Oriol Romeu joins Chelsea

[ulsterchelsea 3,221]

I cant believe im saying this but looks like Ron Gourlay has done some decent business with this deal! Or it could be AVb's doing.

if that buy back clause is true its does look like good business unless of course we turn him into a key player and barca come back 2 years time and take him away for 8 mill. Imagin that, turning him into one of the best DM'S about and a lynch pin of our squad and then barca snap him back up again for a minimal fee? Not sure i like that

[magic weeds 446]

he should have a lesser role in the team or bench him until 2013 when that clause expires. By then, he will be 21 years.

[LDN Blue 7,903]

No - what you're talking about is first refusal. Romeu has a buy-back clause, which is totally different. It's like having a release clause, but only for the team that originally sold him. Once the release clause is met, the bid has to be accepted.

I could swear they're the same thing though? Or either way the club is not obliged to accept. Only if they want to sell?

[Beast 85]

in 3 years time Barcelona will want him back and they will say, "Chelsea are kidnapping him".

[Madmax 9,219]

I could swear they're the same thing though? Or either way the club is not obliged to accept. Only if they want to sell?

No mate it's different -

Buyback = Selling club has the option to buy back the player at a future date at the price mentioned in the contract, if they think he's worth getting back to the club. It's a bit like a release clause, but different in the sense that a release clause can be activated by any team whereas a buyback is exclusive to the original selling club. In both cases, the club that buys the player (us, in this matter) is contractually bound to accept the offer if it matches the release clause amount.

Example - if say Madrid offer us 8 million for Oriol, we may or may not accept the offer. But since Barca has that buyback clause, if they offer 8 million, the clause is activated and we must accept the bid.

First refusal = When a club makes an offer for a player and it is accepted by the selling club, if the selling club has a 'first refusal' deal on that specific player or set of players with another club, that other club has the right to have an offer of a same amount accepted by the selling club. If they think the player in question is good enough and match the original offer, this bid has to be accepted by the selling club. Then it is upto the player to choose which club he wants to go to.

Example - Part of the Deco deal was us getting 'first dibs' on Fluminense's 3 young players (their names evade me atm). If say Man Utd make an offer for one of those players and it's accepted by Fluminense, we have a right to match Utd's offer and have it accepted by Fluminense. Then the player decides which club he wants to go to.

Hope I made sense

[Slam Dunk 1,442]

I'm all for this if it's funding Barca's bid for Fabregas...Also means Josh won't be forced into the holding role.

[LDN Blue 7,903]

No mate it's different -

Buyback = Selling club has the option to buy back the player at a future date at the price mentioned in the contract, if they think he's worth getting back to the club. It's a bit like a release clause, but different in the sense that a release clause can be activated by any team whereas a buyback is exclusive to the original selling club. In both cases, the club that buys the player (us, in this matter) is contractually bound to accept the offer if it matches the release clause amount.

Example - if say Madrid offer us 8 million for Oriol, we may or may not accept the offer. But since Barca has that buyback clause, if they offer 8 million, the clause is activated and we must accept the bid.

First refusal = When a club makes an offer for a player and it is accepted by the selling club, if the selling club has a 'first refusal' deal on that specific player or set of players with another club, that other club has the right to have an offer of a same amount accepted by the selling club. If they think the player in question is good enough and match the original offer, this bid has to be accepted by the selling club. Then it is upto the player to choose which club he wants to go to.

Example - Part of the Deco deal was us getting 'first dibs' on Fluminense's 3 young players (their names evade me atm). If say Man Utd make an offer for one of those players and it's accepted by Fluminense, we have a right to match Utd's offer and have it accepted by Fluminense. Then the player decides which club he wants to go to.

Hope I made sense

Ahhhh! Thanks for that, didn't realise there was a difference. F*ck this deal then!

To be fair, they may not even want him back. They've got Busquets in that role as it is, Keita as a backup to him too. Fabregas may also null the need for this type of player at Barcelona.

[Sheva. 5,373]

No mate it's different -

Buyback = Selling club has the option to buy back the player at a future date at the price mentioned in the contract, if they think he's worth getting back to the club. It's a bit like a release clause, but different in the sense that a release clause can be activated by any team whereas a buyback is exclusive to the original selling club. In both cases, the club that buys the player (us, in this matter) is contractually bound to accept the offer if it matches the release clause amount.

But like i said yesterday, Roma can block Bojan going back to Barca, and we should also be able to do the same.

[Domino- 116]

Defender?

[Madmax 9,219]

But like i said yesterday, Roma can block Bojan going back to Barca, and we should also be able to do the same.

We might not have a similar provision in this deal. Or maybe we do but it's not public knowledge yet.

[Guest justin_3d]

No mate it's different -

Buyback = Selling club has the option to buy back the player at a future date at the price mentioned in the contract, if they think he's worth getting back to the club. It's a bit like a release clause, but different in the sense that a release clause can be activated by any team whereas a buyback is exclusive to the original selling club. In both cases, the club that buys the player (us, in this matter) is contractually bound to accept the offer if it matches the release clause amount.

Example - if say Madrid offer us 8 million for Oriol, we may or may not accept the offer. But since Barca has that buyback clause, if they offer 8 million, the clause is activated and we must accept the bid.

First refusal = When a club makes an offer for a player and it is accepted by the selling club, if the selling club has a 'first refusal' deal on that specific player or set of players with another club, that other club has the right to have an offer of a same amount accepted by the selling club. If they think the player in question is good enough and match the original offer, this bid has to be accepted by the selling club. Then it is upto the player to choose which club he wants to go to.

Example - Part of the Deco deal was us getting 'first dibs' on Fluminense's 3 young players (their names evade me atm). If say Man Utd make an offer for one of those players and it's accepted by Fluminense, we have a right to match Utd's offer and have it accepted by Fluminense. Then the player decides which club he wants to go to.

Hope I made sense

:goodpost:

But as someone mention, this might be the same deal like Bojan.

After two years if Chelsea want to keep him, we must pay higher...something a long those lines.

What this gets me thinking, is why Chelsea did not do any of that stuff with out recent youth that was sold?

[Kieran. 6,317]

To me, this is like a loan deal, if anything. Except that if it doesn't work out, we're stuck with him.

[Madmax 9,219]

To me, this is like a loan deal, if anything. Except that if it doesn't work out, we're stuck with him.

Exactly, it is in effect just that.

[dave30 728]

Really another defensive centre midfielder ? we already have Mikel and Ramires who can hold and this will most likely stick josh even further down the pecking order . Yet another midfielder , but one who appears to offer neither pace or creativity the two things we are missing most in the area . i would have preferred scott to this guy in all honesty but we just don't need any more defensive leaning midfielders . a very underwhelming start to avb's coaching Career in Chelsea in my opinion .

[Domino- 116]

This will be a replacement for Essien

[manpe 10,861]

So essentially a loan deal to cover for Essien, with the option to make the player permanent if he's any good (hopefully). I hope he gets a fair chance to play in cup games at least.

[Guest justin_3d]

To me, this is like a loan deal, if anything. Except that if it doesn't work out, we're stuck with him.

But what gets me, is why the hell we even agree to such a thing?

This is Chelsea not Getafe.

It really is stupid from our club to accept such a clause.

[Slam Dunk 1,442]

Really another defensive centre midfielder ? we already have Mikel and Ramires who can hold and this will most likely stick josh even further down the pecking order . Yet another midfielder , but one who appears to offer neither pace or creativity the two things we are missing most in the area . i would have preferred scott to this guy in all honesty but we just don't need any more defensive leaning midfielders . a very underwhelming start to avb's coaching Career in Chelsea in my opinion .

Ramires is not a holding mid. Josh was played there because it was thought that his development would progress further by having more time on the ball.