Question. Could the 5 million fee have been added for the end of the season for PSA reasons. So we either get 5 or 25 mil for this summers spending rather than it being at the start of the previous season
Jadon Sancho - Chelsea (loan) watch | £5M opt-out fee
- Thread starter horsechoker
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) talk about the proposed new stadium, season ticket prices, Sir Jim Ratcliffe and all things INEOS after the first year of their co-ownership.
They also discuss back-to-back victories vs. Real Sociedad and Leicester City - was this the best week for Amorim so far?
Well, it sounds like it basically is an option to buy, except there's a 5m penalty fee if they don't take up the option. Presumably to ensure Chelsea have the option to break the "obligation" if it doesnt work for them, and if so to ensure United are given some compensation as they will have to broker another deal, and the player has one year less on his contract so will have dropped in value a bit. But it's gonna be 5m compensation, not 30m compensation, come on now.
Irrespective of the date whatever sum will yes potentially generate cash but against that you would have to factor in sums still due to BD and indeed Sancho .
Sell him for £25 million and a vast chunk of that will be paid out, get him back and receive £5 million then cash flow is going to take a hammering in that he will still be due 1/5 of his initial signing on fee and BD are still owed £15+ million.
When it comes to FFP be it in the 24/25 numbers or indeed the 25/26 numbers the fact that there would still be a chunk of amortisation to be factored in the main benefit would be the removal of his wage in 25/26.
We all need to start to think of it slightly differently in that squad costs are the main focus moving forward
One of the lads who sits near us suggested to me it sounded like more like there isn’t a loan fee unless we don’t take up the option then we stump up £5 million.
Suppose it’s whatever you want to call it but without sight of contracts between clubs we only know what we are told we all try to join up dots that often turn an Elephant into a Mouse
Sorry if this has already been posted, but if Maresca is playing him pretty much every week in the league then surely he will want to keep Sancho (if he's there next season)?
Maresca will do what he’s told to do, the guy is a ‘yes’ man
You know that the 5m break clause is bad when even Rhoades of the muppeteers is criticizing it. The guy probably loves INEOS more then SJR himself.
That very much the role of the head coach(HC) in that the sporting directors mainly will set up the squad and the HC will be responsible and yes accountable for managing the squad.
In a way it’s very much how just about all clubs operate yes some HC will have a degree of input but gone are the days when the manager got heavily involved in player transfers.
Check this thread. And it has to do with your post because the issue right now isn't so much that Chelsea want/don't want to keep him. The issue is they don't have a deal with him. They literally can't keep him until that's sorted
This news breaking now is most likely part a negotiating tactic from chelsea
Last edited:
You realize this deal was never going through at all without that break clause?
What Phil Brown, Rhoades and myself are critical about is how low that break fee is. Rhoades in particular is the most pro INEOS person on youtube. He only criticized them once ie ETH contract renewal something (surprise surprise, SJR had criticized the club on later on)
Rhoades is the most pro INEOS guy on youtube. He's got inside information within the INEOS ranks, something he admits himself to have. The guy was insisting that the club was going to INEOS and revealing the details of the deal at a time when mainstream media was 100% sure that United was Qatari bound and Rio was saying that Jassim is the real deal. Before this incident, Rhoades had criticized the club once ie ETH contract renewal. Turned out that few weeks later SJR admitted that it was a mistake. So I won't be surprised if SJR himself is not happy with this break clause.
I'm not that fussed about the fee. The main thing was to get him out of the club. It might be temporary and we'll have to do it again this summer, but not having him around the place this season was goal number 1.
So basically Chelsea paid a 5M loan fee, and had us cover the majority of his wages, for him to play for them.
God our recruitment/negotiation is so bad, there's just no hope.
God our recruitment/negotiation is so bad, there's just no hope.
We apparently paid around 50% of his wages, which I think works out at roughly £5m over 9 months. Basically, the £5m they will pay us not to sign him would mean that they’ve covered the wages for the season.
Happy Birthday Jadon, 25 today.
For the rest of the day, positive Sancho posts only.
For the rest of the day, positive Sancho posts only.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sk...nently-despite-gbp5m-get-out-clause-from-loan
Sky saying Chelsea still plan on signing him.
Sky saying Chelsea still plan on signing him.
Have an Aladeen birthday Jadon!
Oh god the clubs wishing him a happy birthday on Facebook. He's coming back isn't he?
Its like when that family member everyone hates shows up at the BBQ and we all have to pretend we like him.
Its like when that family member everyone hates shows up at the BBQ and we all have to pretend we like him.
Chelsea don't even have a contract signed with Sancho, how in the bloody feck do you think you could possibly get a better deal than this. This was a fecking joke of a deal for chelsea that you tokk advantage of, not the other way around ffs. You guys realize that had this loan gone really well Sancho might have attracted interest from other clubs, say, a PSG, and now Chelsea could be staring down the very real possibility of paying upwards of 10m pounds to help Sancho re-launch his career so they could now watch him sign for PSG?!?! They actually *NEVER* had that obligation to buy in the first place - hell, they didn't even really have an option to buy, not in a legal sense. All they have is a pre-agreed price with United
Being pro-Ineos doesn't mean he's not knee-jerking about this, like the rest of you are doing
CaughtSam from united people TV is criticizing it as well. He's one of the most reasonable people on YouTube
But Dortmund are familiar with his game
Doesn't it mean we don't have to pay him a loyalty bonus though?
He's breaking up with his Mrs 8 months after she chucked him out blocked his number and shacked up with a team of smooth talking portuguese fellas
let me break it down to you:
- you have a ruinously expensive player you seemingly don't really plan to use
- You have no offers for him throughtout the window
- you really want him gone, because he's ruinously expensive and he's not really gonna play if he stays, so he's going to cost you a lot of money to do pretty nothing
Before Chelsea lost their minds:
- Sancho stays, you pay him his wages until January, then pray to get another Dortmund-type loan deal
Once Chelsea lost their minds:
- you got to send him away, significantly reduce his cost for the season, get some relief with PSR
- potential sale at a profit for 25/26 OR even more PSR relief for this season
- player should theoretically get serious minutes, which if nothing else is still going to do a better job of preserving his market value than rotting on his couch
Now from Chelsea's perspective:
- expensive 1 year loan for a reclamation project, with *NO* actual guarantee of making it permanent, with steep pre-negotiated price with the selling club
Now, sure, Chelsea were insane enough to get this deal through in the first place, so maybe you really could have extracted even more from them. It's still a remarkably good deal you got here, considering you had basically 0 leverage on an stupidly expensive player
Most people find the break clause as too low. It's less then the average loan fee. You are one of the very few who disagree to that which I respect. The majority find it silly
Because you have no leverage AND because Chelsea don't actually have any legally binding guarantee to sign him. Of fecking course the clause is low. They're shooting themselves in the foot just with this deal, you think United should have somehow got them to shoot their dicks off too while they were at it?
And again, because it seems this still somehow isn't getting through: Chelsea was the only option on the table. It was either take this deal, or keep the player. For some reason you believe it's incompetence that your negotiators were unable to steal the clothes off chelsea's back, despite the fact that *yours* was the party with no leverage and more to lose
Anything can be agreed in a contract. It's not like United was in the power position and able to dictate terms, the player is a massive flop, has a terrible attitude problem, is on massive wages, publicly stated his negative feelings towards United and it was clear United wanted rid of him. TBH, we were lucky to find anyone to take up an offer on him, we had absolutely no negotiation power in that situation. Chelsea, since the start of the Abramovich era, seem to have this strong desire to screw over United, and they took a punt on signing this fraud thinking they could show us up, so we either agreed to their terms or we kept him.
You are just jealous Real Madrid lost out on this wonderful opportunity:
https://www.instagram.com/real.madrid.esports/?hl=en
If the options were send on loan with break clause and hope he does well enough to get a deal vs stay here moping and we pay 10m wages for the privilege as he further decreases his value then I don’t see how it was silly. He’s absolute bobbins - it’s a miracle we’ve even managed to get someone to cover his wages.
There is a portion of our fan base that will ignore the context as long as it suits their agenda that INEOS are bad, they are bad at business etc..
When you have a player that nobody wants, then on deadline day you get an approach.. you have to take it, as you dont have the time to go negotiate all the specifics.
The reason the buy option / obligation is so low was to sweeten the deal for Chelsea, alot of fans at the time were like how can we sell him for 25m,
the buy option isn't low at all, he's in the final year of his contract. If chelsea reach an agreement with him and trigger it, you make a significant profit
The break clause is essentially a loan fee and it is "low"(it actually isn't, pretty standard in fact) because Sancho is on massive wages and Chelsea are already taking on 2/3rds of that
Technically, yes he is but United have an option to extend a further year, so it is 2 years. 20m is low actually
Well, we didn't and obviously won't trigger that option so he will enter the last year of his contract. Although, I agree 20 million isn't much in today's market.