Jadon Sancho | Official: Loaned to Villa

Status
Not open for further replies.
hellhunter said:
I'm not entirely sure about that. Yeah they're not breaking any rules, but surely it'll make clubs think twice about Chelsea's commitment to an obligation
Click to expand...

It’s actually quite unusual for Chelsea to take a player on loan. The norm as we all know is that we tend to loan far more players out.

Irrespective clubs will put themselves first and won’t give a toss if the Sancho obligation wasn’t anything else than terms agreed .If other clubs want to put a player out on loan and hope to sell then they will but perhaps they would make sure it’s a cast iron obligation as opposed to the not really an obligation that Utd signed off .

If ,and it is only an if at this point ,he doesn’t sign on a permanent deal then it will show just how desperate Utd were to move him out or ,which is more a worry ,if it was thought by Utd management team that this was a cast iron deal then heads should roll
 
Sancho has 1 year left on his United contract and is on £14.3m salary for the year. The £5m opt out fee will cover some of his wages. Another club will likely cover max of 50% of his wages for the next loan. So United would only have to pay him £2m of his wages until he leaves on a free. Losing the extra £15m from Chelsea is frustrating but it could be even worse.

At least he will be gone no matter what, by this time next year anyway.
 
Last edited:
The holy trinity 68 said:
Sancho has 1 year left on his United contract and is on £5.2m salary for the year. The £5m opt out fee will cover his full wages, at least we are not having to pay his salary again. Another club will probably cover 50% of his wages for the next loan. Losing the extra £15m from Chelsea is frustrating but it could be worse.

At least he will be gone no matter what, by this time next year.
Click to expand...
Where did you get that from? He earns much more than that
 
All the noise and his performance level indicate he will be return to sender this week. Hopefully we can find a buyer quickly.
 
KiD MoYeS said:
All the noise and his performance level indicate he will be return to sender this week. Hopefully we can find a buyer quickly.
Click to expand...

Wonder if he feels he is a scapegoat at Chelsea....

Its going to be hard for any club to get him playing though... he was given time off by Ten Hag to focus on himself, then he fell out with him... went Dortmund and didnt convince anyone there... went Chelsea and couldn' convince anyone there...

I wouldn't even say he will have low confidence, he will have no confidence going into summer
 
KiD MoYeS said:
All the noise and his performance level indicate he will be return to sender this week. Hopefully we can find a buyer quickly.
Click to expand...
There's a small part of me which wonders if such a public humiliation might finally alter his mindset a little.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
There's a small part of me which wonders if such a public humiliation might finally alter his mindset a little.
Click to expand...

Can’t imagine that happening. He wasn’t exactly performing well when he went for the «freedom» comment. Not really sure he cares at this point. He was happy to sit on the sideline for ages and jet off to New York for parties.
 
B20 said:
For one, how many loans with an obligation to buy do you reckon Chelsea plan on making over the next year or two?

Second, it's not like it's a breach of contract.

At worst, the next club negotiating such a deal will be looking to have a larger opt-out clause inserted. Or none at all. So that I suppose could impact Chelsea's ability to opt out as easily on the next deal. Honestly, a rather bland outcome.
Click to expand...
Above all, it demonstrates United's poor transfer dealings over any perceived sneakiness from Chelsea.
 
The ego must be getting a little smaller knowing Chelsea would rather hand over a £5 million penalty than keep him.
No chance Woodward would have inserted these clauses which we’ve been doing lately
 
Given that the manager keeps playing him despite everything then hopefully he puts in a performance in the final and tricks someone into thinking there's some value left in him.
 
groovyalbert said:
Has there ever been a case where a club has spent money on not signing a player? Damning
Click to expand...

It’s a loan fee. I can’t stand the guy but it’s really that simple. If you sign him permanently there is a transfer fee, if you decline then you pay the loan fee for the year he was with you.
 
Pexbo said:
It’s a loan fee. I can’t stand the guy but it’s really that simple. If you sign him permanently there is a transfer fee, if you decline then you pay the loan fee for the year he was with you.
Click to expand...

No... its not a loan fee. Sancho signed on loan with obligation to buy... so Chelsea will be paying a penalty for not signing him.
 
romufc said:
No... its not a loan fee. Sancho signed on loan with obligation to buy... so Chelsea will be paying a penalty for not signing him.
Click to expand...
It's just different words to describe the same thing.
 
romufc said:
No... it’s not a loan fee. Sancho signed on loan with obligation to buy... so Chelsea will be paying a penalty for not signing him.
Click to expand...
Pure semantics.
 
All that 5M opt out fee seems more like a loan fee which you don't pay if you decide to buy the player.

It's a matter of perspective but an obligation to buy is not actually an obligation if you can opt out of it.
 
GlazersHater said:
All that 5M opt out fee seems more like a loan fee which you don't pay if you decide to buy the player.

It's a matter of perspective but an obligation to buy is not actually an obligation if you can opt out of it.
Click to expand...
This is it really - it simply got reported in a misleading way.
 
saivet said:
This is it really - it simply got reported in a misleading way.
Click to expand...

I'm -very clearly- not an expert in legal affairs, but wouldn't presenting something as an obligation to buy (and therefore 25M in future income without considering savings in future wages) when it's in fact an option to buy that guarantees only 20% of that amount, fall into the category of defrauding shareholders?

I mean it's either that or extreme levels of incompetence/negligence in a millionaire deal by whoever is in charge. Which is what they would probably admit publicly if dragged into court.
 
You’d think the penny would finally drop for this cnut and he’d try and get his career back on track but he seems a lost cause. Unfortunately it’s us that are lumbered with him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.