The January 2015 Transfer Rumour Thread

[pauliewalnuts]

What club would have paid £7m when, A) he isn't worth it, and, B) his contract is up at the end of the season?
Even if we had the cash to splash we wouldn't be that stupid.

One is that I wonder if there is some sort of "he must play" agreement, because for some reason Lambert seems to love him. The other is the concern that we'd spend 7m or so on making him permanent in the summer on the basis of some shonky "loan first, perm in the summer" agreement we made with them.

[Dave]

The other is the concern that we'd spend 7m or so on making him permanent in the summer on the basis of some shonky "loan first, perm in the summer" agreement we made with them.

We've made some horrendous financial decisions in the past, but I can't see even us spending £7m on a player who is out of contract and able to move where he wants to on a free transfer.

I did say on the basis of an agreement made with United, though, when he came here.

How would that be enforceable on their part?

What if he doesn't want to sign for us? He has no contract with ManYoo after June and they have no control over what he does. Whether that is signing for us or somebody else.

If he does want to sign for us and we (for some reason) want to sign him, why wouldn't we just wait until July 1st when he has nothing to them with and pay him a quarter of what we would have paid to them last summer?

[saunders_heroes]

What club would have paid £7m when, A) he isn't worth it, and, B) his contract is up at the end of the season?
Even if we had the cash to splash we wouldn't be that stupid.

One is that I wonder if there is some sort of "he must play" agreement, because for some reason Lambert seems to love him. The other is the concern that we'd spend 7m or so on making him permanent in the summer on the basis of some shonky "loan first, perm in the summer" agreement we made with them.

If so it must be some kind of "gentlemen's agreement" because I can't see it being legal.
Irrespective of that I'd send him packing at the end of the season, unless there's an amazing turnaround in form.

[dave.woodhall]

I can see them having some clause whereby if he joins us permanently we have to pay them, otherwise there was no point for them in letting us have him on loan.

[KevinGage]

So, for the sake of the argument, say we broke any theoretical agreement for him to play every game during his loan spell.  Would that then void any prospective deal?

There is probably a downside to that I don't see.

[pauliewalnuts]

The other is the concern that we'd spend 7m or so on making him permanent in the summer on the basis of some shonky "loan first, perm in the summer" agreement we made with them.

We've made some horrendous financial decisions in the past, but I can't see even us spending £7m on a player who is out of contract and able to move where he wants to on a free transfer.

I did say on the basis of an agreement made with United, though, when he came here.

How would that be enforceable on their part?

What if he doesn't want to sign for us? He has no contract with ManYoo after June and they have no control over what he does. Whether that is signing for us or somebody else.

If he does want to sign for us and we (for some reason) want to sign him, why wouldn't we just wait until July 1st when he has nothing to them with and pay him a quarter of what we would have paid to them last summer?

When he came here in August, there was doubt over whether we'd complete the deal in time. I have no idea what agreement was made at the time, but maybe it was that they'd register it as a loan to start with with his registration switching to us at the end of the season, in order to get the deal over the line?

I am not suggesting that is what happened, but there's no reason why it shouldn't have, if the player was in agreement with it too, of course (that goes without saying). It certainly isn't outside the realms of possibility

[dave.woodhall]

I'm sure I read somewhere that if we want to keep him we have to pay them.

[pauliewalnuts]

What club would have paid £7m when, A) he isn't worth it, and, B) his contract is up at the end of the season?
Even if we had the cash to splash we wouldn't be that stupid.

One is that I wonder if there is some sort of "he must play" agreement, because for some reason Lambert seems to love him. The other is the concern that we'd spend 7m or so on making him permanent in the summer on the basis of some shonky "loan first, perm in the summer" agreement we made with them.

If so it must be some kind of "gentlemen's agreement" because I can't see it being legal.
Irrespective of that I'd send him packing at the end of the season, unless there's an amazing turnaround in form.

Why not? Of course it could be legal.

There are all sorts of agreements along those lines going on in football. Sell on clauses, first option clauses, all that nonsense. Ownership of players is complicated these days.

[pauliewalnuts]

I'm sure I read somewhere that if we want to keep him we have to pay them.

That's what I am getting at. There's no reason why the agreement shouldn't have been that it'd go through as a loan to start with, with a permanent deal to start on day x. Remember, this was a deal which there was much talk about not going through on time on deadline day.

[Dave]

When he came here in August, there was doubt over whether we'd complete the deal in time. I have no idea what agreement was made at the time, but maybe it was that they'd register it as a loan to start with with his registration switching to us at the end of the season, in order to get the deal over the line?

I am not suggesting that is what happened, but there's no reason why it shouldn't have, if the player was in agreement with it too, of course (that goes without saying). It certainly isn't outside the realms of possibility

It's not impossible, and I could certainly see us and them going for that - we were clearly willing to pay the money back in the summer.

Why would Cleverley go for it though? We clearly weren't his first choice, why would he say anything other than "fine, let's stroll around Villa Park for nine months and then I can go wherever I want on a free transfer next summer".

It doesn't benefit him at all to commit to joining us permanently back in the summer when he can just keep his options open.

[tomd2103]

I was not as inspired as others by him against Bournmouth. He is a body, but would not be in our best 11 now surely?

Depends on which formation we play I suppose. If we play two in midfield then he wouldn't be, but I could still see Lambert using him in a three man midfield. 

He's been pretty poor during his time with us, but I'm not sure playing in the flat three midfield formation has helped him really.  I thought he looked better against Bournemouth because we didn't play that way. 

[steffo]

Rule 1 of football: Never buy any teams shit.

[pauliewalnuts]

When he came here in August, there was doubt over whether we'd complete the deal in time. I have no idea what agreement was made at the time, but maybe it was that they'd register it as a loan to start with with his registration switching to us at the end of the season, in order to get the deal over the line?

I am not suggesting that is what happened, but there's no reason why it shouldn't have, if the player was in agreement with it too, of course (that goes without saying). It certainly isn't outside the realms of possibility

It's not impossible, and I could certainly see us and them going for that - we were clearly willing to pay the money back in the summer.

Why would Cleverley go for it though? We clearly weren't his first choice, why would he say anything other than "fine, let's stroll around Villa Park for nine months and then I can go wherever I want on a free transfer next summer".

It doesn't benefit him at all to commit to joining us permanently back in the summer when he can just keep his options open.

Because he'd have a three or four year deal set up.

Taking your logic, no player would ever sign a permanent transfer with someone else when a year from the end of their deal. Why, for example, would Fabian Delph sign a deal with us when 4 months from the end of his contract rather than keep his options open? It happens.

Maybe the deal with him was initially meant to be permanent, but with all the fucking about and toing and fro-ing, the only way they could do it in time was to structure it that way? It wouldn't be the first time a deal had happened like that.

I am not saying I think that is the case, just that it is certainly a possibility.

[dave.woodhall]

When he came here in August, there was doubt over whether we'd complete the deal in time. I have no idea what agreement was made at the time, but maybe it was that they'd register it as a loan to start with with his registration switching to us at the end of the season, in order to get the deal over the line?

I am not suggesting that is what happened, but there's no reason why it shouldn't have, if the player was in agreement with it too, of course (that goes without saying). It certainly isn't outside the realms of possibility

It's not impossible, and I could certainly see us and them going for that - we were clearly willing to pay the money back in the summer.

Why would Cleverley go for it though? We clearly weren't his first choice, why would he say anything other than "fine, let's stroll around Villa Park for nine months and then I can go wherever I want on a free transfer next summer".

It doesn't benefit him at all to commit to joining us permanently back in the summer when he can just keep his options open.

I don't think it was a de

I'm sure I read somewhere that if we want to keep him we have to pay them.

That's what I am getting at. There's no reason why the agreement shouldn't have been that it'd go through as a loan to start with, with a permanent deal to start on day x. Remember, this was a deal which there was much talk about not going through on time on deadline day.

I don't think there was anything definite in it, but rather that if we sign him we pay what was then the going rate. 

[Dave]

I'm sure I read somewhere that if we want to keep him we have to pay them.

So if we choose not to pay any money for him and he finds himself without a club or a contract in July - we are not allowed to sign him?

How would that work?

Paulie's scenario is plausible - but unlikely in my opinion, as it only works is there is the agreement of all three parties that it is definitely happening. And if that were the case, I don't see why it just wouldn't have become official on January 1st.