Jadon Sancho - Chelsea (loan) watch

Chelsea paying a fee to not sign Sancho would be hilarious, even if it's less than ideal for us.

Surely he would be sold or loaned out immediately. I can't see how he gets back into the picture at United at all after his "freedom" comment
 
Obligation to buy = obligation to buy. They have to sign him up
 
criticalanalysis said:
If this is true, I hope we did what Chelsea did with Lukaku in making him having agreed to lowering his contract before going out on loan. Therefore, even if he comes back, we'll have a loan fee but have a player on lower wages easier to ship out in the summer.

Maybe Dortmund can finally afford the fecker.
Click to expand...

Its his last year of contract. We just have to pay half his wages for 1 year and he is practically on affordable wages after. So if his wages is GBP320 per week, we pay him 160k pw or around 7.5m and Dortmund can sign him on a 160k pw contract. That is assuming Sancho wants to play and not train with the reserves for a year.
 
Doesnt the agreement say No backsies? It will be hilarous though for Sancho to end up at the club. Where does he go next then?
 
Tallis said:
Laurie did not mention or indicate anything about Chelsea's intentions - just the existence of the "break" clause.

However, as news is coming out about the break clause now, I do think there must be some discussion around its use. Either Chelsea want Sancho to accept a lower wage and he is being difficult or Chelsea are not convinced by him and want to send him back.
Click to expand...
Agree

Chelsea already have two youngsters who play wide who seem to have more promise ( George & Estaevao) and that’s before you include the likes of Neto.

If Utd weren’t happy with the break clause, whatever it is, then they shouldn’t have agreed to it . Chelsea will be making decisions on what is best for the club and if the shoe was on the other foot all Utd supporters would be applauding the inclusion of a break clause. It seems that very unusually in a transfer of this nature no future wage has been agreed between the player and Chelsea . It would,d be interesting if Chelsea were able to avoid even a fee by only offering say £10k a week.

For me he is an ok ish player but no more than that . He shows very odd glimpses but that’s it. Irrespective of the one off cost I wouldn’t be looking to extend his tenure
 
You’d have to imagine the break clause is something significant? Otherwise how is it different to a normal loan really?
 
Tallis said:
Its his last year of contract. We just have to pay half his wages for 1 year and he is practically on affordable wages after. So if his wages is GBP320 per week, we pay him 160k pw or around 7.5m and Dortmund can sign him on a 160k pw contract. That is assuming Sancho wants to play and not train with the reserves for a year.
Click to expand...
Not sure it works like that.

Loans within the jurisdiction of the FA are one thing. Loans(temporary transfers) to non FA affiliated clubs are another.

I am pretty sure if he returns to Man Utd his pay and conditions would revert to the original agreement if they don’t it would in effect be a new deal which I very much doubt he would be advised to sign
 
Berbasbullet said:
You’d have to imagine the break clause is something significant? Otherwise how is it different to a normal loan really?
Click to expand...
Why does it have to be significant? And even if it is what does significant in this context mean?
 
Would be typical of United to have a sale lined up then just receive a penalty fee that just covers the last year of his wage and not gain anything.

Any new loan deal will be heavily in favour of the other club.
 
terraloo said:
Why does it have to be significant? And even if it is what does significant in this context mean?
Click to expand...
Because why on earth would we agree a nominal fee to return a player to us who we don’t want? The whole point was that it was an obligation to buy.

I don’t know, hence why I am vague. I have no idea so I’m not going to guess.
 
Sancho getting recalled to prison by the sounds of it. Hope he enjoyed his taste of freedom.

Honestly I'm not fussed. Sounds like we're getting paid regardless so who cares which city that dickhead has to set up his playstation in.
 
Berbasbullet said:
Because why on earth would we agree a nominal fee to return a player to us who we don’t want? The whole point was that it was an obligation to buy.

I don’t know, hence why I am vague. I have no idea so I’m not going to guess.
Click to expand...
Because my guess is that unless the deal made it attractive to Chelsea they simply wouldn’t have agreed to take him in the first place.if which seems to be the case that Utd didn’t want him any deal would probably seem better than no deal
 
Berbasbullet said:
Because why on earth would we agree a nominal fee to return a player to us who we don’t want? The whole point was that it was an obligation to buy.

I don’t know, hence why I am vague. I have no idea so I’m not going to guess.
Click to expand...

I would assume the fee is whatever they agreed to buy him for, plus a portion of the wages left on his contract.

Unless Ineos are complete idiots there's no way we're losing money on this.
 
Adz_99 said:
I would assume the fee is whatever they agreed to buy him for, plus a portion of the wages left on his contract.

Unless Ineos are complete idiots there's no way we're losing money on this.
Click to expand...
Of course we have no further knowledge of the terms but I would imagine that Utd saw this as an opportunity to 1) generate cash to pay the final sum due to BD and generate a small amount of cash on top .2) To get circa £15 million PA off the charge to amortisation in 25/26 . 3) To save circa£6.5 million in wages in 24 /25 and £13 million in 25/26 and 4) shift a player that Utd didn’t want around the place.
Not letting him go on terms which weren’t ideal would have been far worse from a balance sheet perspective
 
Adz_99 said:
I would assume the fee is whatever they agreed to buy him for, plus a portion of the wages left on his contract.

Unless Ineos are complete idiots there's no way we're losing money on this.
Click to expand...
Maybe! You’d assume it’d be significant.
terraloo said:
Because my guess is that unless the deal made it attractive to Chelsea they simply wouldn’t have agreed to take him in the first place.if which seems to be the case that Utd didn’t want him any deal would probably seem better than no deal
Click to expand...
25m was already a huge discount for an English winger who Chelsea probably thought they could turn around.

Maybe though! I just can’t imagine the ‘break clause’ would be something tiny like 2-3m.
duffer said:
A loan fee counts for FFP perhaps?

I know it's tough to believe Chelsea would be involved in any kind of financial shenanigans.
Click to expand...
:lol:

If there was a good chance he’d end up coming back after a tiny loan fee I don’t imagine this would have been presented as an ‘obligation to buy’ to the world though?
 
There is no way Freedom fighter is coming back at United.

There will be one hostile reception for him and deservedly so.

If there is a player I hate.. its him after Di Maria
 
terraloo said:
Why does it have to be significant? And even if it is what does significant in this context mean?
Click to expand...
Take it to the extreme and assume the penalty was £1m. Then that would in effect just be a loan with an option to buy.

When in fact the penalty would need to be significant to deter the party from returning the player without buying.

Obviously we don’t know the details, but in such a situation it would normally very strongly favour the club loaning out the player.

Chelsea got the player for what was a relatively low obligation, no loan fee, and United paying some of the wages. The quid pro quo would be that United can plan on receiving that fee, and won’t get the player back - changing that now would logically mean a significant penalty.
 
duffer said:
A loan fee counts for FFP perhaps?

I know it's tough to believe Chelsea would be involved in any kind of financial shenanigans.
Click to expand...
As I pointed out earlier as Sanchos loan was between two clubs under the jurisdiction of the FA.

Sancho will as a consequence still be on Utds Payroll and subject to PAYE etc at his parent club.

Chelsea will be invoiced for the sum Chelsea agreed to pay be that his wages in full or part and or any loan fee. That sum would be a plus in terms of Utds player trading account for FFP and PSR submissions and added to Chelsea’s squad costs.
 
Chelsea are not going to back out of an obligation. If they do it for no reason other than changing their mind, no other club would want to do that type of deal with them again.
 
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg said:
Take it to the extreme and assume the penalty was £1m. Then that would in effect just be a loan with an option to buy.

When in fact the penalty would need to be significant to deter the party from returning the player without buying.

Obviously we don’t know the details, but in such a situation it would normally very strongly favour the club loaning out the player.

Chelsea got the player for what was a relatively low obligation, no loan fee, and United paying some of the wages. The quid pro quo would be that United can plan on receiving that fee, and won’t get the player back - changing that now would logically mean a significant penalty.
Click to expand...
Player after player, not wanted by their parent club, is shipped out on loan many with a fee agreed but that player doesn’t complete a permanent transfer . Be it because of squad numbers, cost savings, creating a pathway or as it seems to be in the Sancho case the club want a player gone.
It seems that the obligation in this case isn’t just based on the 24/25 finishing of Chelsea but other conditions one being , it seems Chelsea pay a fee if the transfer doesn’t become permanent and as important it seems Chelsea and Sancho agreeing wages which if the reports are correct doesn’t seem to have happened
 
One thing I've always wondered with obligation to buy type loans. What happens if the buying club and player doesn't agree on wages? Surely this has to be negotiated before the loan is ratified?
 
If he can't agree a wage with Chelsea, no way he would agree with any other club. No clubs will pay him enough.

It will be another loan where we pay a good amount of his wage.
 
terraloo said:
Player after player, not wanted by their parent club, is shipped out on loan many with a fee agreed but that player doesn’t complete a permanent transfer . Be it because of squad numbers, cost savings, creating a pathway or as it seems to be in the Sancho case the club want a player gone.
It seems that the obligation in this case isn’t just based on the 24/25 finishing of Chelsea but other conditions one being , it seems Chelsea pay a fee if the transfer doesn’t become permanent and as important it seems Chelsea and Sancho agreeing wages which if the reports are correct doesn’t seem to have happened
Click to expand...
Show me examples of all these obligation to buy transfers that have not been completed.
 
I hope he still goes, but after his "Freedom" message to Rashford it would at least be somewhat funny to see him sit on the bench here next year.
 
If this cnut comes back and Rashy is returned as well it will feel like a bad dream.

Summer plan in tatters.
 
Mike Smalling said:
I hope he still goes, but after his "Freedom" message to Rashford it would at least be somewhat funny to see him sit on the bench here next year.
Click to expand...
I'll give you 5/2 on him sitting on the bench on opening day with 'Slave' on his cheek à la Prince. On in the 88th minute, scores last seconds winner, reveals tshirt with 'Free the Salford 2' on it. Rashy joins him from bench for a 2 man point at head celebration.
 
romufc said:
Its in the words... Obligation.

The reports coming out are from one source, Chris Wheeler who for me is as reliable as watching Rashford track back.
Click to expand...
How do people not get this. It’s Chris fecking Wheeler!!

He has a template set up that includes “Man United”, “could” and “if” then just throws it out as ‘journalism’.

Not completing their legally binding obligation to buy would breach the terms and open Chelsea up to legal action. And think of the impact on every future deal negotiations… what would other clubs think? They’d either say “we’ll deal with someone else” or change the terms that they WOULD HAVE accepted but won’t because of what Chelsea tried on Sancho.

And most importantly, it’s Chris fecking Wheeler. He’s at Samuel Luckhurst and Talksport levels for bias/diligence.
 
Apokalips said:
Fair enough, makes sense. What a sad state of affairs for Sancho, who will he blame now?
Click to expand...
It’s definitely more complicated than this and you would hope that INEOS negotiated a small loan fee already as we are paying half his wages. I spoke to a friend of mine who works in sports law as barrister and he said it could be far more complicated than just a one off fee or a loan fee?

He basically said that United will have amortised cost for the player which is €85m(£72m) on a 5 year contract from 2021/22 season.

This is his 4th year so the assumption is selling him for £25m this summer is that the club would have made a profit on the transfer as his final amortised yearly cost would be £14.4m so even selling at £23m would have been a yearly transfer profit of £8.6m.

This is why I suggested yesterday that the penalty would be between £8m and £10m as this is how a sporting lawyer explained it to me, he did state that this would be the case , assuming that INEOS legal department had rigid renegotiation exit clauses in place for a loan deal with an obligation to buy for Jadon Sancho.

If he returns he has one year left on his contract and the club could sell him for £20m and make a profit of £5.6m, the main issue is his rumoured £10.2m per year wages and Chelsea clearly do not want to agree to those wages which is where the problem is?
 
BeforeKeanetherewasRobson said:
How do people not get this. It’s Chris fecking Wheeler!!

He has a template set up that includes “Man United”, “could” and “if” then just throws it out as ‘journalism’.

Not completing their legally binding obligation to buy would breach the terms and open Chelsea up to legal action. And think of the impact on every future deal negotiations… what would other clubs think? They’d either say “we’ll deal with someone else” or change the terms that they WOULD HAVE accepted but won’t because of what Chelsea tried on Sancho.

And most importantly, it’s Chris fecking Wheeler. He’s at Samuel Luckhurst and Talksport levels for bias/diligence.
Click to expand...

Exactly! anyone notice that when a negative headline needs to be delivered, its Chris Wheeler? Whenever Rashford or Sancho want something put up, its Chris Wheeler... why would anyone take anything he says with any importance is beyond me.

There is a reason why there are different variations of a loan, straight loan, loan with option and loan with obligation.

The reason Sancho was at 20-25m was because it was a loan with obligation.
 
soapythecat said:
Absolutely. Even Fabrizio Romero (spelling!) said the deal was 100% agreed and no return. His contract beyond the loan is already signed with them - it was part of deal.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with this, the penalty for Chelsea makes it completely untenable to not complete the Purchase of Jadon!

Chelsea would look absolutely incompetent to pay a sizeable fee not to sign the player!
 
It was a quick honeymoon, and maybe an even quicker divorce.
What we learned in the process - 2 bad ones should never marry.
 
Chris Wheeler causing some serious bed wetting

He probably wants to be at United next season even less than everyone in here. One way or another he won't play a competitive game again for us.
 
Foolsgold21 said:
Chris Wheeler causing some serious bed wetting

He probably wants to be at United next season even less than everyone in here. One way or another he won't play a competitive game again for us.
Click to expand...
Have thought about making a thread about him. He's a proper little shit stirrer and you can tell he wets himself at the prospect of any negative Utd news.

He also inflates Utd fees in every single thing he writes to include all potential bonuses. He can never refer to Yoro without saying something like "the £59m teenager".
 
BeforeKeanetherewasRobson said:
How do people not get this. It’s Chris fecking Wheeler!!

He has a template set up that includes “Man United”, “could” and “if” then just throws it out as ‘journalism’.

Not completing their legally binding obligation to buy would breach the terms and open Chelsea up to legal action. And think of the impact on every future deal negotiations… what would other clubs think? They’d either say “we’ll deal with someone else” or change the terms that they WOULD HAVE accepted but won’t because of what Chelsea tried on Sancho.

And most importantly, it’s Chris fecking Wheeler. He’s at Samuel Luckhurst and Talksport levels for bias/diligence.
Click to expand...
How do you know there is a legally binding obligation to do anything?
 
Solius said:
Have thought about making a thread about him. He's a proper little shit stirrer and you can tell he wets himself at the prospect of any negative Utd news.

He also inflates Utd fees in every single thing he writes to include all potential bonuses. He can never refer to Yoro without saying something like "the £59m teenager".
Click to expand...
Yep - fully agreed.

The whole "United Confidential" every 48 hours just makes news stories about stuff you'd see in local community papers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.