Search results

Yep I would like to see him in the stripes

It's entirely possible the player has chosen Southampton over us. Just strange that there was no mention of a buyback clause until we were out of the running.

If Tony just cared about turning us into a profit making business, then yeah it's a good deal. But he is being asked to relinquish control on what his plans are for that player. Tony won't do that. There's loads of other ways he can make £20m without being told what to do by a third party.

If we were top of the league at Christmas, because he is so amazing he has won every game for us. Chelsea decide to buy him back for £25m and take the whole window to agree increased wages for him. Sure we're £20m up, but we have no opportunity or enough funds to buy a comparable replacement...

The problem with any buyback clause is that they can sign him back (as long as the player is willing) during any window. It isn't the club that owns his contract's choice.

I find it very hard to believe that Chelsea would have bothered to put a £40m buy-back clause in. No benefit for them to do that. The only reason to add a buyback clause would be to play him or sell him on. I can't see £40m being a good deal for them in either case.

Are you talking about Livramento? He is English, I believe.

How does a buy-back clause work? Is it first refusal, when the buying club sell on, or can the selling club say, " we are going to buy him back now". If the latter then it's a loan with benefits. If the former, then less so.

My guess is that after th esuccess of Lamptey, other Prem teams will be jumping on similar transfers we are linked to.

That is disappointing