Teasy

Was pretty poor overall last season. But instead of putting his head down and aiming to push us forward (like Bruno), he started talking to his agent about leaving. Would be fine with him going for somewhere around £80-100m. I think we could bring someone in who would give us a better midfield for less than that amount.

Right, but that's different to a pre agreed sell back fee, of say £30m. As far as I'm aware the £28m we agreed with Burnley wasn't a set fee Man City had put in this contract. Either way the article quoted isn't saying theirs a set fee at all. Only that if we decide to sell, whatever fee we are offered, must then also be offered to Madrid before a sale.

From what I can gather, split contract deals in Spain legally leave the primary club (Osasuna) owning the players full registration. The split only effects an obligation to give first refusal at a fixed fee and/or half the transfer fee to the secondary club. So no, even if it's technically split ownership it doesn't seem like any negotiating has to be done between the buying club and the secondary club (Real Madrid). Just as far as I can work out anyway.

Well people are claiming the price would be pre agreed. I don't believe a word of it mind. Unless it was a fee well above what we're paying and, as reported, only allowed in year one

Doesn't have to get used to it straight away. He could have a decent second half to the season and be worth much more than 30m Euros.

Some sites so seem to be claiming they own 50%. IF that's true then they do obviously have some leverage. Still don't believe we'd agree to allow them to ask for him back at any time in the first year for what we paid for him. That would be madness. But maybe a higher fixed fee of we decide to sell on the first year.

What do you mean I'd the clause is low?

This is what I asked before. Do they actually own any of his contract? If so what's the source?

Whey if you believe the club are crazy. Who's Jake Jackman btw?

That's what I thought. So their only leverage is to threaten to active their buy back. Which the player could just reject anyway.

Yeah good point. Not even sure it would mean a fixed fee. Normally it's means the club have to be offered the player first at whatever fee another team has offered. If it's that for 1 year I can believe they might get that clause in there. Just to avoid the trouble of Madrid activating their current buy back clause.

Do Madrid own half of his contract?

Do you believe it's genuine? Doesn't seem realistic. What would be their leverage to get the clause in their? They only have two possible options. Offer to drop their 50% sell on fee so we only pay half. Or threaten to activate their current buyback. But would the player even be interested in going back their if it only started as a threat against us? Just don't see how they get this clause in there.

I mean they could ask. But yeah not happening. Madrid don't actually own half of his contract afaik, just have a 50% sell on. I suppose they could have offered to drop the 50% sell on fee. Making the transfer much cheaper for us, and asked in return that we put a 1 year option to buy for a set fee.. Can't see it happening though.

Hmm, not sure I believe that one