The Summer 2022 Rangers Transfer Window Rumours and Deals - Thread

[Rousseau 10,602]

8 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a buy-back option merely first dibs on any future sale? There's no agreed fee. If we get a bid for him next season for £10m, Bayern Munich would get the chance to match it?

 

To be honest, I don't know much about it. It's just how I thought they worked going from past buy-back deals I've seen in La Liga. 

After doing a quick search, I think I'm completely wrong:

 

"Buy-back clauses in transfer agreements are used primarily to give a selling club the security of being able to repurchase a promising player at a set fee should the player excel in the future. Some high profile examples of such reported clauses include Álvaro Morata (Juve back to Madrid), Casemiro  (Porto back to Real Madrid) and Gerard Deulofeu (Everton back to Barcelona) . In many cases, the benefit of the transfer extends to the:

• selling club as they receive a transfer fee for a player that at present probably isn’t getting regular playing time with the possibility of requiring the player if he plays well at a predefined fee;
• buying club who can purchase a player that they otherwise may not have been able to acquire had it not been for the clause. In addition, the buyback figure is usually significantly higher than the original transfer fee; and
• player (who can play regular first team football, probably receive a pay rise and demonstrate their talent).

The buy-back provision is usually based on a number of individual or cumulative triggers including activating the clause:

• In defined transfer windows (i.e. the selling club cannot buy back the player for a minimum of two seasons);
• should the original selling club bid a set amount (which could vary depending on the season that the buy-back clause is triggered i.e. €2m in the 15-16 windows and €2.5m in the 16-17 windows).

Should a buy-back provision be triggered, there is usually a contractual obligation to enforce the contract and transfer the player accordingly.

As such provisions are commercial agreements between contracting parties, there is always the possibility of removing a buy-back clause should both parties agree (usually through payment made to the club that has the benefit of the buy-back clause). An interesting situation was reported over the summer with Atletico Madrid defender Toby Alderweireld  who was on loan at Southampton for the 2014/15 season. Southampton had an agreement with Atletico when entering into the loan deal that they had the option to purchase the defender for £6.8m. Although not a buy-back provision, the clause gave Southampton the ability to convert the loan into a permanent transfer unless Atletico paid Southampton £1.5m to remove the clause. In the 2015 summer window Tottenham bid around £11.5m which Atletico accepted. Southampton though wanted to enforce the £6.8m purchase clause. It has not been publically reported how the matter was finally resolved but it is likely that Atletico provided compensation to Southampton in order for the player to transfer to Tottenham.

 

How is it different from a first refusal clause?

A first refusal transfer clause gives the club who has the benefit of the clause the opportunity to be informed of any deal that the selling club is willing to accept for the transfer of the player. This is different from a buy-back clause because usually with a first refusal clause, the selling club retains the power to decide whether to sell the player or not. Typically, a buy-back clause automatically triggers the transfer of the player should specific contractual conditions be met. In practice, the selling club will not have any way of refusing the buy-back offer if the clause is intended to be an automatic trigger and it is drafted appropriately."

[PoohBear 1,148]

6 hours ago, Gonzo79 said:

A loan is a loan.  I wouldn't get too worked up about the fine print until we see how the player performs.  

Nah, a loan with an option to buy is completely different. It takes the risk out of paying up front for the player, we get eyes on him for the whole season to judge his ability and potential. It also means there is a goal in developing the player for Rangers, not another team. This isn't a Joe Worrall situation where in his own (paraphrased) words was that he was sent to Rangers to make mistakes and learn.

[Malangsob 1,264]

4 hours ago, Scott7 said:

Not necessarily. It could be an option to tender a fee for the seller to accept, reject or negotiate on exclusively ahead of any other potential buyer.

Yeap that's what I was hearin.

 

That's some BS if true. 

 

Like payin a man for land AFTER you built a hotel on it. 

[Franc Ergs 1,647]

Ajax now got 45m  with the sale of Lisandro Martinez to Man U.

 

They can now afford to have Bassey then ,and still have 25m in the bank.

[Rousseau 10,602]

3 minutes ago, Franc Ergs said:

Ajax now got 45m with the sale of Lisandro Martinez to Man U.

 

They can now afford to have Bassey then ,and still have 25m in the bank.

They had already sold Gravenbarch for 18.5M and Haller for 31M (euros).

[Sutton_blows_goats 5,327]

Bassey not involved today. Seems inevitable now.

 

Sands at CB though which I like 

[Bill 13,717]

49 minutes ago, Sutton_blows_goats said:

Bassey not involved today. Seems inevitable now.

 

Sands at CB though which I like 

Yes, this season has to be when James Sands consolidates his early promise

[Rousseau 10,602]

50 minutes ago, Sutton_blows_goats said:

Bassey not involved today. Seems inevitable now.

 

Sands at CB though which I like 

Oh - I completely missed that...

 

[CammyF 8,079]

Rumours were that Bassey flew to London last night - think his departure will be sooner rather than later. Big boots to fill.

[CammyF 8,079]

Did Tom Miller say Tony Weston has moved to Thistle on loan? Good move for the lad of true.