| Livramento 15:27 - Nov 2 with 1925 views | SonicBoom |
So what is the deal? He's our player but Chelsea have a buy back clause.
What does that mean?
That when we want to sell or he wants to leave we have to offer him to Chelsea first at a pre-arranged price? I've heard somewhere near 40 mill.
So what happens if he would be worth say 60 on the open market? We just have to swallow it? Anyone know ? |  | | |  |
| Livramento on 15:30 - Nov 2 with 1701 views | saints__fan__73 |
Reports have been anywhere for £20m - 40m.
Yes, If he's worth £60m then Chelsea can buy him back for the buy back amount and sell for the higher which is what is pretty certain to happen as Chelsea finance their first team by selling squad players who never play for them. They sold around £90m of players this past Summer but none of their 1st team regulars. It's a great way of getting around FFP.
Best to view Liveramento as on a season's long long from Chelsea, like Broja, but we will get a nice pay off if he keeps up current form. |  |
| |
| Livramento on 15:34 - Nov 2 with 1693 views | Sadoldgit |
I thought he had signed for longer than 1 season? The clause surely only becomes active when either his contract runs out (but he would go for free anyway so that is moot) or when we decide to sell him or he decides he wants to go? |  | | |
| Livramento on 15:36 - Nov 2 with 1688 views | 1885_SFC |
I read they couldn't buy him back for a least 2-years... |  |
| |
| Livramento on 15:41 - Nov 2 with 1685 views | saints__fan__73 |
| Livramento on 15:34 - Nov 2 by Sadoldgit |
I thought he had signed for longer than 1 season? The clause surely only becomes active when either his contract runs out (but he would go for free anyway so that is moot) or when we decide to sell him or he decides he wants to go? |
How can a buy back clause only become active once the bloke's contract runs out? That literally makes no sense. What great legal mind from Chelsea would put in a clause that they can buy an out of contract player back for £20-40m?!
The clause means the player will return to Chelsea any time they want to pay us the agreed amount (either to play for them or to sell to a team far higher up the food chain than us).
I can't see Liveramento would have an issue with this. I doubt his life's ambition is playing for a team perpetually fighting PL relegation.
It would be surprising if he didn't go back to Chelsea in the Summer if he keeps up his good form. | |
| |
| Livramento on 15:56 - Nov 2 with 1662 views | 1885_SFC |
| Livramento on 15:41 - Nov 2 by saints__fan__73 |
How can a buy back clause only become active once the bloke's contract runs out? That literally makes no sense. What great legal mind from Chelsea would put in a clause that they can buy an out of contract player back for £20-40m?!
The clause means the player will return to Chelsea any time they want to pay us the agreed amount (either to play for them or to sell to a team far higher up the food chain than us).
I can't see Liveramento would have an issue with this. I doubt his life's ambition is playing for a team perpetually fighting PL relegation.
It would be surprising if he didn't go back to Chelsea in the Summer if he keeps up his good form. |
As I mentioned; he can't go back until at least 2023...
https://www.transfermarketweb.com/premier-league/premier-full-details-of-tino-li | |
| |
| Livramento on 15:56 - Nov 2 with 1661 views | Butty101 |
| Livramento on 15:41 - Nov 2 by saints__fan__73 |
How can a buy back clause only become active once the bloke's contract runs out? That literally makes no sense. What great legal mind from Chelsea would put in a clause that they can buy an out of contract player back for £20-40m?!
The clause means the player will return to Chelsea any time they want to pay us the agreed amount (either to play for them or to sell to a team far higher up the food chain than us).
I can't see Liveramento would have an issue with this. I doubt his life's ambition is playing for a team perpetually fighting PL relegation.
It would be surprising if he didn't go back to Chelsea in the Summer if he keeps up his good form. |
He isnt going to get past James in the chelsea team any time soon. So why would he move back if he isnt going to get game time. |  |
| |
| Livramento on 16:20 - Nov 2 with 1639 views | SonicBoom |
He is definitely our player. I would have thought that they just get first choice at a fixed price as and when we want to sell.
So we offer him a new deal so he's under contract but when he wants to leave or some other huge club have turned his head we have to offer him to Chelsea. I'm not sure Chelsea can demand to buy him back whenever they want. It makes no sense. | | | |
| Livramento on 16:50 - Nov 2 with 1599 views | saints__fan__73 |
| Livramento on 16:20 - Nov 2 by SonicBoom |
He is definitely our player. I would have thought that they just get first choice at a fixed price as and when we want to sell.
So we offer him a new deal so he's under contract but when he wants to leave or some other huge club have turned his head we have to offer him to Chelsea. I'm not sure Chelsea can demand to buy him back whenever they want. It makes no sense. |
A buy back clause means that. They can buy him back whenever they stump up the agreed amount (as mentioned above there may be a time this becomes active)
Of course it makes sense. Why would Chelsea just give us one of their Academy stars for a meagre £5m? The only reason we got him was due to allowing this clause in. If he's great we get a great player until he goes and then a nice compensation amount and they get an experienced PL player back.
It makes perfect sense. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Livramento on 16:52 - Nov 2 with 1595 views | saints__fan__73 |
| Livramento on 15:56 - Nov 2 by Butty101 |
He isnt going to get past James in the chelsea team any time soon. So why would he move back if he isnt going to get game time. |
You're missing the point. Chelsea fund their 1st team by selling fringe players.
If they can take him back for the agreed buy back fee and sell for £40m more to a team like Newcastle they will do just this. He doesn't have to be good enough to actually play for Chelsea.
And I can't see Liveramento would have any issues moving to a with a team who can afford to pay that amount for him. They would certainly have more ambition than us. | |
| |
| Livramento on 17:25 - Nov 2 with 1555 views | saint901 |
I confess to knowing little about the fine detail of player contracts but I'd be willing to say that if Chelsea do have a buy back clause, it will some with conditions.
One of those is likely to be a bar on selling him on again quickly. That is against the spirit of player/club contracts and likely to be contrary to Premiership rules on club conduct. My guess is that if they but him back they will have to keep him for perhaps a season - maybe even play him for a given number of games - before cashing in.
That said, a "sell on" clause would make more sense if they had no intention of ever playing him.
As you can tell, I'm guessing. |  | | |
| Livramento on 18:32 - Nov 2 with 1507 views | BLEEDRED |
It's all guesswork, but I think what is true is they cannot try to buy him back for 2 seasons, and that is only if he wants to move, Chelsea cannot force a move hopefully he will come to love the club/fans/area and what to stay!! | | | |
| Livramento on 22:52 - Nov 2 with 1341 views | darthvader |
| Livramento on 18:32 - Nov 2 by BLEEDRED |
It's all guesswork, but I think what is true is they cannot try to buy him back for 2 seasons, and that is only if he wants to move, Chelsea cannot force a move hopefully he will come to love the club/fans/area and what to stay!! |
Well so far so good on that front . He seems to be enjoying it |  |
| |
| Livramento on 08:39 - Nov 3 with 1232 views | SonicBoom |
I think some people accuse us of having no ambition and that other clubs have way more ambition than us.
That is simply confusing ambition with "money". I'm sure Saints are very ambitious and want to win the Champions League - we just don't have the money to make it happen.
Were Newcastle more "ambitious" than Saints 2 weeks ago? Nope. You are just constrained by the funds you have available. | | | |
| Livramento on 09:11 - Nov 3 with 1204 views | saints__fan__73 |
| Livramento on 08:39 - Nov 3 by SonicBoom |
I think some people accuse us of having no ambition and that other clubs have way more ambition than us.
That is simply confusing ambition with "money". I'm sure Saints are very ambitious and want to win the Champions League - we just don't have the money to make it happen.
Were Newcastle more "ambitious" than Saints 2 weeks ago? Nope. You are just constrained by the funds you have available. |
Define 'us'? The owners have no ambition to do anything other than keep us in the PL long enough for them to be able to sell for a profit. Trophies are irrelevant. | |
| |
| Livramento on 09:16 - Nov 3 with 1192 views | SaintNick |
| Livramento on 16:52 - Nov 2 by saints__fan__73 |
You're missing the point. Chelsea fund their 1st team by selling fringe players.
If they can take him back for the agreed buy back fee and sell for £40m more to a team like Newcastle they will do just this. He doesn't have to be good enough to actually play for Chelsea.
And I can't see Liveramento would have any issues moving to a with a team who can afford to pay that amount for him. They would certainly have more ambition than us. |
Although you are making some good points here, a buy back clause doesn't mean that Chelsea can buy him back as and when they want, he is under a 5 year contract here, what it does mean is that if we sell him then they have the first option at an agreed price.
But that doesn't automatically mean that they will exercise that or indeed that the player would want to return.
A good example in terms of a buying clause would be Toby Alderweireld, we had the first option to buy him at an agreed price, but he wanted to go to Spurs, so we couldn't enforce that option, it is an agreement between the clubs not the club and player.
So if for instance Liverpool came in and offered him a lot more than Chelsea and as someone said he felt that he wouldnt be first chaoice in Chelsea's team, he could decline a return to Stamford Bridge and opt for Liverpool and like Athletico Madrid with Alderiereld they could then get a bigger fee than the agreed selling price.
The ball is in our court as to when we sell him, it is not a loan move they can't just demand they buy him in January, he is our player till the end of his contract or indeed any other contract he signs here |  |
| Satisfying The Bloodlust Of The Masses In Peacetime |
| |
| Livramento on 10:36 - Nov 3 with 1158 views | saints__fan__73 |
| Livramento on 09:16 - Nov 3 by SaintNick |
Although you are making some good points here, a buy back clause doesn't mean that Chelsea can buy him back as and when they want, he is under a 5 year contract here, what it does mean is that if we sell him then they have the first option at an agreed price.
But that doesn't automatically mean that they will exercise that or indeed that the player would want to return.
A good example in terms of a buying clause would be Toby Alderweireld, we had the first option to buy him at an agreed price, but he wanted to go to Spurs, so we couldn't enforce that option, it is an agreement between the clubs not the club and player.
So if for instance Liverpool came in and offered him a lot more than Chelsea and as someone said he felt that he wouldnt be first chaoice in Chelsea's team, he could decline a return to Stamford Bridge and opt for Liverpool and like Athletico Madrid with Alderiereld they could then get a bigger fee than the agreed selling price.
The ball is in our court as to when we sell him, it is not a loan move they can't just demand they buy him in January, he is our player till the end of his contract or indeed any other contract he signs here |
Completely incorrect.
A buy back clause is not just a first option to buy. It means if the players previous club meets the agreed fee the player will return. Comparing Alderweireld is not like for like. That was an option to buy which is a totally different thing.
The caveats to this are there may be a timeframe set before which the buy back clause cannot be activated. Probably at least one season.
I love the last sentence, it would be impossible to write something more factually incorrect about modern football. "The ball is in our court as to when we sell him, he is our player till the end of his contract or indeed any other contract he signs here" 
There is a simple rule of football. A club can only keep a player of around the same level of ability / ambition as the club has. If a player has more ability than his club then he will leave as we have seen time and time again. There's no indication at all that we have any more ambition than survival. Livramento seems likely to develop into a player capable of playing CL football. So no, he won't be our player until the end of the 5 year contract he signed with us. He will be here for one season or two at best. | |
| |
| Livramento on 10:59 - Nov 3 with 1144 views | SonicBoom |
Nick makes the point that he has signed a five year contract with us. So he is our player.
Chelsea cannot buy him whenever they want. He is no longer their player and I doubt a clause like that would even be legal.
He may well ask to leave after two or three years and like any player we can either let him go - or try to keep an unhappy player.
If we agree he can go then Chelsea can buy him back for 40 million or whatever the number is.
If Livramento does not want to go to Chelsea then they cannot force him. Again it would probably be illegal to do that.
The benefit for Chelsea is that on the open market he might be worth 80 which is what a Liverpool or Newcastle would have to pay. If he wants to return to Chelsea they would pay 40 - plus they would be able to offer him a better personal package than anyone else as they are getting him cheaper.
As for ambition I'm sure the current owners ambition is to stay in the PL. But he cannot invest into us. If he could invest more of his billions then he would probably be more "ambitious". You can be the most ambitious owner in the world but without funds it means absolutely nothing. Cortese springs to mind.
We are in a position where the owner cannot invest due to Chinese government rules - and is happy to sell. The real issue is why doesn't an oil state or billionaire buy us.
As I say it's not a lack of ambition at the club, but a lack of funds that means we have to adjust our ambition accordingly. | | | |
| Livramento on 11:22 - Nov 3 with 1136 views | saints__fan__73 |
| Livramento on 10:59 - Nov 3 by SonicBoom |
Nick makes the point that he has signed a five year contract with us. So he is our player.
Chelsea cannot buy him whenever they want. He is no longer their player and I doubt a clause like that would even be legal.
He may well ask to leave after two or three years and like any player we can either let him go - or try to keep an unhappy player.
If we agree he can go then Chelsea can buy him back for 40 million or whatever the number is.
If Livramento does not want to go to Chelsea then they cannot force him. Again it would probably be illegal to do that.
The benefit for Chelsea is that on the open market he might be worth 80 which is what a Liverpool or Newcastle would have to pay. If he wants to return to Chelsea they would pay 40 - plus they would be able to offer him a better personal package than anyone else as they are getting him cheaper.
As for ambition I'm sure the current owners ambition is to stay in the PL. But he cannot invest into us. If he could invest more of his billions then he would probably be more "ambitious". You can be the most ambitious owner in the world but without funds it means absolutely nothing. Cortese springs to mind.
We are in a position where the owner cannot invest due to Chinese government rules - and is happy to sell. The real issue is why doesn't an oil state or billionaire buy us.
As I say it's not a lack of ambition at the club, but a lack of funds that means we have to adjust our ambition accordingly. |
Of course it's legal. These clauses have been used for years in football.
https://www.danielgeey.com/post/football-transfers-buy-back-clauses-explained/
The fact that the buy back clause is in the contract is the ONLY reason we got the player. do you really think Chelsea would let one of their brightest young stars go for £5m if they didn't have the guarantee they can get him back whenever they want for the pre-agreed fee? They aren't stupid. They finance the club by their transfer dealings in fringe players.
And no, it's not Chinese govt rules that are preventing Gao from putting money into the club. It's the fact that he hasn't got any money which is preventing this. He had to borrow every penny from the banks just to buy (80%) of the club ffs...... | |
| |
| Livramento on 11:46 - Nov 3 with 1119 views | SonicBoom |
Why are you so angry? It's just a discussion...
As far as I am aware, Gao has money. When he bought the club the Chinese government was all for investing overseas into things like football clubs. But soon after they reversed their strategy and want to keep the money within China.
So now he cannot get his money out of China to invest into Saints. That might be BS I'm not an expert but it's what I've read. In which case he might as well and as far as I know he's trying to. | | | |
| Livramento on 12:07 - Nov 3 with 1110 views | saints__fan__73 |
| Livramento on 11:46 - Nov 3 by SonicBoom |
Why are you so angry? It's just a discussion...
As far as I am aware, Gao has money. When he bought the club the Chinese government was all for investing overseas into things like football clubs. But soon after they reversed their strategy and want to keep the money within China.
So now he cannot get his money out of China to invest into Saints. That might be BS I'm not an expert but it's what I've read. In which case he might as well and as far as I know he's trying to. |
Not angry, just a discussion. :)
There is no evidence Gao has any sizeable amount of money. He borrowed every penny of the money to buy 80% of the club from the banks.
His aim is to sell the club for more than he paid, pay off his loan and have a bit of profit left over.
Nothing more than that. | |
| |
| Livramento on 13:28 - Nov 3 with 1042 views | saints__fan__73 |
Sky sources, yes?
Funny how he had to borrow £250m then.....
They also used to say Fat Kat had £3bn...... | |
| |
| Livramento on 13:50 - Nov 3 with 1025 views | SonicBoom |
Surely it back s up the point that he does actually have money, he is restricted from being able to get it out of China.
I understand that he sourced the money to buy us (or as you say borrowed) from institutions outside China so he could complete the sale. Had he not done that, he would have been unable to buy the club.
Anyway he is keen to sell, so he's not holding us to ransom. I've heard many stories of interested parties but as is typical, none come forward and slap their money down. | | | |
| Livramento on 14:00 - Nov 3 with 1013 views | saints__fan__73 |
| Livramento on 13:50 - Nov 3 by SonicBoom |
Surely it back s up the point that he does actually have money, he is restricted from being able to get it out of China.
I understand that he sourced the money to buy us (or as you say borrowed) from institutions outside China so he could complete the sale. Had he not done that, he would have been unable to buy the club.
Anyway he is keen to sell, so he's not holding us to ransom. I've heard many stories of interested parties but as is typical, none come forward and slap their money down. |
Incorrect. He borrowed the money to buy us from a Chinese govt owned bank.
https://pageone.ng/2017/08/17/new-southampton-owners-fund/
He really doesn't have any real personal wealth. | |
| |
| Livramento on 14:47 - Nov 3 with 972 views | SonicBoom |
Oh come on. That story does not say he doesn't have any personal wealth. In fact he must have wealth or he would not have been granted the loan.
The article also directly back up what I said about the Chinese Gov clamping down on those moving their money outside China to buy sports teams.....
"By obtaining offshore financing in Hong Kong, Gao skirted a Chinese regulatory clampdown on companies buying trophy assets overseas like sports teams, film studios and luxury hotels. The rising government scrutiny has stymied attempts by prominent dealmakers including Dalian Wanda Group Co., which saw its acquisition of a U.S. television producer collapse after it faced difficulties transferring money out of China." | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
