As stated Cesc chose Arsenal on his own. Casemiro was loaned to Madrid and they then bought him before they loaned him to Porto. Selling young players, waiting for them to develop and buying them back is not a common practice. 

 

If we did this, sure OUR price would be fixed but other clubs could just go over top of us. Once the player is sold, I find it hard to believe any club would allow that players previous club to dictate whether or not that player can be sold again. Using your example, if PSG go in for Musonda at 30m, instead of the 20 we have an option for, why wouldn't the selling club just accept their bid? Whats to stop them from just selling the player before we decide we want him? Say Musonda gets sold, goes on to have a good season and Club X come in to buy him for double what we sold him (being generous). We're helpless unless we want to buy him back at 20m, more than he's worth and we're back at square 1 with a young player who isnt good enough to get into our team but has potential. 

 

I could be wrong but to me it seems the club are in the business of loaning young talented players out. If they do well but don't look like becoming top class they sell them for a profit. If they do poorly they sell them for what they can get. If they do well and look like they have big potential we try to bring them into the team. Sure every once in a while we may misjudge a player and he turns out to be great so we may have to buy him.

 

As a policy though that is ridiculous. I have no issue with including buy back clauses into every contract of every young player we sell.  My issue is why sell all of them in the first place? Selling them and then hoping they turn out great so we can buy them back at a higher price is just stupid. You wouldnt sell a stock, buy it back after it skyrockets and say 'well that s ok, the profits I made off my other investments paid for that'. You'd be gaining zero from that. And that's only assuming one of the 5 or 6 players you've sold develop. What if 2 or 3 develop? You could be looking at a 30m deficit. The reason we sell these lads is to make a profit off them, not to finance the transfer of any that turn out to be great and we need to buy back. It just makes more sense to me to keep them on the books, for free often, and if they develop they can be recalled to the team. If they don't sell them on. Anyone who is going to be good enough for us is going to show that long before the decision comes to sink or swim. Everyone at the club knows Solanke could be our 1st choice striker in 3 years, so why the F would we sell him to buy him back?  

 

Im not going to argue with you that we could be doing better with our youth and young players. Some of the loans we have put them on have been sad. I find hope in the Christensen and Vitesse loans that we're starting to make better choices for our young players. 

Barca were compensated for Fabregas. Money was exchanged. He was sold in all sense of the word. They may not have had a choice at the time but they still bought him back. Like I said, when he was on loan to Porto it was with a view to sell. Madrid paid to bring him back. Here's an article on it; http://www.marca.com/en/2015/06/02/en/football/real_madrid/1433242691.html

 

Of course the club can accept the £30m offer from PSG but at the same time they must also accept our offer of £20m as it's in the contract. The club could always try and buy out our clause, we could offer more than the clause as a gesture of goodwill or perhaps Musonda himself may not even want to come back but until either of that happens, they have no choice but to accept our £20m offer. That's the risk with accepting buy out clauses in the first place, that risk is normally ofset by the transfer fee being fairly low. Barca sold Deulofeu for a tiny amount like £4m and have a buy back clause of £15m or something, I think he's already well on his way to being worth more than £15m personally. Not entirely helpless, depending on how the clause is done we could get compensation and if he's not good enough at that stage then you don't buy him back. If he does go on to be good enough afterwards then you can still buy him back like normal, nothing prevents that from happening. The buy back clause is just a short term (3 years, sometimes 4 years) security that, potentially, allows you to get a good player for less.

 

I wasn't even suggesting we sell all of them, you sell the ones who are talented but can't possibly get into the team due to lack of spaces/opportunities. That's why I picked those 5 players (Musonda was just chucked in as well seeing as he is who we are talking about) cause there's no chance they will be featuring in the team anytime soon (Bamford might get lucky but I doubt it). While I understand what you were trying to say with your stock example, it is a flawed comparison because you can't set a fixed price to buy back a stock over a certain time period. I'll try and use the comparison though and say that what you would do is you would sell your stock when it's value starts to depreciate (Chalobah,for example, after his Boro loan was wanted by a few clubs including Arsenal who were in for him at £10m or something, we said no, which was fine but we didn't offer him game time to make that next step up. Now couple years later he's still the same player he was when he was 18 and we would be lucky to get £5m for him. Each time he gets older his value gets worse), invest the money gained in something else and should the stock increase to a point where you consider reinvesting you buy it back so you can capitalise on any future gains.

 

What exactly do you think we do with the profit we currently gain from selling them now? We use it to buy the likes of Salah, Papy Dsduadasydsa, etc. If 2 or 3 develop to the level where they can improve us and we can accommodate them into the team then I would rather we spent that money on them.

 

I can see why keeping them on the books and hoping everything falls into place with loans would make sense, it's the easy way to do things. I personally think it's a short sighted way of doing things. Had we done the same to Matic we wouldn't have one of the best DM's in the world playing for us right now. 

 

Seeing as we as a club are focusing so much on the long term we sure do make some baffling decisions to hinder that long term planning. 

Edited November 8, 201510 yr by Remodez

We'll have to agree to disagree about the players you mentioned. Fabregas especially, I can't imagine you think Barca 'sold' him with an intent to buy him back later. He was 16 and had no contract. Thats not selling IMO, the same way City didn't sell Sturridge to us and Burnley didn't sell Ings to Liverpool. Casemiro wasn't sold either, I'm not Madrid expert but if they truly did loan him to Porto (after they bought him from Sao Paolo) then surely theyre not buying him from Porto as he was never theirs to sell.

 

The issue with the buy back clause I was trying to get at is we don't have control over that player any longer once we sell him/them. Big Blue mentioned it earlier, once that player isn't tied to his initial contract our clause is gone. If we sell Musonda with a buy back for 20m and PSG go in for him next summer there is nothing we can do to stop them buying that player UNLESS we want him. (in which case why would we sell him and buy him back for more only 1 or 2 years later? Isn't that the point of loans? Send a player away for a year or two, hope they develop and then you have a better player when their loan is finished) If whomever sells before we activate our clause, or if we're not interested at that time, we've essentially just given away a talented young player for a small transfer fee. Of course you can't KNOW what's going to happen with a player but if you're speaking only about the most talented of the lot, chances are they'll all be worth more than 3 or 4m later on in the their careers. Gokhan Tore is a good example. Sold him for cheap and now a few years later he's worth much more. In fact a year after we sold him his fee doubled. Does a 23 year old international RW player sound good to us right about now or last January? Of course there was no way to know he'd be good but he was called up for Turkey a month after we sold him to Hamburg, thats a pretty good sign he's on his way. Even if we had a clause for him we couldn't use it now as he's no longer on his original contract

 

Mainly I'm trying to get across clubs don't often sell players with the intent to buy them back later. It makes no sense. My stock example may have been flawed but the idea still works. Why sell something and then buy it back at a higher price when you don't need to sell it in the first place? If you print money like Madrid then you won't be bothered by it but we don't have 100m to throw around every summer. Why would you take a net loss when you don't have to? If we sell our talented young players we're short selling our investments. I think we disagree on which players should be sold, not whether or not they should be sold and possibly brought back. This strategy would seem to work much better with the middle or lower tier youth we have. They'd fetch lower transfer fees, but their buy backs would be lower as well and teams would probably be more likely to accept that clause, or a version friendlier to us. We'd be letting go of lower valued assets and hoping they pan out which would be less risky for us.  

 

You can't really say that bit about Matic. Had we loaned him to Benfica instead of selling him would he have failed? Sure it worked out for us but it's pretty clear we didn't think much of him, we didn't have a buy back clause and ended up paying a hefty fee for him. Any young player is a gamble, I'd rather see us hold on to them so we have more control over their development than leaving that up to another club with the hope we can buy him back later. 

 

The profits we make off selling any young player we have little investment in are up to the club to use. I have no idea where that money goes and neither does anyone on here. Who's to say we don't buy those players, Papy, Salah, Sidwell, even if we don't sell any young players? My best guess is we use it to make up ground for FFP, supplementing our revenue.  

I think he will be world class in the no.10 position one day just hope he is blooded in properly he is still young at the moment.

We'll have to agree to disagree about the players you mentioned. Fabregas especially, I can't imagine you think Barca 'sold' him with an intent to buy him back later. He was 16 and had no contract. Thats not selling IMO, the same way City didn't sell Sturridge to us and Burnley didn't sell Ings to Liverpool. Casemiro wasn't sold either, I'm not Madrid expert but if they truly did loan him to Porto (after they bought him from Sao Paolo) then surely theyre not buying him from Porto as he was never theirs to sell.

 

The issue with the buy back clause I was trying to get at is we don't have control over that player any longer once we sell him/them. Big Blue mentioned it earlier, once that player isn't tied to his initial contract our clause is gone. If we sell Musonda with a buy back for 20m and PSG go in for him next summer there is nothing we can do to stop them buying that player UNLESS we want him. (in which case why would we sell him and buy him back for more only 1 or 2 years later? Isn't that the point of loans? Send a player away for a year or two, hope they develop and then you have a better player when their loan is finished) If whomever sells before we activate our clause, or if we're not interested at that time, we've essentially just given away a talented young player for a small transfer fee. Of course you can't KNOW what's going to happen with a player but if you're speaking only about the most talented of the lot, chances are they'll all be worth more than 3 or 4m later on in the their careers. Gokhan Tore is a good example. Sold him for cheap and now a few years later he's worth much more. In fact a year after we sold him his fee doubled. Does a 23 year old international RW player sound good to us right about now or last January? Of course there was no way to know he'd be good but he was called up for Turkey a month after we sold him to Hamburg, thats a pretty good sign he's on his way. Even if we had a clause for him we couldn't use it now as he's no longer on his original contract

 

Mainly I'm trying to get across clubs don't often sell players with the intent to buy them back later. It makes no sense. My stock example may have been flawed but the idea still works. Why sell something and then buy it back at a higher price when you don't need to sell it in the first place? If you print money like Madrid then you won't be bothered by it but we don't have 100m to throw around every summer. Why would you take a net loss when you don't have to? If we sell our talented young players we're short selling our investments. I think we disagree on which players should be sold, not whether or not they should be sold and possibly brought back. This strategy would seem to work much better with the middle or lower tier youth we have. They'd fetch lower transfer fees, but their buy backs would be lower as well and teams would probably be more likely to accept that clause, or a version friendlier to us. We'd be letting go of lower valued assets and hoping they pan out which would be less risky for us.  

 

You can't really say that bit about Matic. Had we loaned him to Benfica instead of selling him would he have failed? Sure it worked out for us but it's pretty clear we didn't think much of him, we didn't have a buy back clause and ended up paying a hefty fee for him. Any young player is a gamble, I'd rather see us hold on to them so we have more control over their development than leaving that up to another club with the hope we can buy him back later. 

 

The profits we make off selling any young player we have little investment in are up to the club to use. I have no idea where that money goes and neither does anyone on here. Who's to say we don't buy those players, Papy, Salah, Sidwell, even if we don't sell any young players? My best guess is we use it to make up ground for FFP, supplementing our revenue.  

Every youth Barca and Madrid sell/let go is with the intent to buy them back later if they become good enough to play for them. It's not me thinking or making this up, it's been their policy for ages. The buy out clause just makes it official when the player turns 18. What do you think happened then? Madrid just gave Porto £7m for the sake of it? 

 

Buy back clauses are very complicated depending on how the terms and conditions are worded in contracts and I am by no means an expert on them. What I do know is that there are ways of preventing (There was a leak about a few months back, a contract drawn up between Sporting Lisbon and an English team, Norwich I think is was, had a small list of teams Norwich weren't allowed to sell the player to within 3 years. Transfer didn't go through though due to a disagreement on the fee), or at least ensuring we benefit financially (Compensation or some sort of fine), from situations like that. Ideally, yes that is what would happen with loans but realistically a team isn't going to put the same effort into developing a player that isn't theirs. I actually like Tore but he's not better than what we currently have, Kennedy from the small amount of game time he's got seems like he will become a far better player. 

 

That's because most clubs, even the top ones, are able to offer their youth chances. They have no reason to sell them. The ones that can't offer them a chance like Madrid, Barca, Bayern (sometimes) and Juventus (sometimes) use the buy back method and it's worked out pretty well for them from what I've seen. I think the players I mentioned are all middle tier youth, apart from Musonda who was just an example.

 

Actually, Matic is one of the rare cases where I can say that with certainty. Benfica made it pretty clear they wanted him outright, so a loan was never possible to begin with. If we somehow did manage to loan him then his performances for Benfica at the start would have seen him promptly sent back and more game time given to Wistel and Garcia who were far better. Matic was highly rated by our coaching staff, we didn't put a buy back clause cause it's not something we do. Nothing to do with not rating him. Plus Benfica held all the cards pretty much, they knew we really wanted Luiz. 

 

No one knows for sure but I don't think it's too outrageous to suggest that at least some of the profit from transfers goes towards financing future purchases.

Interesting.

 

 

Another question, my dear forum members. From another point of view.

 

 

Has Charly with Chelsea made the right decision?

Interesting.

Another question, my dear forum members. From another point of view.

Has Charly with Chelsea made the right decision?

Probably not, he would've racked up t least 50 appearances for anderlecht by now, and will have played champions league football. Tielemans stayed and now he is one of the best young players in the world.

Thank you, Big Blue.

Thank you, Remodez.

Thank you, Mediator.

Probably not, he would've racked up t least 50 appearances for anderlecht by now, and will have played champions league football. Tielemans stayed and now he is one of the best young players in the world.

We must have offered him some serious money cause it makes little sense to move when you could be playing CL football at a young age. 

Chelsea is also a dream, hé Remodez.

Imagine. Suddenly, you get a phone, and ...

We must have offered him some serious money cause it makes little sense to move when you could be playing CL football at a young age. 

That is part of the problem with youth, a great many are on £20.000 to £40,000 a week, plus a signing on fee, some then have no insentitive to really push on.

 

JT said he had a Escort to drive when a youth trainee, now they turn up to training in BMW, Audi & Merc's.

That's evolution, MBH.

 

 

Unfortunately.

Evolution,

 

 

but not better, I guess.

http://metro.co.uk/2015/11/10/man-city-battle-arsenal-for-transfer-of-chelseas-charly-musonda-report-5490986/

That's some news, Slooshee!

Sarcasm?

Definitely can't let him go to a rival.

I think the best thing to do, is tie him to a long term contract and give him a 2 year loan abroad at a club he will likely play at.

Christiansen is looking good having taken that same path.

No.

 

On the contrary.

 

 

I don't believe it. But it's a good post, Slooshee.

 

 

 

Do you have some news from Tika? His brother?

He needs minutes, Big Blue!

Edited November 10, 201510 yr by Krc-fan

We seriously need to hand him a big contract for his age and loan him out to a garunteed starting berth.

Someone?

 

Tika Musonda?

I thought he was just some average defender we brought in to make sure Charly joined us.

So.

 

 

 

What's he doing now?

 

 

 

 

 

(Thanks, CFCholland!)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/chelsea/12029231/Chelsea-under-pressure-as-highly-rated-youngster-Charly-Musonda-weighs-up-his-future.html

Heard talk of he/his family not believing there were enough chances for him moving into the first team... Now there's an article.

Stinks of the same conversation we've been having about RLC but I must admit, if I was good enough to play first team football for another club I'd consider it, ahead of playing under 21's for another two years.

I also think that this is just a ploy to get more first team chances, which simply won't happen.

It's tough to bring through youth and compete for trophies.. probably impossible.
 

Hoe doet Charly het, Guus?

isnt he the one who nutmegged fabregas in trainning and then fabregas tackled him from behind ?