Oriol Romeu

[Devil may care]

I'm aware of that but a point will come where something will need to be done to protect the competitive nature of the sport. Deals such as this could cripple the game.

I don't think the deals can be prevented because there is nothing underhanded about them, if clubs agree to the deals it is their outlook. The only way to stop this is if the top teams all agree to not agree to such deals.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

It seems to me this is a blatant attempt to undermine the FFP rules.

If you send a player out on a conventional loan, it's cost neutral. If you send a player out on loan with one of these buy-back clauses you can use the income from the "sale" to offset expenditure on new signings.

 

[acnumber9]

I don't think the deals can be prevented because there is nothing underhanded about them, if clubs agree to the deals it is their outlook. The only way to stop this is if the top teams all agree to not agree to such deals.

FIFA and UEFA can change the rules as they please. I never suggested the deals could currently be stopped, I'm saying the rules should be changed to stop it.

 

[Devil may care]

FIFA and UEFA can change the rules as they please. I never suggested the deals could currently be stopped, I'm saying the rules should be changed to stop it.

I'm just not sure they'd change the rule to not allow buy back clauses, unless they simply altered them to first refusal clauses.

 

[acnumber9]

I'm just not sure they'd change the rule to not allow buy back clauses, unless they simply altered them to first refusal clauses.

I'm not sure they would either, doesn't mean they shouldn't though. In my opinion it should simply be a case of if you don't think the player is good enough then pay the consequences if you're wrong.

 

[RedRover]

FIFA and UEFA can change the rules as they please. I never suggested the deals could currently be stopped, I'm saying the rules should be changed to stop it.

They can't prevent clubs from entering legally binding contracts though. Absolute legal minefield to try and prevent anything which appears to be completely transparent and above board.

These deals are simple - they're not designed to circumvent anything as far as I can see. Both parties take a risk based on future returns, be they footballing or financial. It also allows clusb to protect assests they themselves have developed through the youth sides, rather than risk losing them to the first "big" club that comes along and offers a massive pay rise.

To me its much less problematic than clubs loaning established first team players out for nothing to clubs in the same league.

 

[Devil may care]

I'm not sure they would either, doesn't mean they shouldn't though. In my opinion it should simply be a case of if you don't think the player is good enough then pay the consequences if you're wrong.

I agree in general principle but would all the top clubs want to wave the option just in case? you never know when it may come in handy which is why it's probably not being openly opposed.

 

[acnumber9]

They can't prevent clubs from entering legally binding contracts though. Absolute legal minefield to try and prevent anything which appears to be completely transparent and above board.

These deals are simple - they're not designed to circumvent anything as far as I can see. Both parties take a risk based on future returns, be they footballing or financial. It also allows clusb to protect assests they themselves have developed through the youth sides, rather than risk losing them to the first "big" club that comes along and offers a massive pay rise.

To me its much less problematic than clubs loaning established first team players out for nothing to clubs in the same league.

Have you read anything I have written? They can't currently stop it but it would be in the interests of the game to change the rules to stop it from happening.

It doesn't help clubs protect themselves from big clubs offering pay rises. Quite the opposite. It allows Barcelona etc to raid other clubs for players then farm them out and buy them back again when they're good enough.

 

[acnumber9]

I agree in general principle but would all the top clubs want to wave the option just in case? you never know when it may come in handy which is why it's probably not being openly opposed.

Maybe not now but if Barcelona continue as they are I think there could be opposition. This is just the start of what they are doing.

 

[finneh]

Surely it's the players wanting to return to their home club, rather than the buy-back deals? These clauses are basically immaterial if a talented player is that determined to go back to their home club (see Pique/Fabregas). I'm sure if buy-back clauses were banned Romeu or the like would just sign 3 year deals and return on a free if Barcelona wanted them back. I think it's admirable that players are so desperate to play for them that they are only using other clubs (even top clubs elsewhere) as a stepping stone to eventually play for Barcelona.

 

[acnumber9]

Surely it's the players wanting to return to their home club, rather than the buy-back deals? These clauses are basically immaterial if a talented player is that determined to go back to their home club (see Pique/Fabregas). I'm sure if buy-back clauses were banned Romeu or the like would just sign 3 year deals and return on a free if Barcelona wanted them back. I think it's admirable that players are so desperate to play for them that they are only using other clubs (even top clubs elsewhere) as a stepping stone to eventually play for Barcelona.

That's true but at least then the selling club would have a better hand when negoiating a fee. I doubt though that players would sign such short deals as it would have a knock on effect on what salary a club would be prepared to give.

 

[Brwned]

It seems to me this is a blatant attempt to undermine the FFP rules.

If you send a player out on a conventional loan, it's cost neutral. If you send a player out on loan with one of these buy-back clauses you can use the income from the "sale" to offset expenditure on new signings.

It's been happening for years in Spain though, long before the FFP. Madrid do it pretty much every year, I imagine. The Bojan deal's definitely a bit sneaky but I don't see anything wrong with the Romeu deal.

 

[Sarni]

It seems to me this is a blatant attempt to undermine the FFP rules.

If you send a player out on a conventional loan, it's cost neutral. If you send a player out on loan with one of these buy-back clauses you can use the income from the "sale" to offset expenditure on new signings.

But when you buy him back it's an outcome and it becomes neutral in the big scheme.

 

[finneh]

That's true but at least then the selling club would have a better hand when negoiating a fee. I doubt though that players would sign such short deals as it would have a knock on effect on what salary a club would be prepared to give.

True re: salary, but if the Fabregas situation is anything to go by then players are quite happy to take a pay-cut to return to Barcelona.

If we had that level of talent coming through our youth system, but the quality of our main squad which makes it difficult for these talented youngsters to get games, I'd definitely want us to protect ourselves from another Fabregas situation in the future (ie having to pay £30m for a player that was snatched from us at 16 years old).

I really don't think getting rid of this rule would be in the interests of the game. Teams should be rewarded for having faith in their homegrown players, whether through successful loans or buy-back clauses. They certainly should not be punished for not being able to accommodate a talented youngster who might be 4-5 years away from the first team, but far too good for their reserves.

/edit: If we had the 4 strikers we had in '99 and Welbeck understandably wasn't getting a look in forcing us to sell, I certainly would have liked to see us add a similar clause into his sale.

 

[The Neviller]

True re: salary, but if the Fabregas situation is anything to go by then players are quite happy to take a pay-cut to return to Barcelona.

If we had that level of talent coming through our youth system, but the quality of our main squad which makes it difficult for these talented youngsters to get games, I'd definitely want us to protect ourselves from another Fabregas situation in the future (ie having to pay £30m for a player that was snatched from us at 16 years old).

What they're doing doesn't prevent this though. If Barca had a young 16 year old destined to be a superstar a la Fabregas, a big club could still pinch him at 16, without Barca having any say in it or being able to put the clause in.

What they are actually doing, as the Bojan case showed, is loaning players to clubs, with the clubs loaning them money in return. Barca HAVE to buy Bojan back, at a fee £1million above what Roma paid for him, unless Roma want to keep him and cough up further fee's. A ridiculous deal if ever i've saw one, and how it fall's within the rules is beyond me.

 

[acnumber9]

True re: salary, but if the Fabregas situation is anything to go by then players are quite happy to take a pay-cut to return to Barcelona.

If we had that level of talent coming through our youth system, but the quality of our main squad which makes it difficult for these talented youngsters to get games, I'd definitely want us to protect ourselves from another Fabregas situation in the future (ie having to pay £30m for a player that was snatched from us at 16 years old).

I really don't think getting rid of this rule would be in the interests of the game. Teams should be rewarded for having faith in their homegrown players, whether through successful loans or buy-back clauses. They certainly should not be punished for not being able to accommodate a talented youngster who might be 4-5 years away from the first team, but far too good for their reserves.

What I meant by the salary is that a club like Chelsea aren't going to buy a player on a three year contract and give them a massive salary as they know they are likely to lose out heavily financially. Therefore for a player leaving Barcelona to get a decent wage he is going to need to sign a longer conract.

Selling them isn't having faith in them. It's saying "You're not good enough now but just in case you turn out alright we're sticking a buy back clause in". It gives clubs the ability to stockpile players and is not a healthy and competitive way for football to go.

 

[acnumber9]

But when you buy him back it's an outcome and it becomes neutral in the big scheme.

In the meantime though it allows you to bring in a player you otherwise may not have been able to afford without having to lose a player long term.

 

[The Neviller]

I see no problem with a "first option clause", which is what i believe United had in place with Rossi, meaning if he was available for sale by Villarreal, United had an option on signing him. Compulsary buy back clauses, where the club the player is going to has no option but to sell if and when the parent club wants the player back is different entirely.

 

[RedRover]

Have you read anything I have written? They can't currently stop it but it would be in the interests of the game to change the rules to stop it from happening.

It doesn't help clubs protect themselves from big clubs offering pay rises. Quite the opposite. It allows Barcelona etc to raid other clubs for players then farm them out and buy them back again when they're good enough.

Thye point I am making is that FIFA and UEFA exist within the usual legal frameworks - in this case privity of contract. If they start getting involved in telling clubs what they can and can't do they'd have legal challenges left right and centre.

I don't see any problem with this - its hardly any different to clubs sending young players out on loan for seasons on end (as in the case of United and the dutch club who will potentially be getting umpteen Brazilians a season for free) and only ever getting them back if they do anything.

Is that not "stockpiling" players?

Incidentally I assume you have no problems with United buying young lads from lower division clubs or clubs abroad for peanuts (Italy and Brazil especially) and shipping them out on loan.

Barca are simply trying to protect their assets as any club would when they have such talent coming through.

As for FFP (as others have raised) even if they buy said player back (for what is usually a good sum over and above what they received) that presumably counts as transfer outlay in that financial year so I don't see the isssue there either.

 

[RedRover]

What I meant by the salary is that a club like Chelsea aren't going to buy a player on a three year contract and give them a massive salary as they know they are likely to lose out heavily financially. Therefore for a player leaving Barcelona to get a decent wage he is going to need to sign a longer conract.

Selling them isn't having faith in them. It's saying "You're not good enough now but just in case you turn out alright we're sticking a buy back clause in". It gives clubs the ability to stockpile players and is not a healthy and competitive way for football to go.

You seem to ignore the fact that in order for any clause to be activated the player involved would have final say. If he wants to stay at his current club then that would be that.

If this kid wanted to go back to Barca (as Fabregas did) then he'll get his move - player power rules. This just makes it simpler for all parties and arguably reflects the fact that Barca developed teh player in question.

 

[finneh]

What they're doing doesn't prevent this though. If Barca had a young 16 year old destined to be a superstar a la Fabregas, a big club could still pinch him at 16, without Barca having any say in it or being able to put the clause in.

What they are actually doing, as the Bojan case showed, is loaning players to clubs, with the clubs loaning them money in return. Barca HAVE to buy Bojan back, at a fee £1million above what Roma paid for him, unless Roma want to keep him and cough up further fee's. A ridiculous deal if ever i've saw one, and how it fall's within the rules is beyond me.

It doesn't prevent a Fabregas scenario I agree and I feel this is an issue that has to be addressed far, far before buy-back clauses.

I don't understand why it wouldn't fall under the rules. Sunderland receiving £5m+ for the year loan of Gyan is far worse.

What I meant by the salary is that a club like Chelsea aren't going to buy a player on a three year contract and give them a massive salary as they know they are likely to lose out heavily financially. Therefore for a player leaving Barcelona to get a decent wage he is going to need to sign a longer conract.

Selling them isn't having faith in them. It's saying "You're not good enough now but just in case you turn out alright we're sticking a buy back clause in". It gives clubs the ability to stockpile players and is not a healthy and competitive way for football to go.

I understood the salary point.

But they aren't saying that at all. They are saying "you are very talented but 3-4 years away from being ready for our first team". They could either loan them out for 4 seasons straight, receiving a loan fee every year, which would almost certainly unsettle the player (particularly as it is likely that it would be to 2-3 different clubs) and his progress or just put a buy-back clause in.

I don't understand how it is anti-competitive, I think it is the total opposite. It promotes clubs investing on their academy and having faith in their younger players, even where they are years away from the first team, but far too good for the reserves.

If we had a 17 or 18 year old incredibly talented central defender for instance who was far too good for the reserves, but obviously years away physically from competing with the likes of Smalling, Vidic, Jones, Ferdinand and Evans, would 4 loan moves really be more beneficial? It might just be me, but I think the 3 loans Cleverley had to 3 different clubs in three different areas might have hampered his progress. I dread to think of all the contradictory things three coaching teams were teaching him.

You also have to bear in mind that if the player doesn't want to return to Barcelona, he just... Doesn't. If Chelsea think Romeu is that good, they could just blow Barcelona's wage offer out the window and hope that this sways his decision.

 

[The Neviller]

If a buy back clause is just the same as a loan then why don't they just loan them? They obviously do the buy back thing because they benefit from it, ie, they get cash for a player currently not good enough for them, safe in the knowledge that if they get football elsewhere and become good enough they can invoke the clause.

And lets be honest, if a Barca born lad, most probably a Barca fan, who has grown up there leaves to join another club, knowing that if he impresses he'll be brought back gets that call to say he's impressed enough, how many are likely to turn it down?

hmmmmmm do i stay at Chelsea or go back to Barca where I can be a star at my home town club? Decisions.

 

[acnumber9]

It doesn't prevent a Fabregas scenario I agree and I feel this is an issue that has to be addressed far, far before buy-back clauses.

I don't understand why it wouldn't fall under the rules. Sunderland receiving £5m+ for the year loan of Gyan is far worse.



I understood the salary point.

But they aren't saying that at all. They are saying "you are very talented but 3-4 years away from being ready for our first team". They could either loan them out for 4 seasons straight, receiving a loan fee every year, which would almost certainly unsettle the player (particularly as it is likely that it would be to 2-3 different clubs) and his progress or just put a buy-back clause in.

I don't understand how it is anti-competitive, I think it is the total opposite. It promotes clubs investing on their academy and having faith in their younger players, even where they are years away from the first team, but far too good for the reserves.

If we had a 17 or 18 year old incredibly talented central defender for instance who was far too good for the reserves, but obviously years away physically from competing with the likes of Smalling, Vidic, Jones, Ferdinand and Evans, would 4 loan moves really be more beneficial? It might just be me, but I think the 3 loans Cleverley had to 3 different clubs in three different areas might have hampered his progress. I dread to think of all the contradictory things three coaching teams were teaching him.

You also have to bear in mind that if the player doesn't want to return to Barcelona, he just... Doesn't. If Chelsea think Romeu is that good, they could just blow Barcelona's wage offer out the window and hope that this sways his decision.

Explain how it promotes clubs investing in their academies when it allows clubs like Barcelona to snap them all up knowing they can ship them out on glorified loans with minimal risk.

 

[acnumber9]

You seem to ignore the fact that in order for any clause to be activated the player involved would have final say. If he wants to stay at his current club then that would be that.

If this kid wanted to go back to Barca (as Fabregas did) then he'll get his move - player power rules. This just makes it simpler for all parties and arguably reflects the fact that Barca developed teh player in question.

I don't ignore it but let's be honest with ourselves few players turn them down. What is currently happening is giving them a zero risk transfer policy. As I've said, the player can always go back but at the very least Barca should not be given carte blanche to dictate when and at what price.

Barcelona have done the initial developing but it's the club who've taken them who made them ready for their first team.

 

[finneh]

Explain how it promotes clubs investing in their academies when it allows clubs like Barcelona to snap them all up knowing they can ship them out on glorified loans with minimal risk.

Because it seems to me that the majority of these youngsters are Barcelona through and through. They don't seem to be "snapping" them up knowing they can ship them out with minimal risk. Explain to me the kind of player they are snapping up; which is over and above what every other top club does in Europe (Pogba anyone)? Secondly explain how it is risk free vs a 2 or 3 year loan spell with a loan fee for example. It carries far, far more risk as if the player realises his potential and loves playing for his new club he might not want to come back and you might have lost a £40m talent for £5-10m.

Barcelona have invested heavily in a great academy and top scouting network and are creating/bringing in top talent because of it, what's wrong with that? If other clubs then want to pay them £10m for three years service of a player who they spotted/trained up, but who are not yet ready for their first then that is the other clubs' prerogative, as occurred with Chelsea.

It is the perfect message to every other club that investing in a top academy and scouting network can not only provide you with top players long term, but can also provide you with a nice income. I would agree with your stance if Romeu signed a 4 year deal with Chelsea and had a secret agreement to rejoin Barcelona for nothing after the deal expired, but every party goes into knowing exactly what they've signed up for.

Bear in mind that a) Barcelona are usually paying the wages and training the player from a very young age; b) Clubs like Chelsea will also profit from this transaction (if Barce take Romeu back in 2013 Chelsea will make a 10m Euro transfer profit) and c) The players involved are quite happy spending a few years honing their skills, it isn't as if they are forcibly dragged back to the Nou Camp.

 

[acnumber9]

Because it seems to me that the majority of these youngsters are Barcelona through and through. They don't seem to be "snapping" them up knowing they can ship them out with minimal risk. Explain to me the kind of player they are snapping up; which is over and above what every other top club does in Europe (Pogba anyone)? Secondly explain how it is risk free vs a 2 or 3 year loan spell with a loan fee for example. It carries far, far more risk as if the player realises his potential and loves playing for his new club he might not want to come back and you might have lost a £40m talent for £5-10m.

Barcelona have invested heavily in a great academy and top scouting network and are creating/bringing in top talent because of it, what's wrong with that? If other clubs then want to pay them £10m for three years service of a player who they spotted/trained up, but who are not yet ready for their first then that is the other clubs' prerogative, as occurred with Chelsea.

It is the perfect message to every other club that investing in a top academy and scouting network can not only provide you with top players long term, but can also provide you with a nice income. I would agree with your stance if Romeu signed a 4 year deal with Chelsea and had a secret agreement to rejoin Barcelona for nothing after the deal expired, but every party goes into knowing exactly what they've signed up for.

Bear in mind that a) Barcelona are usually paying the wages and training the player from a very young age; b) Clubs like Chelsea will also profit from this transaction (if Barce take Romeu back in 2013 Chelsea will make a 10m Euro transfer profit) and c) The players involved are quite happy spending a few years honing their skills, it isn't as if they are forcibly dragged back to the Nou Camp.

I don't know enough about where Barcelona currently get their players though the fact they have foreign players come through their ranks suggest a little bit of poaching. What this situation allows is for them to cherry pick the best talent from around the world as they can ship players out at 18/19 etc with no risk and bring in other players. Without this option they would perhaps have to hold onto these players longer meaning other clubs young players aren't at risk of being poached. It also means that other clubs may have an opportunity at attracting young talent as Barcelona would not be able to stockpile them.

Note Barcelona are only being used as an example as they are the most prominent.

The current situation is great them. Not so much for competition.

I said in that post minimal risk.

 

[finneh]

I don't know enough about where Barcelona currently get their players though the fact they have foreign players come through their ranks suggest a little bit of poaching. What this situation allows is for them to cherry pick the best talent from around the world as they can ship players out at 18/19 etc with no risk and bring in other players. Without this option they would perhaps have to hold onto these players longer meaning other clubs young players aren't at risk of being poached. It also means that other clubs may have an opportunity at attracting young talent as Barcelona would not be able to stockpile them.

Note Barcelona are only being used as an example as they are the most prominent.

The current situation is great them. Not so much for competition.

I said in that post minimal risk.

If you look at the list of the 43 (according to wiki) former Barcelona B players that have played for their first team, 39 of them are from Spain. I suspect you are over-exaggerating (or just aren't that aware of) the amount of players they can/do cherry pick from overseas. If you look at their squad now, they have far more homegrown players vs overseas than any team I am aware of. They are basically a walking advert for what investing heavily in a youth setup can achieve and are reaping the rewards.

I don't think you're view that they are cherry picking an incredible amount of talented players simply because there is no risk for them is accurate. If that were the case then every top club including ours would be doing exactly the same (to the same level). It is a testament to Barcelona's academy, rather than any cherry picking, that someone who can't even make their bench can almost walk into Chelsea's first XI.

I also don't think this system is allowing them to "stockpile" anymore youngsters than they would without it, the only difference is that they'd have more loans instead of sales with buy-back clauses.

 

[RedRover]

It doesn't prevent a Fabregas scenario I agree and I feel this is an issue that has to be addressed far, far before buy-back clauses.

I don't understand why it wouldn't fall under the rules. Sunderland receiving £5m+ for the year loan of Gyan is far worse.



I understood the salary point.

But they aren't saying that at all. They are saying "you are very talented but 3-4 years away from being ready for our first team". They could either loan them out for 4 seasons straight, receiving a loan fee every year, which would almost certainly unsettle the player (particularly as it is likely that it would be to 2-3 different clubs) and his progress or just put a buy-back clause in.

I don't understand how it is anti-competitive, I think it is the total opposite. It promotes clubs investing on their academy and having faith in their younger players, even where they are years away from the first team, but far too good for the reserves.

If we had a 17 or 18 year old incredibly talented central defender for instance who was far too good for the reserves, but obviously years away physically from competing with the likes of Smalling, Vidic, Jones, Ferdinand and Evans, would 4 loan moves really be more beneficial? It might just be me, but I think the 3 loans Cleverley had to 3 different clubs in three different areas might have hampered his progress. I dread to think of all the contradictory things three coaching teams were teaching him.

You also have to bear in mind that if the player doesn't want to return to Barcelona, he just... Doesn't. If Chelsea think Romeu is that good, they could just blow Barcelona's wage offer out the window and hope that this sways his decision.

I think that raises another good point - if a player is purchased by a particular club (even if he goes back to his previous club later on) at least they are having to take a financial risk in buying the player in the first place, knowing that they're giving him a four year (or more) contract which they'll have to honour whether they're any good or not.

If a player is young and he's dropping down a division to gain experience, loaning players out is fine - indeed its the lifeblood of lower league football.

But where top players and clubs are involved in sideways moves the buyback situation is surely preferable to clubs having the benefit of a player they neither own (nor in some cases) pay with zero risk? Look at Adebayor at Spurs - perfectly within the rules but hardly fair on other teams if he fires them into the Champions league.

 

[RedRover]

I don't ignore it but let's be honest with ourselves few players turn them down. What is currently happening is giving them a zero risk transfer policy. As I've said, the player can always go back but at the very least Barca should not be given carte blanche to dictate when and at what price.

Barcelona have done the initial developing but it's the club who've taken them who made them ready for their first team.

If they can develop players with such regularity capable of a first team place then why should they not benefit? Is it preferable for clubs to simply go out and spend huge sums on players instead of investing in youth?

The fact is they can't and won't buy back every player they sell in any event. The players won't move back there to sit on the bench or why move on in the first place?

The fact is if these players want to move back they can then do so without the previous club (being the club who developed the player in question) being ripped off. All I can see in this instance is that Chelsea may make slightly less on the player if and when he moves back to Barca. Hardly the crime of the century.

 

[The Neviller]

The fact that neither of you see a problem with a club like Barca selling their players with COMPULSORY buy back clauses absolutely astounds me.

 

[acnumber9]

If they can develop players with such regularity capable of a first team place then why should they not benefit? Is it preferable for clubs to simply go out and spend huge sums on players instead of investing in youth?

The fact is they can't and won't buy back every player they sell in any event. The players won't move back there to sit on the bench or why move on in the first place?

The fact is if these players want to move back they can then do so without the previous club (being the club who developed the player in question) being ripped off. All I can see in this instance is that Chelsea may make slightly less on the player if and when he moves back to Barca. Hardly the crime of the century.

They aren't capable of first team yet though. It was the team who gave them their first team bow who has done that.

They already do benefit. Allowing them free reign to use other major European clubs as feeder clubs is a little too much for my liking. Like I've said already great them, not so great for everybody else.

 

[The Neviller]

If they can develop players with such regularity capable of a first team place then why should they not benefit? Is it preferable for clubs to simply go out and spend huge sums on players instead of investing in youth?

The fact is they can't and won't buy back every player they sell in any event. The players won't move back there to sit on the bench or why move on in the first place?

The fact is if these players want to move back they can then do so without the previous club (being the club who developed the player in question) being ripped off. All I can see in this instance is that Chelsea may make slightly less on the player if and when he moves back to Barca. Hardly the crime of the century.

Once a player leaves to join another club, the selling club (Barca) should no longer have any further claim on them in the future. If they progress and grow to be better than when they left, and good enough to come back, then they should have to join in the bidding with other clubs and pay whatever the going rate is.

A first refusal clause is different, there is no onus on the buying club to sell back, just that if the time comes when the player is leaving the new club, the old club has the option to buy back if all parties agree, or match any existing bids. I don't find a problem with this.

 

[Ekeke]

The fact that neither of you see a problem with a club like Barca selling their players with COMPULSORY buy back clauses absolutely astounds me.

Should be entirely up to the buying club. Clearly Chelsea thought it was a worthwhile deal at the time, too late to think differently now

 

[The Neviller]

Should be entirely up to the buying club. Clearly Chelsea thought it was a worthwhile deal at the time, too late to think differently now

It shouldn't be up to either club, it shouldn't be allowed to happen. It's a sneaky way of getting round FFP, and anyone who can't see that is blind.

All the talk was that Barca were going to struggle this summer to buy both their main targets, Fabregas and Sanchez, without selling, due to their crippling debts. All of a sudden a deal arises where Bojan goes to Roma for x amount of money, with the agreement that Barca HAVE to buy him back in 3 years for £1million more, meaning effectively Roma have loaned Barca money, and charged £1million interest on the loan, in the meantime a Barca player gets experience in another big European Club and league. Barca buy their two main targets, safe in the knowledge that they can pick up Bojan again in a few years at no real cost, hoping their financial situation improves between then.

You see nothing wrong in this at all? Yet on here, City are horrible bastards when they try to circumvent the new rulings, but saintly Barca can flout them and find loopholes as they please, and no one gives a shiny shit.

 

[finneh]

The fact that neither of you see a problem with a club like Barca selling their players with COMPULSORY buy back clauses absolutely astounds me.

That fact that either of you see any problem with it whatsoever astounds me to be honest. This is backed up by the fact that I haven't heard any managers or pundits even reference the point (unlike the Adebayor situation which is totally different).

They aren't capable of first team yet though. It was the team who gave them their first team bow who has done that.

They already do benefit. Allowing them free reign to use other major European clubs as feeder clubs is a little too much for my liking. Like I've said already great them, not so great for everybody else.

They aren't currently capable of the first team because Barcelona have such a phenomenal squad because of their youth system. If we had our four '99 strikers I'd be saying Fergie should have done the same with Welbeck, he's too good to sell, he's a local lad and probably is dying to play for United. Why should we sell him just because we are currently very strong in our attacking department, knowing that in 3-4 years he might be great for us, but for instance Sunderland would want 4-5 times what they paid?

Once a player leaves to join another club, the selling club (Barca) should no longer have any further claim on them in the future. If they progress and grow to be better than when they left, and good enough to come back, then they should have to join in the bidding with other clubs and pay whatever the going rate is.

It shouldn't be up to either club, it shouldn't be allowed to happen. It's a sneaky way of getting round FFP, and anyone who can't see that is blind.

All the talk was that Barca were going to struggle this summer to buy both their main targets, Fabregas and Sanchez, without selling, due to their crippling debts. All of a sudden a deal arises where Bojan goes to Roma for x amount of money, with the agreement that Barca HAVE to buy him back in 3 years for £1million more, meaning effectively Roma have loaned Barca money, and charged £1million interest on the loan, in the meantime a Barca player gets experience in another big European Club and league. Barca buy their two main targets, safe in the knowledge that they can pick up Bojan again in a few years at no real cost, hoping their financial situation improves between then.

You see nothing wrong in this at all? Yet on here, City are horrible bastards when they try to circumvent the new rulings, but saintly Barca can flout them and find loopholes as they please, and no one gives a shiny shit.

It isn't finding a new way to bypass any rulings at all. City are being paid unbelievable amounts of money from companies who are closely related to their rich owner, who are more than likely getting bunged to do so (due to the ridiculous over-pricing of contracts in relation to what would be "fair value").

Barcelona are selling home-grown players that they produced from an academy they have heavily invested in to be the best in the world, for market value. The fact of the matter is that if they want to buy Bojan/Romeu back, they have to pay a pre-agreed (by all parties) fee. If Roma/Chelsea felt this fee was too low, they would have declined the deal, if Barcelona felt it was too high they wouldn't have allowed him to leave. It was amicable for all parties and if any club in the world wanted him they could have offered a more favourable contract to the player, or a more favourable buy-back clause to Barcelona.

If Barcelona want to sell their assets in order to afford different assets, then they can. If part of the deal allows them to buy the assets back like a pawn shop and the players are happy to be chattels then fair play to them. I personally think the Romeu deal is short-termism in it's finest and if they continue down this path will screw them up for the FFP regs. They are essentially paying Chelsea £10m Euros to loan a player off them for two years. Likewise Roma are essentially being paid to take a quality player off Barcelona's books for a couple of seasons.

I actually think it is Chelsea/Roma that are the ones that could been seen to be circumventing the rules, essentially acting as banks to increase their own football related income.

 

[Snow]

People do realize that when a team loans a player they might very well get money for him as well as the other club pays his wages right? I don't think Chelsea loaned their young goalkeeper to Atl. Madrid for free.

 

[RedRover]

The fact that neither of you see a problem with a club like Barca selling their players with COMPULSORY buy back clauses absolutely astounds me.

There is no such thing as a COMPULSORY buy back clause. How could there be?

As I understand it they have an option to buy the player at various points during his contract for a set fee.

Compulsory would mean it must happen (i.e. both sides are contractually bound to do so) - they won't want to buy him back if he breaks his leg, and the player himself may not want to go back - nobody can compel him to do so.

The only difference with this and having first option on the player is that fees are already set - its just like having a buy out clause in your contract.

 

[RedRover]

Once a player leaves to join another club, the selling club (Barca) should no longer have any further claim on them in the future. If they progress and grow to be better than when they left, and good enough to come back, then they should have to join in the bidding with other clubs and pay whatever the going rate is.

A first refusal clause is different, there is no onus on the buying club to sell back, just that if the time comes when the player is leaving the new club, the old club has the option to buy back if all parties agree, or match any existing bids. I don't find a problem with this.

I don't agree. If the player is happy for that to be inserted into his contract them fair play to him - he will have the ultimate say as to where he goes, and in this case, should he go back it gives him the chance to do so without his current club holding him to ransom. Its not "risk free" if said player can get double what Barca are offering elsewhere, or regular football he's notcertain to go back.

I'm certain that the players involved would also disagree. This lad had a chance to move to Chelsea and play regular football, with a chance to go back to Barca if and when appropriatre. Would his career be better served by Barca keeping him in the reserves and stunting his development?

Some suggest that it allows teams to stockpile players - I disagree. It allows players to move on to find regular football with the result being that a few of those who leave may one day return if and when they are good enough. The fact is that Barca can only pick eleven players and won't buy back every player they sell.

The real issue here appears to be jealousy that Barca are able to run so many talented players off their production line year after year while other clubs are struggling to do so.

I have no problem in clubs protecting themselves. If clubs aren't protected then why should they bother investing money in bringing players through? It may be perfectly legal but as a business or a club Barca will not want to see another Fabregas situation.

People on here are constantly deriding City for spending huge sums on players yet also don't want to allow clubs to be incentivised to produce their own players, even by protecting their position through legitimate contractual means.

 

[The Neviller]

There is no such thing as a COMPULSORY buy back clause. How could there be?

As I understand it they have an option to buy the player at various points during his contract for a set fee.

Compulsory would mean it must happen (i.e. both sides are contractually bound to do so) - they won't want to buy him back if he breaks his leg, and the player himself may not want to go back - nobody can compel hiim to do so.

The only difference with this and having first option on the player is that fees are already set - its just like having a buy out clause in your contract.

Check out the Bojan to Roma deal.

 

[Ekeke]

It shouldn't be up to either club, it shouldn't be allowed to happen. It's a sneaky way of getting round FFP, and anyone who can't see that is blind.

All the talk was that Barca were going to struggle this summer to buy both their main targets, Fabregas and Sanchez, without selling, due to their crippling debts. All of a sudden a deal arises where Bojan goes to Roma for x amount of money, with the agreement that Barca HAVE to buy him back in 3 years for £1million more, meaning effectively Roma have loaned Barca money, and charged £1million interest on the loan, in the meantime a Barca player gets experience in another big European Club and league. Barca buy their two main targets, safe in the knowledge that they can pick up Bojan again in a few years at no real cost, hoping their financial situation improves between then.

You see nothing wrong in this at all? Yet on here, City are horrible bastards when they try to circumvent the new rulings, but saintly Barca can flout them and find loopholes as they please, and no one gives a shiny shit.

I think the Bojan deal is silly, said as much at the time but thats on Roma. They chose to accept the deal. I'd have laughed at it and declined, they wanted the player and to partake in this effectual loan move.

If a buying club wants to look like idiots then its on them. They shouldnt need protection