Douglas Luiz - Confirmed confirmed

[Dave]

We sign a player and then qualify for the champions league at the expense of the club he came from, they try to activate the clause, we and the player say bollocks. Does anyone honestly think the player would end up leaving in those circumstances?

We and the player don't get around to saying bollocks, we would simply look at the contract that all parties signed and say "yes, that's what we all agreed to, best of luck in the Europa League Douglas".

[paul_e]

We sign a player and then qualify for the champions league at the expense of the club he came from, they try to activate the clause, we and the player say bollocks. Does anyone honestly think the player would end up leaving in those circumstances?

We and the player don't get around to saying bollocks, we would simply look at the contract that all parties signed and say "yes, that's what we all agreed to, best of luck in the Europa League Douglas".

Like when Suarez signed for Arsenal do you mean?

[Small Rodent]

There’s the Villa fan side of it that time would think he loves the club like we do. Why would he leave? And there’s the reality side of it. The business side of it. These players aren’t tied to us or anyone else emotionally. And that includes Jack at the end of the day.

Absolutely...a better offer...even an equal offer for a better team is attractive.

Fuck it...I can believe many players would take a pay cut to sit on the bench at some world famous teams.

But they do. All the time. But at that moment they are all convinced they will start or at least play a significant role for the new team. Even Danny Drinkwater when he went to Chelsea as a PL champion didn’t think he’d be at Burnley a short time later.

I said “can” not “can’t”....i agree with you.

Or maybe I’m getting confused?

Who cares!!!!!! What a day!!!!

[Dave]

We sign a player and then qualify for the champions league at the expense of the club he came from, they try to activate the clause, we and the player say bollocks. Does anyone honestly think the player would end up leaving in those circumstances?

We and the player don't get around to saying bollocks, we would simply look at the contract that all parties signed and say "yes, that's what we all agreed to, best of luck in the Europa League Douglas".

Like when Suarez signed for Arsenal do you mean?

Nope. Literally nothing like that at all.

[PeterWithesShin]

We sign a player and then qualify for the champions league at the expense of the club he came from, they try to activate the clause, we and the player say bollocks. Does anyone honestly think the player would end up leaving in those circumstances?

We and the player don't get around to saying bollocks, we would simply look at the contract that all parties signed and say "yes, that's what we all agreed to, best of luck in the Europa League Douglas".

Like when Suarez signed for Arsenal do you mean?

When did Arsenal sell him to Liverpool and insert a buy back clause?

Or do you mean the clause that meant Liverpool had to discuss the transfer bid with Suarez and that it was never a release clause? As confirmed by the brilliantly named Dick Law, who was the Arsenal transfer negotiator.

[Risso]

We sign a player and then qualify for the champions league at the expense of the club he came from, they try to activate the clause, we and the player say bollocks. Does anyone honestly think the player would end up leaving in those circumstances?

We and the player don't get around to saying bollocks, we would simply look at the contract that all parties signed and say "yes, that's what we all agreed to, best of luck in the Europa League Douglas".

Like when Suarez signed for Arsenal do you mean?

Suarez wasn't a buy back situation, and it wasn't even a buy-out situation, as even Arsenal acknowledged.  All the clause in that instance stated was that Liverpool had to inform him about any bids.

[eamonn]

Maybe Dick Law could help us keep Luiz.

[PeterWithesShin]

As Dick Law *giggle* said

"That spring, news got round to us that Suarez wanted out of Liverpool,” he said.

“We got information that showed us what was negotiated between Liverpool and the player, and in our internal conversations decided that the clause was meaningless, that it was not a buy-out and it didn’t obligate Liverpool to do anything apart from have a conversation.

“So, whoever agreed to that clause in the Suarez camp was being less than clever because it was never a buy-out. What there was, was an obligation to discuss a transfer if a threshold was met and that threshold was £40m.”

Law added: “Now, we didn’t know if Liverpool received an offer of £40m whether they would say, 'that’s not more than £40m'. We could have gone with £45m, but the point is we knew there was never a buy-out.

“So, it was never going to be a bid of £40m+1, it was always going to be the start of a negotiation.”

[Villafirst]

He's had a handful of decent games, he won't get in Citeh's midfield. Better staying at Villa with regular game time instead of warming their bench....

[Toronto Villa]

What a do recall about the Suarez story was that there was a clause and that Liverpool won the ensuing bidding war to keep him.

[paul_e]

I mentioned the Suarez thing because contract clauses can be a messy thing. I don't for 1 second believe Man City will have fucked it up like that but I also don't think it's as simple as them clicking their fingers and back he goes. The player will always have a say.

All of which is a massive departure from the point anyway which is that them activating it is a bad idea for all parties unless Man City are planning on starting regularly.

[PeterWithesShin]

It wasn't messy though, it was really clear. The media didn't understand it and reported it wrong, the contract itself was really straight forward.

[OzVilla]

I keep hearing about the buy back clause and the possibility of City maybe buying him back to on sell.

How long does this buy back clause last for, 2 years? If City play it clever surely another year with us playing week in week out is better for them than having a 3rd choice midfielder and stopping his development.

If Man City did buy him back, especially if it was for the purpose of selling him on again, whats to stop us putting in a bid for him? If they bought him back for $25m to on sell for $40m wouldn't it just be easier to do a deal with us involving us paying another $15m to rip up the agreement?

[dave17]

I keep hearing about the buy back clause and the possibility of City maybe buying him back to on sell.

How long does this buy back clause last for, 2 years? If City play it clever surely another year with us playing week in week out is better for them than having a 3rd choice midfielder and stopping his development.

If Man City did buy him back, especially if it was for the purpose of selling him on again, whats to stop us putting in a bid for him? If they bought him back for $25m to on sell for $40m wouldn't it just be easier to do a deal with us involving us paying another $15m to rip up the agreement?

With the 5 subs rule in place it probably makes sense for city to use him to close out those 4-0 games to save the legs of the first 11. Personally I think he’s been player of the year based upon his post restart form. Worked tirelessly, been great on and off the ball. Grealish will always get the plaudits but without luiz we would be down

[AsTallAsLions]

What a player.