Jadon Sancho - Chelsea (loan) watch | £5M opt-out fee

[Tallis]

Not sure it works like that.

Loans within the jurisdiction of the FA are one thing. Loans(temporary transfers) to non FA affiliated clubs are another.

I am pretty sure if he returns to Man Utd his pay and conditions would revert to the original agreement if they don’t it would in effect be a new deal which I very much doubt he would be advised to sign

I didn’t explain it well. I agree that if he returns to Man Utd, the terms revert to the contract we have with him.

What I am saying is that there is only 1 year of contract remaining with Man Utd. So it’s easy for us to pay off part of his salary and sell him to someone. The new club doesn’t have to pay him what we are paying him and is free to agree whatever wages they think suitable and acceptable to Sancho. If he had 3-4 years of contract remaining, he would be very difficult to get rid off due to his wages

 

[terraloo]

Show me examples of all these obligation to buy transfers that have not been completed.

Please read my post again.

 

[Woziak]

I hope he still goes, but after his "Freedom" message to Rashford it would at least be somewhat funny to see him sit on the bench here next year.

Even if its nonsense, stories that your club are willing to pay to NOT buy you, and people totally believing it could happen, must be a wake up call for sancho surely.

If that doesn't make him get his head down and work, nothing ever will.

When you give a 21 year old a 5 year contract with £250-300k per week it’s just far too much, why would he get his head down when he’s already convinced himself that everyone else is at fault, Jadon has become the epitome of a the modern generation, he’ll sleep easy next season knowing our club will stay owe him £13m for one more season.

And he probably thinks he can get another huge contract at 25/26 as he’ll go a free after a loan next season. United must sell this clown in the summer even if it’s £15m break even fee just get rid, he’s everything that was wrong about the last decade at our club.

 

[Woziak]

Chelsea are not going to back out of an obligation. If they do it for no reason other than changing their mind, no other club would want to do that type of deal with them again.

Totally agree it looks there might have been some hidden residuals like a bonus for top 4 taking the total transfer fee to nearer £30m plus an increased loan fee.

INEOS are definitely a lot of things but naive in negotiating transfers and player contracts is not one.

Chelsea must have agreed wages with Jadon as well for the deal to be ratified as a loan with an obligation to buy. Jadon would not have accepted less than £200k per week which is £70k more than Cole Palmer!

I think this is the real issue , Chelsea have had Jadon for 9 months and worked out already that’s he’s not worth £25m and he’s definitely not worth £200k per week for 5 years.

However it’s a loan with an obligation so they will have to do the deal, either way United win, they’ll be quite happy to take the £10-£15m penalty payment and then ship Jadon off to Bundersliga or Saudi for another
£15-20m.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

Please read my post again.

Your posts on this are nonsense.

 

[duffer]

Totally agree it looks there might have been some hidden residuals like a bonus for top 4 taking the total transfer fee to nearer £30m plus an increased loan fee.

20 to 25 mil based on where Chelsea finished was reported by pretty much everyone who reported on the deal. Why would it now be 20 to 30 mil?

And there can't be "an increased loan fee" as there was no loan fee if we're believing what was reported.

If we're not believing what was reported then fair enough, Man United fans can say they're getting £100 mil and Chelsea fans can say we're paying £20k.

 

[Teja]

So the whole culture reset is off then. Let's get Rashford back in and his mate Jesse while we're at it. Oh and Pogba isn't busy at the moment either. Sounds like a promising team that!

I'm sure Amorim won't shy away from enforcing standards. Sancho wouldn't be around for very long if he goes back to his fifa playing ways and not turning up for training / not putting in a shift. You can also choose to loan him out after giving him half a season under Amorim. I'm generally not too worried about the cultural reset part of the equation.

If you're evaluating just his ability, I think he could do a better job than Eriksen at #10 as a rotation option and would rather have him than an extra 6m or whatever we get by sending him on loan.

 

[terraloo]

Totally agree it looks there might have been some hidden residuals like a bonus for top 4 taking the total transfer fee to nearer £30m plus an increased loan fee.

INEOS are definitely a lot of things but naive in negotiating transfers and player contracts is not one.

Chelsea must have agreed wages with Jadon as well for the deal to be ratified as a loan with an obligation to buy. Jadon would not have accepted less than £200k per week which is £70k more than Cole Palmer!

I think this is the real issue , Chelsea have had Jadon for 9 months and worked out already that’s he’s not worth £25m and he’s definitely not worth £200k per week for 5 years.

However it’s a loan with an obligation so they will have to do the deal, either way United win, they’ll be quite happy to take the £10-£15m penalty payment and then ship Jadon off to Bundersliga or Saudi for another
£15-20m.

The reports suggest that in most instances where there is an obligation to buy the players wages are agreed as part of the loan to buy deal but in this instance it is stated that there isn’t an agreement in place between Sancho and Chelsea. If an agreement can’t be reached or isn’t reached then the players simply wouldn’t join Chelsea. Irrespective I very much doubt he would be paid close to £200k a week nor would I expect him to be offered a deal in excess of 5 years.Utd will still have to pay the balance of his initial signing on fee be he staying or leaving

Over the years players have gone to other clubs on obligation to buy and those conditions haven’t been met for instance Bakyoko some conditions are obvious others simply don’t come to light indeed none of us knew about the


It was pretty clear that Utd wanted him out the door this deal was signed very late into the window and Chelsea it seems , again according to reports, if the deal goes ahead will pay between £20 and £25 million based on where Chelsea finish up.

Utd won’t be happy if the deal doesn’t go ahead it’s pretty clear that he is a significant drag on the balance sheet with at least £30 million left to be amortised and him contracted wage wise to be paid around another £30 million.

 

[Woziak]

The reports suggest that in most instances where there is an obligation to buy the players wages are agreed as part of the loan to buy deal but in this instance it is stated that there isn’t an agreement in place between Sancho and Chelsea. If an agreement can’t be reached or isn’t reached then the players simply wouldn’t join Chelsea. Irrespective I very much doubt he would be paid close to £200k a week nor would I expect him to be offered a deal in excess of 5 years.Utd will still have to pay the balance of his initial signing on fee be he staying or leaving

Over the years players have gone to other clubs on obligation to buy and those conditions haven’t been met for instance Bakyoko some conditions are obvious others simply don’t come to light indeed none of us knew about the


It was pretty clear that Utd wanted him out the door this deal was signed very late into the window and Chelsea it seems , again according to reports, if the deal goes ahead will pay between £20 and £25 million based on where Chelsea finish up.

Utd won’t be happy if the deal doesn’t go ahead it’s pretty clear that he is a significant drag on the balance sheet with at least £30 million left to be amortised and him contracted wage wise to be paid around another £30 million.

He has one year left as an asset on the book from summer of 25/26 so your most definitely incorrect on that his amortised cost is £73m divided by 5 which is £14.6m which is what United will owe Dortmund and as an asset his amortised costs is now £14.6m plus his rumoured £13m wages which would be reduced by 25% next season as no champions league football.
So his cost to return for one year from 2025/26 season would be roughly £24.3m not £60m.

United would only have to agree £14.6m for the transfer to be neutral on the balance sheet. It’s common misconception that’s he’s only been at United for 3 years when this loan to Chelsea is his 4th year at the club having had a loan to Dortmund in his third year and being pretty awful in his first two.

If you look up his contract your see he signed for United in 21/22 season so 24/25 season is his 4th year. Glad to clear that up for you.

 

[Woziak]

i wonder if Sancho will be up for some sun and fun in Saudi

Yep this is what I’m thinking, he clearly just wants huge wages and isn’t really bothered about chasing domestic and European honours.

I mean he’s 25 in a couple of weeks, so he might think 2 years in Saudi with huge wages then come back to Europe.

All the Saudis need to do is show him a swanky flat with Gold PS5 and 120 inch screen with COD and the new FIFA on it and he’ll probably sign instantly.

 

[Woziak]

20 to 25 mil based on where Chelsea finished was reported by pretty much everyone who reported on the deal. Why would it now be 20 to 30 mil?

And there can't be "an increased loan fee" as there was no loan fee if we're believing what was reported.

If we're not believing what was reported then fair enough, Man United fans can say they're getting £100 mil and Chelsea fans can say we're paying £20k.

We’re not getting £100m it’s nothing like that however there are bonus clauses for Chelsea achieving CL qualification, you may be right it’s probably a max of £25m however on twitter earlier some people were suggesting it could be up to €28-30m with a bonus loan fee for CL qualification and the penalty might be as high as €15-17.5m?
I Must apologise the twitter feeds where Euros not pounds which does suggest that £25m is a maximum.

I doubt any of it is true but the one thing both United and Chelsea fans can agree on, is that he’s not worth more than £100-120k per week and the intensity and Pace of the PL doesn’t really suit his game.

I genuinely admire Chelsea for sticking to the guns that no young player will be paid in excess of £150,000 per week.

The days of paying any PL player over £200k per week are soon coming to an end, only genuine World Elite Stars that do it week in week out for a period of three to four years consistently deserve these sort of huge contracts and only when they are 23 to 25.

 

[always_hoping]

Seen a stat he hasn't completed a cross or had a shot on target in 2025

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

How do you know there is a legally binding obligation to do anything?

Seriously? So any deal, be it reported by Romano, Ornstein, The Athletic… our posts are now “yeah, but how do you know?”

Putting aside its Wheeler (so (1) it’ll be bollocks about United and (2) whatever he says, it’s the opposite), surely you have an idea of how football deals work? It’s a loan with an obligation (set wording)... It’s contractual (it has to be under football rules)… That makes it legally binding.

The amount is based on league position and some add ons (which Chelsea have zero chance at), so it’s likely c£20m.

 

[terraloo]

He has one year left as an asset on the book from summer of 25/26 so your most definitely incorrect on that his amortised cost is £73m divided by 5 which is £14.6m which is what United will owe Dortmund and as an asset his amortised costs is now £14.6m plus his rumoured £13m wages which would be reduced by 25% next season as no champions league football.
So his cost to return for one year from 2025/26 season would be roughly £24.3m not £60m.

United would only have to agree £14.6m for the transfer to be neutral on the balance sheet. It’s common misconception that’s he’s only been at United for 3 years when this loan to Chelsea is his 4th year at the club having had a loan to Dortmund in his third year and being pretty awful in his first two.

If you look up his contract your see he signed for United in 21/22 season so 24/25 season is his 4th year. Glad to clear that up for you.

In the 24/25 year there will be £15 million ish to be amortised and in 25/26 another £15 million ish so that’s £30 million. The fact he is on loan in 24/25 is irrelevant
irrespective a £14.6 million fee won’t pay or have a neutral impact on the balance sheet once you add in all the little niceties such as nic, agents fees balance of signing of fees it’s almost certainly way above that number

 

[Woziak]

In the 24/25 year there will be £15 million ish to be amortised and in 25/26 another £15 million ish so that’s £30 million. The fact he is on loan in 24/25 is irrelevant
irrespective a £14.6 million fee won’t pay or have a neutral impact on the balance sheet once you add in all the little niceties such as nic, agents fees balance of signing of fees it’s almost certainly way above that number

The 24/25 season is over when he returns in August. The season ends the 30th June 2025 and all the accounts for that season are posted in September 2025. This season costs have been paid already in September 2024.

I’m sure you saw SJR interview when he clearly said we have roughly £89m to pay for players that INEOS did not buy like Casemiro, Hojlund, Antony, Sancho. That payment will be our last instalment for Jadon Sancho in September 2025 and then his yearly amortised fee of £14.6m will show in the 25/26 accounts which will be posted in September 2026.

The footballing accounting period for 24/25 season finishes on 30th June 2025. The cost of the instalment is normally made at the beginning of the season however on the accounts it will show as an annual amortised cost against the Asset of the player for the length of his contract.

This is why SJR was being very factual about paying for players in September that he never bought.

You can’t buy a player on an instalment plan that joins in August 2021 for £73m and then pay your first payment of £14.6m in September 2022 and move your amortisation for that player by 1 year as well.

The transfer window normally finishes in September and this is when player’s agent fees, registration and full payment or first of an agreed instalment payment plan are made. When a player is sold the team that buys that player pays his Agent Fees, not the selling club, the only part where you are correct would be that if United sold Jadon, the club may need to agree a pay off due to his high wages however I highly doubt INEOS would entertain that, they’d just let him rot in the youth set up for a year or loan him out for the last season of his contract and then let him became a free agent.

 

[terraloo]

The 24/25 season is over when he returns in August. The season ends the 30th June 2025 and all the accounts for that season are posted in September 2025. This season costs have been paid already in September 2024.

Most ( not all admittedly) loans end once the last game of the season has been played in May. Players at their end of their contracts on 30/6 still are paid by the parent club for a short period . The 1/8 date is irrelevant in payment terms

I’m sure you saw SJR interview when he clearly said we have roughly £89m to pay for players that INEOS did not buy like Casemiro, Hojlund, Antony, Sancho. That payment will be our last instalment for Jadon Sancho in September 2025 and then his yearly amortised fee of £14.6m will show in the 25/26 accounts which will be posted in September 2026.

Sanchos fee may due to be paid in September 25 under the original transfer but I am pretty sure any final payment has to be advanced if a permanent transfer from Utd as well as all outstanding sums due to him when/ if a permanent transfer takes place. The amortised balance will be reflected in the subsequent accounts . In terms of availability of cash to Man Utd to pay BD it depends on the fee arrangement between Utd & Chelsea

The footballing accounting period for 24/25 season finishes on 30th June 2025. The cost of the instalment is normally made at the beginning of the season however on the accounts it will show as an annual amortised cost against the Asset of the player for the length of his contract.

This is why SJR was being very factual about paying for players in September that he never bought.

You can’t buy a player on an instalment plan that joins in August 2021 for £73m and then pay your first payment of £14.6m in September 2022 and move your amortisation for that player by 1 year as well.

There is no set dates when instalments have to be met that’s a matter between the clubs save they have to be settled within the length of the contract. Yes amortisation is set against contract length although FFP/PSR now has restrictions. I don’t know if you have seen any confirmation yet but as the standard accounting procedure and FFP in this regard aren’t aligned accounts may well need to be viewed differently

The transfer window normally finishes in September and this is when player’s agent fees, registration and full payment or first of an agreed instalment payment plan are made. When a player is sold the team that buys that player pays his Agent Fees, not the selling club, the only part where you are correct would be that if United sold Jadon, the club may need to agree a pay off due to his high wages however I highly doubt INEOS would entertain that, they’d just let him rot in the youth set up for a year or loan him out for the last season of his contract and then let him became a free agent.

One transfer windows in September one in January but a club can buy a player at any time they just can’t register them. With regard to fees payable to agents it’s far from as clear cut as you suggest it would be worth your while looking at the clubs annual submission of fees paid to agents/ intermediaries
See attached and scroll down to Utds for example
https://www.thefa.com/-/media/thefa...24/football-agent-transactions-2023-2024.ashx

 

[Boneli]

First shot on target since Boxing Day. Come on Chelsea, sign him up!

 

[Woziak]

Most ( not all admittedly) loans end once the last game of the season has been played in May. Players at their end of their contracts on 30/6 still are paid by the parent club for a short period . The 1/8 date is irrelevant in payment terms

Sanchos fee may due to be paid in September 25 under the original transfer but I am pretty sure any final payment has to be advanced if a permanent transfer from Utd as well as all outstanding sums due to him when/ if a permanent transfer takes place. The amortised balance will be reflected in the subsequent accounts . In terms of availability of cash to Man Utd to pay BD it depends on the fee arrangement between Utd & Chelsea


There is no set dates when instalments have to be met that’s a matter between the clubs save they have to be settled within the length of the contract. Yes amortisation is set against contract length although FFP/PSR now has restrictions. I don’t know if you have seen any confirmation yet but as the standard accounting procedure and FFP in this regard aren’t aligned accounts may well need to be viewed differently

One transfer windows in September one in January but a club can buy a player at any time they just can’t register them. With regard to fees payable to agents it’s far from as clear cut as you suggest it would be worth your while looking at the clubs annual submission of fees paid to agents/ intermediaries
See attached and scroll down to Utds for example
https://www.thefa.com/-/media/thefa...24/football-agent-transactions-2023-2024.ashx

Just face the facts, he’s being transferred to Chelsea for £22-25m and that’s tough because he’s shite in the EPL and for United that’s a huge win with his ridiculous wages gone next season.

Or pay the penalty which is definitely at least £10m but he’ll bang a few goals and assists in, Chelsea Fans will talk how good he in the CL for next season and then he’ll literally go awol 3 months after signing his new contract for Chelsea!

Let’s be honest this is exactly how this plays out !

 

[Brightonian]

Apologies if I'm repeating what's already been said.

We've all taken the 'loan with obligation to buy (LWOTB)' at face value because they always seem to have worked out. But surely it was always a given there needed to be an out clause, because you can't guarantee the player will agree to the contract offered by the new club. You can't force them to sign if they don't want to. So presumably all LWOTB have always had some kind of mechanism to allow for that situation.

 

[duffer]

Or pay the penalty which is definitely at least £10m

It's definitely, at most, £1 million.

 

[matsdf]

Apologies if I'm repeating what's already been said.

We've all taken the 'loan with obligation to buy (LWOTB)' at face value because they always seem to have worked out. But surely it was always a given there needed to be an out clause, because you can't guarantee the player will agree to the contract offered by the new club. You can't force them to sign if they don't want to. So presumably all LWOTB have always had some kind of mechanism to allow for that situation.

The only thing that makes sense is that the contract is determined when the loan deal is signed.

 

[Ibi Dreams]

Apologies if I'm repeating what's already been said.

We've all taken the 'loan with obligation to buy (LWOTB)' at face value because they always seem to have worked out. But surely it was always a given there needed to be an out clause, because you can't guarantee the player will agree to the contract offered by the new club. You can't force them to sign if they don't want to. So presumably all LWOTB have always had some kind of mechanism to allow for that situation.

I would have thought that the new signing contract would already be agreed upon, at least in principle, at the time of the loan. LWOTB seems to me like it's essentially a sale but one that works better for each team's accounting department

 

[Damien]

Thoughts from r/chelseafc

All our wingers look pretty inconsistent/ineffective under Maresca so I'm not going to give up on him, but yeah, he's been nothing special here.

For 25m he’s a fine rotation option but it’s abundantly clear that he’s a very limited player

He stands there with the ball, tries 2-3 feints, cuts up onto his right foot and passes back to Enzo. Literally his loop the past 3 months

I think that there's a player in there, but given the wages and the number of winger options we already have, idk whether it was the right move. Does feel like we've just done United a favour more than we've helped ourselves, esp given form since the winter break...

Nobody has talked about his form enough- he’s been bad.
All he does is attempt to dribble past a few players/ but I can’t recall a single time he’s made a dangerous cross, let alone taking a shot.
But I can’t blame him, our entire build up is so slow he can’t do much because by the time ball comes to him, defense has lined up perfectly to stop us.
Sideways passing tactics never helps anyone apart from raking up pass completion stats.

He plays like he belongs in five-a-side football. I just don’t understand how this guy even has fans with how little he shows in matches that matters. I miss the time last season where Mudryk and Noni started games consecutively.

The news that we have a buyout option for the mandatory buyout clause is great news and we should get out and not pull a Joao Felix for the second time.
There is no "great player in there somewhere" if there was, we'd have seen it consistently. The same applied/applies to Felix.

Why haven't we made his move permanent yet? Don't wait till summer ,get him on permanent basis now. This guy suits whats our management needs,a hyped up inconsistent and under performing young player.

Antony might legitimately been the better United winger

He is.very average. Besides his cheap tricks, he doesn't contribute much it seems.

Also seen a bunch of the same excuses given for him here like him needing a proper fullback to support him and a striker to link up with.

 

[cafecillos]

You have to love the contractual clauses discussion, as if any of us had a fecking clue what they signed

 

[romufc]

Thoughts from r/chelseafc












Also seen a bunch of the same excuses given for him here like him needing a proper fullback to support him and a striker to link up with.

He just isnt good enough for the PL, its that simple.

For some reason, he has a loyal following that will give 101 excuses.

 

[stefan92]

He just isnt good enough for the PL, its that simple.

For some reason, he has a loyal following that will give 101 excuses.

I think by now there are three groups of people.

Those who think he never was that good/talented.
Those who think he just got worse.
Those who think this is a (very long) run of bad form.

But the longer time goes on the weaker the arguments for the latter get...

 

[duffer]

You have to love the contractual clauses discussion, as if any of us had a fecking clue what they signed

The certainty in which people state utterly made-up clauses and figures is pretty funny.

 

[Apokalips]

Apologies if I'm repeating what's already been said.

We've all taken the 'loan with obligation to buy (LWOTB)' at face value because they always seem to have worked out. But surely it was always a given there needed to be an out clause, because you can't guarantee the player will agree to the contract offered by the new club. You can't force them to sign if they don't want to. So presumably all LWOTB have always had some kind of mechanism to allow for that situation.

I am pretty sure that with obligation deals, the full deal has all been agreed on all sides already to prevent anyone being left hanging. The structure with it officially being a loan first is basically accounting manipulation so that the actual transfer counts in the next season's budget. Mbappe went to PSG the same way and everyone knew it was not really a loan but for accounting purposes.

In my opinion, the only penalty that would make sense would be Chelsea paying the agreed purchase price otherwise the "obligation" is useless. What would stop any club agreeing an obligation to sign a player for 50m but then cancel the deal and pay a nominal penalty way below the agreed price for the year loan they had? The selling club would have been screwed over. They may be able to sell elsewhere but that is a) not guaranteed to even top them up to the original agreed price and b) they are now liable for the players wages again when they had budgeted for that player gone. By paying the agreed fee and saving on wages Chelsea would still be saving money and a squad space they had otherwise committed to, which is what they want.

 

[Tallis]

What is unclear to me is that if this is a buy obligation with a break clause, then it’s not an obligation at all. We should just have announced it as an option to buy. Why all the drama calling it an obligation.

Isn’t obligation to buy with break = option to buy ?

 

[romufc]

I am pretty sure that with obligation deals, the full deal has all been agreed on all sides already to prevent anyone being left hanging. The structure with it officially being a loan first is basically accounting manipulation so that the actual transfer counts in the next season's budget. Mbappe went to PSG the same way and everyone knew it was not really a loan but for accounting purposes.

In my opinion, the only penalty that would make sense would be Chelsea paying the agreed purchase price otherwise the "obligation" is useless. What would stop any club agreeing an obligation to sign a player for 50m but then cancel the deal and pay a nominal penalty way below the agreed price for the year loan they had? The selling club would have been screwed over. They may be able to sell elsewhere but that is a) not guaranteed to even top them up to the original agreed price and b) they are now liable for the players wages again when they had budgeted for that player gone. By paying the agreed fee and saving on wages Chelsea would still be saving money and a squad space they had otherwise committed to, which is what they want.

I think this narrative that it would be easy to get out a obligation to buy is a bit silly. There is a reason why its an obligation to buy, not a straight loan or loan with option. It means the contracts between the player and club have been agreed.

Like you say... what stops teams loaning with obligation? Teams would go in for a loan to obligation and set a ridiculous high fee so they can get the loan.

 

[nmm85]

What is unclear to me is that if this is a buy obligation with a break clause, then it’s not an obligation at all. We should just have announced it as an option to buy. Why all the drama calling it an obligation.

Isn’t obligation to buy with break = option to buy ?

From my understanding, most obligations will have a break clause included but most of the time they aren't really worth activating as the penalty is so high.

 

[romufc]

From my understanding, most obligations will have a break clause included but most of the time they aren't really worth activating as the penalty is so high.

Also, tbh this has been reported by one journalist who isn't reliable. I bet you Chris Wheeler prob has no idea how contracts work.

 

[pcaming]

It's definitely, at most, £1 million.

It will be well above that.

What is unclear to me is that if this is a buy obligation with a break clause, then it’s not an obligation at all. We should just have announced it as an option to buy. Why all the drama calling it an obligation.

Isn’t obligation to buy with break = option to buy ?

It's not a break clause, it's a penalty if they don't go through with it. I'm sure every type of contract like that has one. If we are half competent the clause will not be worth it for them to activate.

 

[Tallis]

From my understanding, most obligations will have a break clause included but most of the time they aren't really worth activating as the penalty is so high.

That would make sense. Presumably, these are a percent of the value being translated. In this case, given the transfer fee is not very high as compared to the wages they may have to pay Sancho, Chelsea are probably ok paying the 5/10m to get rid.

 

[terraloo]

What is unclear to me is that if this is a buy obligation with a break clause, then it’s not an obligation at all. We should just have announced it as an option to buy. Why all the drama calling it an obligation.

Isn’t obligation to buy with break = option to buy ?

Not totally

An opinion to buy comes with no financial penalty if that option isn’t taken up.

What seems to be the case here is that

1) If Chelsea finish in the top 14 that’s one clause met
2) it is being reported ( and yes I know that is just a report ) Chelsea and Sancho at the time of the loan didn’t agree the wages post the loan period
3) Other clauses now are stated to be in place one of which seems to be around a financial penalty if Chelsea don’t buy him. Here we have no idea as to the quantum of the penalty

When Gareth Hall went to Newcastle from Chelsea on an obligation to buy ironically it like the main clause that Newcastle had to finish in the top 14 it later transpired that there were indeed other clauses

 

[duffer]

It will be well above that.

Or it might well be below that.

 

[El-Manos]

Sancho Chelsea don’t even want him now. At least he’s free though

 

[the_cliff]

People arguing about a deal trying to make it somehow look good for us.

We signed Sancho for 80+ million, gave him 250+k a week, gave him a 3 month paid holiday during the season and on 2 consecutive loans with us contributing to his wages.

Even if its 10 million lets hope Chelsea do us a solid...

 

[Shinjch]

Nothing player in doing very little shocker.

He probably needs to go to a different league.

 

[romufc]

Sancho Chelsea don’t even want him now. At least he’s free though

He's been out commenting on Rashford post, asking to join him at Villa,

Its almost as if he is a scapegoat....