Some life!
Jadon Sancho - Chelsea (loan) watch | £5M opt-out fee
- Thread starter horsechoker
- Start date
The only way we would agree to such is if the penalty fee is close or more than the obligatory fee.
Again, what was the alternative? Short of brain washing them, you were always going to have to agree to their terms here
Nah, the penalty fee could be 1 pound and United would still come out ahead here
No. There's no way we are getting 25m for him from another team, it will be another loan with us paying a portion of his wages. Unless the penalty is a big fee, we lose.
You saved 2/3 of his wages for the season. You come out ahead here
I’d say it’s not unusual to have this sort of break clause in a contract. The difference is there’s very few of these transfers where the subsequent contract vs expected output is so bad that it’s worth activating.
Yes there is no such thing as negotiations. You just have to agree to whatever terms you are presented with. Cool thanks for letting me know.
Or United could have kept Sancho
But in any case we managed to get a lot of his wages off our books for this season and we will get money on top of it. I can definitely see why the deal with such clause would make sense for both.
My guess (as you already pointed out we are all here guessing) is that a penalty fee is higher than most loan fees with an option to buy for high profile players in recent years. Kulusevski, Griezmann, Felix loan fees were all around €10m for example.
We probably insisted on an obligation trying to get rid of him while Chelsea really had intention to buy him, but wanted a way out if they aren't satisfied with him considering there were huge question marks over him... So, the deal was structured to satisfy both parties. Chelsea will have a way out of obligation, but then has to pay a significant penalty. In the region of 10 - 15 million pounds for example as an amount which would be extremely high if it was purely a loan fee. If this is the case, it seems like a perfectly fine compromise for both parties. If the penalty is much lower than that, I would feel somewhat underwhelmed by the whole business as well. We just have to wait and see as you said. It really depends how high is the penalty if Chelsea decides to trigger it to make a conclusion if the whole business is good or bad.
Sancho deal was struck on the last day of transfer window, so am sure we explored every option and ways trying to get rid of him. The fact we made a deal on the last day is the confirmation this was the best deal we had on the table.
Look, you won't have me arguing or disputing we have been awfully run for years and years. It was borderline travesty but am not willing to point at the club in this specific case because we at least managed to get out of most of his wages for this season and have guaranteed money in both cases (Sancho signing for Chelsea/Chelsea paying penalty). Also, am willing to give some chance to new hierarchy, they have been in their job too short to judge them properly.
As I said above, if the penalty gets triggered and after we hear the amount, it will be easier to make a conclusion about this particular deal. Am sure of one thing though, Sancho was incredibly difficult to shift in the summer. And not because of people who are now in charge.
Get the penalty fee from Chelsea for violating the option to buy obligation.
Then re-loan Sancho back to Dortmund with a new loan fee of 10m euros and 50% wages to be paid.
We can repeat this process until his contract with us is up.
Then re-loan Sancho back to Dortmund with a new loan fee of 10m euros and 50% wages to be paid.
We can repeat this process until his contract with us is up.
I too like to play with made up numbers, so let me join:
-Transfer fee is 25M
-A year of Sancho's wages is about 13M
-Let's say the agreement between Chelsea and Sancho would be for 4 years
So the effective cost of Sancho for Chelsea is 25+13*4=77M. So he is expected to justify a value of around 20M a year to be profitable for them.
If Chelsea backs out it would have to pay X. Let's say just for the sake of the exercise that X is 10M. So for Chelsea to be indifferent between complying and backing out that means they estimate that the difference between Sancho's output and his cost is minus 10M. So we're talking about 16-17M in yearly perceived output value for Sancho. Considering that paying in installments is financially better than paying up front, the perceived value is probably lower.
If Sancho goes back to United, it will have only one year left on his contract (unless the club activates the option for another year) so the club will have only one year to sell in order to regain some of his value. A payment from Chelsea would work as an advance from that value (while also making that eventual sale's value considerably lower by running down the clock).
Bottomline, this is a game of hot potato. Or Sancho is lava, if you prefer.
-Transfer fee is 25M
-A year of Sancho's wages is about 13M
-Let's say the agreement between Chelsea and Sancho would be for 4 years
So the effective cost of Sancho for Chelsea is 25+13*4=77M. So he is expected to justify a value of around 20M a year to be profitable for them.
If Chelsea backs out it would have to pay X. Let's say just for the sake of the exercise that X is 10M. So for Chelsea to be indifferent between complying and backing out that means they estimate that the difference between Sancho's output and his cost is minus 10M. So we're talking about 16-17M in yearly perceived output value for Sancho. Considering that paying in installments is financially better than paying up front, the perceived value is probably lower.
If Sancho goes back to United, it will have only one year left on his contract (unless the club activates the option for another year) so the club will have only one year to sell in order to regain some of his value. A payment from Chelsea would work as an advance from that value (while also making that eventual sale's value considerably lower by running down the clock).
Bottomline, this is a game of hot potato. Or Sancho is lava, if you prefer.
Seems the best outcome is Chelsea paying a break clause and the club ships Sancho back to Dortmund for 10-15M with some performance related addons and a sell on clause. Safe the wages and all is good.
Maybe Napoli wants him for some reason since Conte loves himself former United players but I cant see that Sancho has it what Conte likes.
Maybe Napoli wants him for some reason since Conte loves himself former United players but I cant see that Sancho has it what Conte likes.
If he is sent back then the value to reloan is diminished exponentially - everyone knows we hold a very poor poker hand - he cannot come back after what has been said and his actions - there is likely to be very little takers after his shite performances for Chelsea.
Therefore everything is damage limitation for us and the few suitors will know that.
He is the nightmare that keeps on giving……
Therefore everything is damage limitation for us and the few suitors will know that.
He is the nightmare that keeps on giving……
I love how everyone on here assumes Dortmund would still be interested in him.
Were they not publicly displaying their pleasure at his return last season, via social media, or have I just imagined that?
I wouldn’t read too much into a team‘s social media. Sancho was a good story for them to sell, for as long as he didn’t play over any extended period of time. He didn’t really do much and considering the state of their team, I’d be shocked if they actually tried to sign him again. Wouldn’t put it past them completely, as their current leadership is horrible. But I think it’s not very likely.
Terzic wanted him, but Terzic is gone. So I really don't see them going for Sancho again.
Chelsea and United should organise a game and the loser has to take Sancho, with the winner bagging £25m.
Would anyone in the Bundesliga have Sancho for .. say 80% of his wage? (say 7-8m)
I find it hard to believe no one would take such a low-risk gamble.
He just needs time to adapt to the league
Only Bayern and Dortmund pay such salaries in Germany. Sometimes Wolfsburg, but with the current Volkswagen crisis I don't see that happening there in the near future. If he would reduce his salary to 2-3m, then that would open up options and he could be interesting for clubs who believe they might be able to revive his career (and have the squad to allow for such a gamble). Frankfurt comes to mind here, but on the other hand their last United loanee massively disappointed there (van de Beek).
But none of this seems realistic at the moment. Sancho would have to take a massive cut for that.
Why does the wage matter? It's basically as simple as you're paying 8m to have Sancho for a year. It's pretty low risk from a business standpoint. A typical 30m signing on a 5 year 50k per week wages amortizes to the same amount per year and is more risky because you might get stuck with a dud.
But no German club that could afford a 30m transfer would be interested in gambling on Sancho and those who would be interested in that gamble would need it to be even cheaper.
Perhaps it would affect the ecosystem if a player comes in earning more than all of his teammates?
Why would they want to pay 8m to have him for a year, when they can wait a year and have him for 8m for multiple years?
Its not a low risk gamble though.... I dont get why Sancho is a low risk gamble?
He is going to fail, they know that, so its like knowing you will lose money, but still do it.
He is rubbish.
He’ll end up leaving on a free at the end of his contract.
There’s just no way Chelsea will sign him, 1 shot on target this year, playing in the conference league too?
Yeah good luck with that.
Best bet is a loan to Serie A or Bundesliga now.
There’s just no way Chelsea will sign him, 1 shot on target this year, playing in the conference league too?
Yeah good luck with that.
Best bet is a loan to Serie A or Bundesliga now.
Why would anyone loan a player? It's a different way of looking at a buy v rent argument.
Buying is much more risk - locks you into a long term contract if the player is a dud or doesn't fit your club. Sometimes you don't even want the player long term, you just want someone to come do a job for a year and get out. Maybe you're going through an injury crisis or you want to give your promising young player some buffer in case he puts in a few bad performances.
Loans are amazing value. I'd take a loan chance w option to buy on a wing back right now for example. I'm certain if he comes back from Chelsea we'll find a willing club to loan him out to.
No, you didn't get my point. 8m a year for a player for a club like Dortmund is a lot of money. It doesn't make sense to spend that kind of money on a player for a one year loan for them. Sancho's contract is up in 2026, which means if they want him - if they want to spend 8m a year on him - they can wait a year and sign him, which makes a lot more sense. At that price it's not a punt, it's a big investment on a player they really believe in
There's an option to extend to 2027 so depending on Sancho, it won't be a simple 'he's free to leave in 2026 and negotiate with who he wants'.
True, but unless you find a taker (and Sancho doesn't decide to straight up tell you he's leaving on a free) you have no incentive to pick that up
I hate the fact he might come back, but I find it hilarious how after dropping the freedom comment the same club that saved him are paying for us to take him back 
I would not be too sure about that. Since news of the penalty clause was revealed there has been a lot of sensationalist clickbait nonsense posted but all of the reporting I have seen from the more credible sources has been that Chelsea are not currently inclined to pay the penalty. Sancho will not want to come back and may well see a 4 or 5 year contract on lower wages at Chelsea as a good outcome from where his career had been headed. Chelsea will potentially still feel that buying a player who is still relatively young for a fraction of his previous transfer price is good business and a lower risk gamble as on a more manageable contract they can fairly easily move him on and get their money back in 12 months time.
Yeah. Chelsea are more likely to sign him and find a way to send him off to Saudi for the same amount in a year.
There's no chance he comes back without first being shopped for another loan elsewhere. If he does, we take the penalty Chelsea pays for not following through and apply it to paying half his wages for his new loan club. Rinse and repeat until he's off.
Read today that this mope hasn't had a shot on target in 11 games.
Yes but it does give us 'some' negotiating room over or with Sancho depending on what he wants to do. The fact he agreed to move to Chelsea on presumably lower wages (if they do decide to sign him) shows he somewhat values his career, playing time and environment. I'm not disagreeing with your original premise of Bundesliga clubs not being able to afford him, just wanted to point out it's not as straight forward as 'waiting another year and then he's free for everyone'. If he does return this summer, even with the caveat of the optional 1 year, I'll suspect we'll sell him for £10m or lower to an Italian club (GOAT Conte to the rescue) because I don't think, even he has it in him to just mop about for a year and dig his heels in to leave on a free. He'll need to make a choice. Who knows though.
There's a clickbait Express headline floarling about that calls the prospect of Sancho returning a win-win situation
I can't be arsed, but presumably they are suggesting that with a cancellation penalty United might get two lots of money instead of one
This reasoning seems to omit that if it's clear Chelsea don't want him after their initial hopes he might be falling even more in value
I can't be arsed, but presumably they are suggesting that with a cancellation penalty United might get two lots of money instead of one
This reasoning seems to omit that if it's clear Chelsea don't want him after their initial hopes he might be falling even more in value
I genuinely believe it's more worthwhile having Dan James in your squad rather then Jadon Sancho