Player needs to agree to it. It's still a sale, not a loan. It's just as if that two clubs had agreed a fee. It's between the players and the buying club to agree their personal contract.
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
Sorry to stress the point but I thought the player already agrees before the initial sale (any personal terms agreed here) , are you sure that's not the case.
Yes. I am sure.
Morata agreed to a new personal term when he moved back to Madrid, better wage, longer contract than he has had with Juventus.
What 3 parties agreed at initial sale is buy back clause in the contract. Between us and Real Madrid, it's the buy back fee agreement. If Real Madrid wants to bring Reguilon back, he needs strike an agree to an all new personal contract with Real Madrid.
Buy-back clauses now part of the football player transfer system
A recent reform of the domestic organisational rules of the Italian Football Federation means that football players’ transfer agreements can now…
- the buy-back clause is signed by the player including an express declaration accepting any consequences of the exercise of the buy-back right;
- the buy-back clause is signed by the player including an express declaration accepting any consequences of the exercise of the buy-back right;
This is how I've always understood it
Same.
Reguilon agrees to the buy back before hand basically agreeing that if Madrid want him in future, he will have to go there.
Otherwise, what's the benefit of a buy back if a player doesn't eventually want to go.
Surely the point would be that if they want him back and he wants to return, Madrid have a fixed price that can’t be topped by the likes of PSG or City.
But if a buyback is legal the selling club would prefer, so why not
I thought first refusal just meant the selling club gets to match the highest bid.
I changed... I realised the same.
If legal selling club would prefer it to be enforceable.
The link I posted was pretty definitive
Gap Year Sex Pest
Isn't that just a first refusal and not a buy back?
See above.
There was some talk about this in the press here this summer.
It seems that FIFA are very much against it, especially as it has been applied in Italy. There an international rule which is supposed to cover it (I'll try to find it, I posted it earlier in the window) and the FAI have outlawed it, turning it into a "first refusal" clause, as too many teams were using it to get around financial restrictions/Fair Play stuff. But as far as the press here are concerned, there's a buy back clause which RM can activate in any of the next 3 windows. I'm guessing its something of a grey area and Levy will be doing all in his powers to prevent it, assuming SR is happy at Spurs
Alasdair Gold, for example, always refers to Reguilón´s situation as it would be the player´s choice to stay with us or to move back to Madrid (for the pre-established fee).
Fixed price differs it from first refusal.
I agree with all this -but my interpretation is as it stands now its Madrid can enforce.
Hopefully it's not the same in the future, the clause should die
(fAI =Ireland?)
Found it, this from my original post just before he signed, it came from the As editor, so a decent source...
Article 18bis - "Third-party influence on clubs" of FIFA's "Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players"
No club shall enter into a contract which enables the counter club/counter clubs, and vice versa, or any third party to acquire the ability to influence inemployment and transfer-related matters its independence, its policies or the performance of its teams.
The fear is that clubs use such clauses as a way of getting round FFP and other financial restrictions and regulations. For this reason, when Madrid sold Achraf to Inter earlier in the summer, the clause was a "right to first refusal", not a unilaterally enforceable buy-back, where the new club and player have no say in the matter.
That last paragraph is mine, summarising the article in Spanish
From my understanding, what that means is for some cases, if some other clubs decide to pay huge fee to buy the player, the club that has the buy-back right can block the sale, and the other club can't do nothing. For the sale to go through you need 3 clubs, and the player to agree.
Real Madrid Transfer News: Alvaro Morata Discusses Buyback Option Amid Rumours
Juventus striker Alvaro Morata has dropped his biggest hint yet that he could turn down former club Real Madrid when they activate the buyout clause that was included in the deal that took him to Turin...
bleacherreport.com
"Buyback options aren't mandatory. Every player has the right to turn down the proposed move back."
That would make sense to me.
I hope that's right but not how I have heard it described over the last few years and is a reason I think they are crap and something EPL should rule against.From my understanding, what that means is for some cases, if some other clubs decide to pay huge fee to buy the player, the club that has the buy-back right can block the sale, and the other club can't do nothing. For the sale to go through you need 3 clubs, and the player to agree.
Real Madrid Transfer News: Alvaro Morata Discusses Buyback Option Amid Rumours
Juventus striker Alvaro Morata has dropped his biggest hint yet that he could turn down former club Real Madrid when they activate the buyout clause that was included in the deal that took him to Turin...
"Buyback options aren't mandatory. Every player has the right to turn down the proposed move back."
Chelsea, City and Pool have started to use them, Chelsea had a buyback on Ake that expired last year by all reports (40m), Pool Brewster and City Mooy which are the first I have heard of in epl. Before we tended to have sell on which were similarbut not as bad