Douglas Luiz - Confirmed confirmed

[Lastfootstamper]

He's played alright in ten games for a team in the bottom three. I don't think he's done enough to be off just yet.

[paul_e]

He played in their last international, that international football has since been cancelled does make the international criteria pretty much void this window.

Maybe, but seeing as it's 30% of games over 2 years, maybe not.

Risso I can't be arsed to reply to you thinking that players can be forced to sign contracts, it's too late for such a pointless discussion.

[Dave]

There's not a set fee, if a player hasn't played the required number of games, then at the appeals process there are points based on what percentile the transfer fee and wages gets.  So for example, if his transfer fee is above the 50% percentile, that gives two points.  If his wages would be above the 50% percentile at the new club, that's another two points.  For playing in at least 30% of Villa's matches (in one of Europe's top leagues), he gets another point.  5 points and you pass the appeal.

To sum up then, they may or may not exercise the recall option, and opt to leave him with us for another year, but:

If Man City want him, they get him, and it doesn't matter whether Villa or the player himself say no.
They'd almost certainly get a work permit for him, if not outright then on appeal.

Bold bit is completely wrong, of course he has a choice and, therefore so do we. There can't be anything in the clause blocking him from signing a new contract with us so if they activate it we speak to him and say "whatever wage they offer we'll match and we'll guarantee you start xx% of our games, you're still young, gametime is more important than medals right now". He might want to go but they can't force him to.

Risso's correct. In an arrangement like this, the player has already given his consent to the return move when he signed with us last summer.

If they want him,  he has already agreed to the transfer back and did so nearly a year ago.

[paul_e]

There's not a set fee, if a player hasn't played the required number of games, then at the appeals process there are points based on what percentile the transfer fee and wages gets.  So for example, if his transfer fee is above the 50% percentile, that gives two points.  If his wages would be above the 50% percentile at the new club, that's another two points.  For playing in at least 30% of Villa's matches (in one of Europe's top leagues), he gets another point.  5 points and you pass the appeal.

To sum up then, they may or may not exercise the recall option, and opt to leave him with us for another year, but:

If Man City want him, they get him, and it doesn't matter whether Villa or the player himself say no.
They'd almost certainly get a work permit for him, if not outright then on appeal.

Bold bit is completely wrong, of course he has a choice and, therefore so do we. There can't be anything in the clause blocking him from signing a new contract with us so if they activate it we speak to him and say "whatever wage they offer we'll match and we'll guarantee you start xx% of our games, you're still young, gametime is more important than medals right now". He might want to go but they can't force him to.

Risso's correct. In an arrangement like this, the player has already given his consent to the return move when he signed with us last summer.

If they want him,  he has already agreed to the transfer back and did so nearly a year ago.

He'd still need to sign the agreement, it's normally a moot point because the player agreed to it and wants to go back but at the point where they action the clause he has to confirm it.

[PeterWithesShin]

He played in their last international, that international football has since been cancelled does make the international criteria pretty much void this window.

Maybe, but seeing as it's 30% of games over 2 years, maybe not.

Risso I can't be arsed to reply to you thinking that players can be forced to sign contracts, it's too late for such a pointless discussion.

There's no maybe not about it. You can't have a criteria based on the last 2 years when nearly half that time has had no games. You can't go alter the time frame as young players like Luiz will be penalised for being young.

[Dave]

There's not a set fee, if a player hasn't played the required number of games, then at the appeals process there are points based on what percentile the transfer fee and wages gets.  So for example, if his transfer fee is above the 50% percentile, that gives two points.  If his wages would be above the 50% percentile at the new club, that's another two points.  For playing in at least 30% of Villa's matches (in one of Europe's top leagues), he gets another point.  5 points and you pass the appeal.

To sum up then, they may or may not exercise the recall option, and opt to leave him with us for another year, but:

If Man City want him, they get him, and it doesn't matter whether Villa or the player himself say no.
They'd almost certainly get a work permit for him, if not outright then on appeal.

Bold bit is completely wrong, of course he has a choice and, therefore so do we. There can't be anything in the clause blocking him from signing a new contract with us so if they activate it we speak to him and say "whatever wage they offer we'll match and we'll guarantee you start xx% of our games, you're still young, gametime is more important than medals right now". He might want to go but they can't force him to.

Risso's correct. In an arrangement like this, the player has already given his consent to the return move when he signed with us last summer.

If they want him,  he has already agreed to the transfer back and did so nearly a year ago.

He'd still need to sign the agreement, it's normally a moot point because the player agreed to it and wants to go back but at the point where they action the clause he has to confirm it.

He has already signed the agreement. The return terms are agreed at the point of the original transfer. The original selling club literally has a one-way switch to enact the terms that everyone agreed and signed off at the start.

Precisely to stop the player / new club colluding in the way that you describe.

[paul_e]

He played in their last international, that international football has since been cancelled does make the international criteria pretty much void this window.

Maybe, but seeing as it's 30% of games over 2 years, maybe not.

Risso I can't be arsed to reply to you thinking that players can be forced to sign contracts, it's too late for such a pointless discussion.

There's no maybe not about it. You can't have a criteria based on the last 2 years when nearly half that time has had no games. You can't go alter the time frame as young players like Liuz will be penalised for being young.

Of course there is, less than 30% of the games in that period have been lost so even if you can argue that he would have played them all he'd miss out on the criteria. It may be changed but that there's no guarantee that any change would see him 'pass' that requirement.

[Small Rodent]

He’s not good enough for Man
city yet. But he’s good enough for us.

[cdbearsfan]

There's not a set fee, if a player hasn't played the required number of games, then at the appeals process there are points based on what percentile the transfer fee and wages gets.  So for example, if his transfer fee is above the 50% percentile, that gives two points.  If his wages would be above the 50% percentile at the new club, that's another two points.  For playing in at least 30% of Villa's matches (in one of Europe's top leagues), he gets another point.  5 points and you pass the appeal.

To sum up then, they may or may not exercise the recall option, and opt to leave him with us for another year, but:

If Man City want him, they get him, and it doesn't matter whether Villa or the player himself say no.
They'd almost certainly get a work permit for him, if not outright then on appeal.

Bold bit is completely wrong, of course he has a choice and, therefore so do we. There can't be anything in the clause blocking him from signing a new contract with us so if they activate it we speak to him and say "whatever wage they offer we'll match and we'll guarantee you start xx% of our games, you're still young, gametime is more important than medals right now". He might want to go but they can't force him to.

Risso's correct. In an arrangement like this, the player has already given his consent to the return move when he signed with us last summer.

If they want him,  he has already agreed to the transfer back and did so nearly a year ago.

He'd still need to sign the agreement, it's normally a moot point because the player agreed to it and wants to go back but at the point where they action the clause he has to confirm it.

He has already signed the agreement. The return terms are agreed at the point of the original transfer. The original selling club literally has a one-way switch to enact the terms that everyone agreed and signed off at the start.

Precisely to stop the player / new club colluding in the way that you describe.

So, he wouldn't be able to renegotiate his wages? In which case he still would be nowhere near one of the higher paid players at Man City and thus wouldn't qualify for a work permit.

[PeterWithesShin]

Ok, they won't change the criteria after losing 11 months of games. Good grief, life's too short.

[Risso]

Risso I can't be arsed to reply to you thinking that players can be forced to sign contracts, it's too late for such a pointless discussion.

As Dave has pointed out, he has already agreed to the contract.  You're making yourself look stupid now, this is contract law 1.0

[paul_e]

Also if he signed a new deal with us putting him on a wage higher than the one in the buy back and they triggered it afterwards does anyone honestly believe that wouldn't be challenged.

The player always has a choice if for no other reason than if they told him they were activating the clause and he said he didn't them to would any club go ahead with it? There is always a choice there, it's just not something that's ever been tested because normally the player wants to go back, which is why the agreed to it.

[Dave]

There's not a set fee, if a player hasn't played the required number of games, then at the appeals process there are points based on what percentile the transfer fee and wages gets.  So for example, if his transfer fee is above the 50% percentile, that gives two points.  If his wages would be above the 50% percentile at the new club, that's another two points.  For playing in at least 30% of Villa's matches (in one of Europe's top leagues), he gets another point.  5 points and you pass the appeal.

To sum up then, they may or may not exercise the recall option, and opt to leave him with us for another year, but:

If Man City want him, they get him, and it doesn't matter whether Villa or the player himself say no.
They'd almost certainly get a work permit for him, if not outright then on appeal.

Bold bit is completely wrong, of course he has a choice and, therefore so do we. There can't be anything in the clause blocking him from signing a new contract with us so if they activate it we speak to him and say "whatever wage they offer we'll match and we'll guarantee you start xx% of our games, you're still young, gametime is more important than medals right now". He might want to go but they can't force him to.

Risso's correct. In an arrangement like this, the player has already given his consent to the return move when he signed with us last summer.

If they want him,  he has already agreed to the transfer back and did so nearly a year ago.

He'd still need to sign the agreement, it's normally a moot point because the player agreed to it and wants to go back but at the point where they action the clause he has to confirm it.

He has already signed the agreement. The return terms are agreed at the point of the original transfer. The original selling club literally has a one-way switch to enact the terms that everyone agreed and signed off at the start.

Precisely to stop the player / new club colluding in the way that you describe.

So, he wouldn't be able to renegotiate his wages? In which case he still would be nowhere near one of the higher paid players at Man City and thus wouldn't qualify for a work permit.

Again, it's all in the original agreement. He has no need to - because it's in City's commitment to him when it's first proposed. 

"If we're spending £25m to buy you back then we think you're good enough (or we can get more than we're spending on you by selling you elsewhere) to warrant tripling your wages".

Just like City don't agree to it last year if it doesn't work for them,  neither do Villa (who make a big profit) or the player (who gets a huge pay-rise)

[Risso]

Ok, they won't change the criteria after losing 11 months of games. Good grief, life's too short.

Even if they didn't (and I agree with you they would) he'd breeze through the appeal on the points basis I outlined above. 
Pay him a wage that sees him in the top half of earners - 2 points.
Transfer fee in the top half of fees for the Premier League - 2 points
Played in 30% plus of Villa's matches this season - 1 point

Appeal passed.

[paul_e]

Ok, they won't change the criteria after losing 11 months of games. Good grief, life's too short.

Indeed it is, they currently haven't changed the criteria so we don't know what those criteria will be, that's really not complicated.