Guest justin_3d Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieran. 6,317 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 To me, this is like a loan deal, if anything. Except that if it doesn't work out, we're stuck with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmax 9,219 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave30 728 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 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 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Domino- 116 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 This will be a replacement for Essien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manpe 10,861 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest justin_3d Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slam Dunk 1,442 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Styles 9,790 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Exactly, it is in effect just that.I doubt we negotitated that badly to end up with such a rubbish deal.Going by the Bojan transfer Roma can pay an agreed amount to block any buy-back option. So at worst we would have to pay some more to sign him. There is absolutely no way that he can come here for 2 years do well and then head back to Barcelona, we aren't that stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest justin_3d Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 I doubt we negotitated that badly to end up with such a rubbish deal.Going by the Bojan transfer Roma can pay an agreed amount to block any buy-back option. So at worst we would have to pay some more to sign him. There is absolutely no way that he can come here for 2 years do well and then head back to Barcelona, we aren't that stupid.Well i talked to a friend from Spain who is Barcelona fan, and he is saying is that. That we buy him right now, and in 2 years if the club wants they will buy him back for 8 mill.At which i am stupefy by such agreement from the club. This is Chelsea and not Getafe to be accepting such deals!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeB 1,281 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 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.Exactly, we cannot start thinking a 3 midfield with Lampard-Josh-Benayoun would be enough, there isn't some physical strength.I hope that it does not mean the abandonment of Parker... I would be disappointed because I think he would be the best player to bring to the club, he is certainly vindictive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Styles 9,790 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Well i talked to a friend from Spain who is Barcelona fan, and he is saying is that. That we buy him right now, and in 2 years if the club wants they will buy him back for 8 mill.At which i am stupefy by such agreement from the club. This is Chelsea and not Getafe to be accepting such deals!!Trust your instinct on this one. Why on earth would we develop a player for another team? We have a hard enough time developing our own as it is! If he is any good then we're keeping him, you can rest assured on that one.The Bojan deal is that he goes to Roma for 12m and there is an obligatory buy-back option for 13m. If Roma want to block this option then will have to pay an extra 28m. Now Oriol Romeu doesn't have the sort of experience and reputation as Bojan so any further money we might have to be pay for him will be significantly less, possibly 10m max in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest justin_3d Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 I would rather buy Etienne Capoue from Toulouse for DM cover then take a wild experiment on this guy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH0ywzaOLaQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest justin_3d Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Trust your instinct on this one. Why on earth would we develop a player for another team? We have a hard enough time developing our own as it is! If he is any good then we're keeping him, you can rest assured on that one.The Bojan deal is that he goes to Roma for 12m and there is an obligatory buy-back option for 13m. If Roma want to block this option then will have to pay an extra 28m. Now Oriol Romeu doesn't have the sort of experience and reputation as Bojan so any further money we might have to be pay for him will be significantly less, possibly 10m max in my opinion.I hope that is true, cause i see this as an massive insult to Chelsea and fans to agree to such a BS deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave30 728 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 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.i know ramires isn't but he can play as one and we already have Mikel the point im trying to making is we need to bring pace and creativity into the midfield . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmax 9,219 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Trust your instinct on this one. Why on earth would we develop a player for another team? We have a hard enough time developing our own as it is! If he is any good then we're keeping him, you can rest assured on that one.The Bojan deal is that he goes to Roma for 12m and there is an obligatory buy-back option for 13m. If Roma want to block this option then will have to pay an extra 28m. Now Oriol Romeu doesn't have the sort of experience and reputation as Bojan so any further money we might have to be pay for him will be significantly less, possibly 10m max in my opinion.Bojan and Romeu are different deals, it's not worthwhile comparing the two. Atm what I've posted so far in this thread is what I've been able to gather. Like I said in another post, we may have a similar option to retain him by paying a higher fee, but even if that is the case, no mention of the same has been made anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Styles 9,790 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Bojan and Romeu are different deals, it's not worthwhile comparing the two. Atm what I've posted so far in this thread is what I've been able to gather. Like I said in another post, we may have a similar option to retain him by paying a higher fee, but even if that is the case, no mention of the same has been made anywhere.Don't be daft, just because you haven't seen it online somewhere doesn't mean it isn't true. It is in line with the Bojan transfer and is likely to be Barcelona's new policy on all youngsters leaving the club. You're smarter than this, thinking that we have essentially entered into an agreement were we have our hands tied behind our backs. The club has lawyers, advisers, negotitaters etc who would laugh off what you're suggesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmax 9,219 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Don't be daft, just because you haven't seen it online somewhere doesn't mean it isn't true. It is in line with the Bojan transfer and is likely to be Barcelona's new policy on all youngsters leaving the club. You're smarter than this, thinking that we have essentially entered into an agreement were we have our hands tied behind our backs. The club has lawyers, advisers, negotitaters etc who would laugh off what you're suggesting.Sigh. Not once do I recall saying it doesn't exist. All I said was this - if it does, I haven't read so yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonPride1905 236 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 justin_3d, in a week or so, I will make my own video, with a jersey of my favourite team, and go and video up my best moves, would you want me in Chelsea?! Everything on videos is just a compilation. Never trust' em, WELCOME OREOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abd Chelseacrzyfan 45 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 We are not shop to get player in a deals such as this ... fuckin bad deall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts