that the new regime are cynical bullshitters.
 
Brophs said:
Interesting that the club briefed it very definitively as a loan with an obligation, the price of which would vary depending on final lead position. No mention of an exit penalty clause.Now we’re hearing that it could, in essence, simply be turned into a paid loan if they chose not to sign them on a permanent basis.

Another 20 or 30 incidents like this, and I might start to think that the new regime are cynical bullshitters.
Click to expand...
Chelsea themselves announced it as an obligation to be fair
 
Brophs said:
Interesting that the club briefed it very definitively as a loan with an obligation, the price of which would vary depending on final lead position. No mention of an exit penalty clause.Now we’re hearing that it could, in essence, simply be turned into a paid loan if they chose not to sign them on a permanent basis.

Another 20 or 30 incidents like this, and I might start to think that the new regime are cynical bullshitters.
Click to expand...

Did they report this to be a loan with obligation or was it via journalists?

They were desperate to get rid of Sancho... he has shown why we were so desperate... he is a toxic personality.
 
NewGlory said:
If there were any justice in the [football] world the morons who paid insane amounts for Sancho, Antony, and Hojlund and gave ridiculous salaries to half of our shit team should be sent behind the bars, at least for criminal negligence if not embezzlement, but here we are having to suffer while those at fault got away without a single consequence
Click to expand...
I can understand to bring in hojlund and sancho. But to have seen antony in ajax training day in and day out, then decide to pay 80mil for that one footed footballer while using his son agency has to be up there as blatant corruption by ETH&Co. The whole saga needs to be investigated by an independent panel. Disgraceful.
 
terraloo said:
Any new thoughts ?

As I tried to point out earlier in the thread we had no idea what was meant by “ substantial” the rumour I had heard it wasn’t a round sum but we would repay Utd the element of his wages that they had contributed. That may or may not be correct but if it is say circa £5 million then Utd have well and truly been shafted.

Chelsea like Utd have tried just about everything to get him to fire but at this point in time he clearly is just making up the numbers so to a degree it has worked out but only because of injuries, suspensions, players signed not yet at the club or academy players being blooded in slowly.

Having said all that do not be surprised if he does indeed get transferred but SJR has highlighted Utds desperation to get rid of him so who knows it may be just a ploy by Chelsea to renegotiate the set fee and without options it may leave Utd with little choice in the saga
Click to expand...
If the £5m is true and still we don’t know as the actual figures which have been reported through the media from anything from £4m to £12m , if that is the fee then Chelsea should send him back.

He’s not worth the £25m and the 5 year contract you would have to give him. The £5m payment is nothing to have the burden of Sancho at your club. United have one year left on his contract and his last year’s salary will be 25% lower in Sancho’s final year so the club will simply sell him abroad for £15m and get rid of him, they the club will view that as a £20m transfer, having said that even a waste man Sancho is levels beyond Mudryk so you might still keep him!

I really don’t care because Sancho will never play for United again, the fans genuinely despise him.
 
Adam McNeill said:
Morning gents. Can somebody help me to understand something? Why is it that footballers are so protected in their jobs. If I did the equivalent of Sanco in any of my jobs over the years I have been working I would maybe last 2/3 months and be sacked with no severance pay. After 6 months probation-to maybe a few years, I would get 1 months pay.

Why isnt it the same in football...?

That's a genuine question, I don't understand it.

They are a UK business so why isnt the employer protected against shit employees?

Is it because of the transfer window? (The player/employee couldn't get another job?) If that's the case their settlement for being sacked should just be their salary to the next transfer window?

Cheers
Adam
Click to expand...
What has Sancho done, exactly? Play poorly at football? Sancho has been an employee since 2021 (not a contractor) — this means he’s afforded statutory protections* to not be unfairly dismissed. For Manchester United to sack a player without any ramifications, they’d need to illustrate some form of gross misconduct from the player. Being shit and not scoring isn’t enough.

In the absence of gross misconduct, they’d need to negotiate some sort of settlement agreement between themselves and the player, and given Sancho currently has what, a year and a half left on his contract and is currently on something like £200-300k a week(?) - the figure that they’d need to reach for settlement would be silly and they’re better off just keeping him and trying to sell or re-loan him.

Companies will often reach settlements to remove directors or senior leadership members because keeping them at the company will negatively affect business. As crap as Sancho might be, he’s really not making that much of an impact to this football club to the point where they need to be trying to sack or pay him off.

* they’ve actually changed the law recently so everyone has this right, you don’t even need to be an employee for two years now.
 
Adam McNeill said:
Morning gents. Can somebody help me to understand something? Why is it that footballers are so protected in their jobs. If I did the equivalent of Sanco in any of my jobs over the years I have been working I would maybe last 2/3 months and be sacked with no severance pay. After 6 months probation-to maybe a few years, I would get 1 months pay.

Why isnt it the same in football...?

That's a genuine question, I don't understand it.

They are a UK business so why isnt the employer protected against shit employees?

Is it because of the transfer window? (The player/employee couldn't get another job?) If that's the case their settlement for being sacked should just be their salary to the next transfer window?

Cheers
Adam
Click to expand...
Because no where in the contract it is stated that he actually need to play well. He just need to adhere to basic training and do nothing unlawful. Thats why most clubs put performance based wages and bonus to keep them going. But hey this is us.
 
I think both United and Chelsea were sensible in their approach. United didn’t have much leverage for selling, considering his attitude, high wages and lacklustre performances.

So buy him or pay a penalty isn’t such a bad deal on the whole, given where we were last summer. It’s just not been clearly reported so seems like a loss.

If we move him on for 15-20 mil or else get another loan where his wages are covered it’ll be fine.

The embarrassing thing for Sancho is if a club would prefer to give away 5 mil and have nothing rather than spend an extra 20 mil and have an internationally capped 24 year old. Says it all about his attitude and application.
 
DWelbz19 said:
What has Sancho done, exactly? Play poorly at football? Sancho has been an employee since 2021 (not a contractor) — this means he’s afforded statutory protections* to not be unfairly dismissed. For Manchester United to sack a player without any ramifications, they’d need to illustrate some form of gross misconduct from the player. Being shit and not scoring isn’t enough.

In the absence of gross misconduct, they’d need to negotiate some sort of settlement agreement between themselves and the player, and given Sancho currently has what, a year and a half left on his contract and is currently on something like £200-300k a week(?) - the figure that they’d need to reach for settlement would be silly and they’re better off just keeping him and trying to sell or re-loan him.

Companies will often reach settlements to remove directors or senior leadership members because keeping them at the company will negatively affect business. As crap as Sancho might be, he’s really not making that much of an impact to this football club to the point where they need to be trying to sack or pay him off.

* they’ve actually changed the law recently so everyone has this right, you don’t even need to be an employee for two years now.
Click to expand...

The level of protection afforded to footballers goes way beyond the levels protected to mere mortals and the consequences of Utd or any club breaking a players contract without just cause would have significant impact so it’s simply not going to happen.
Footballers as we all know live in a bubble time after time they fail to perform but the reality is that as you say unless Utd pay him off or do get someone to stump up he won’t be going anywhere
 
GBBQ said:
I think both United and Chelsea were sensible in their approach. United didn’t have much leverage for selling, considering his attitude, high wages and lacklustre performances.

So buy him or pay a penalty isn’t such a bad deal on the whole, given where we were last summer. It’s just not been clearly reported so seems like a loss.

If we move him on for 15-20 mil or else get another loan where his wages are covered it’ll be fine.

The embarrassing thing for Sancho is if a club would prefer to give away 5 mil and have nothing rather than spend an extra 20 mil and have an internationally capped 24 year old. Says it all about his attitude and application.
Click to expand...
All of this.

Don’t know what other clubs were keen on him to make the Chelsea loan such a crap deal. Some posters just like moaning.

I know what would have been a crap deal. Keeping him, not playing him and paying all his wages. That’s just doubling down on a mistake…. a mistake not made by this board.
 
Slevs said:
When I said we needed more fighters in the squad, I didn't mean a work from home freedom fighter.
Click to expand...
Apparently he shows a great deal of fighting spirit destroying everyone in front of him in that Call of Duty game. The only task for Ruben will be to try and translate it onto the pitch.
 
GBBQ said:
I think both United and Chelsea were sensible in their approach. United didn’t have much leverage for selling, considering his attitude, high wages and lacklustre performances.
Click to expand...
I don't think spending upwards of £10m for a one year loan was particularly sensible for Chelsea actually...
 
Basically this looks like it was actually a loan with a 5m loan fee and an option to buy for an additional 20m repackaged and presented to fans as a much better deal
 
Did we not include a loan fee at the beginning of the loan as well as the "obligation"? Seems a daft idea that.
 
Apparently, Chelsea didn't pay a loan fee. It looks like a loan with a 25m buy option.
 
giorno said:
I don't think spending upwards of £10m for a one year loan was particularly sensible for Chelsea actually...
Click to expand...
With hindsight it didn’t work out. But it was a calculated risk that they might be able to get him to find form and then £25 mil would be a steal. They were canny enough to have an out, in case he didn’t meet expectations.
 
I think it's fine if he comes back. At least we saved some money rather than having him at the club as totally a waste of money. Who knows, maybe he will improve enough for us to put him in the shop window or he will take the position that it was EtH and not United he had a problem with.
 
Berbasbullet said:
According to sky he’s going Chelsea still…
Click to expand...

To be fair, he has generally been starting for Chelsea. It’s not exactly in their interests to publicly declare now that they aren’t going to sign him - that will definitely demotivate him for the rest of the season.

It seems most likely that they will just keep quiet until the end of the season and then (assuming he doesn’t suddenly find incredible form) return him back to us with a cheque for £5m.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.