Rooney buy back clause?

[kiltarlity]

According to the commentry on Setanta, Rooney has a buy back clause in his contract. I cannot remember hearing this mentioned elsewhere, do you think it's true.

Graham

[Yngwie]

The commentator definitely said that Stoke have got an option to take him back. The negotiations to get him here were lengthy, with Stoke initially wanting just a loan deal with a recall option, so it would be no surprise that when we finally got our man thay still have some sort of option.

Unless he starts banging in a serious number of goals though, I can't see it being anything to worry about.

[gordyfromsneck]

Unless he starts banging in a serious number of goals though, I can't see it being anything to worry about.

On the contrary, unless he starts banging in a serious number of goals, I see a lot to worry about! It seems like a lose/lose here. Can we get any official clarification? Boardroom Banter perhaps?

[Kingsmills]

I suspect that the club will, quite rightly, regard that as confidential commercial information. The precise details at least.

[CaleyD]

This was mentioned at the time of his signing, although it just seemed to be glossed over and no details given.

Provided it is structured in such a way so as to compensate ICT for the time he has been at the club should it be put into effect then I don't see any issue.

[Kingsmills]

The club may have been commercially naive in the past but I'm sure that they will have ensured that they will be financially protected in the event of the clause being activated.

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

The club may have been commercially naive in the past but I'm sure that they will have ensured that they will be financially protected in the event of the clause being activated.

Now why am I not so sure about that. I will ask ma Stoke season holding boss.

[martinskye]

I recall reading about this clause in the P&J I think it's if we are going to accept an offer for him we give Stoke first option. Nothing too serious.

[Kingsmills]

I suspect that there might be a bit more detail to it than that.

[MrAsterisk]

I recall reading about this clause in the P&J I think it's if we are going to accept an offer for him we give Stoke first option. Nothing too serious.

It sounds a plausible clause

[martinskye]

I suspect that there might be a bit more detail to it than that.

Yeah I'm sure your right but the club will keep that confidential.

[absent friend]

The basement price that Aberdeen paid for Sone Aluka must mean that there must be a big compensation clause to the seller. This has never been made public and I feel quite rightly.

Why therefore should ICT alert the footballing world of the intricacies of their players contracts?

[Agent N]

A clause of this type is quite common in many business transactions for things such as property, land, boats etc. Bit like pawning your family silver for some cash. Footballers are sometimes seen as just another asset this clause not surprising, Rooney will probably have a a clause for between 5 and 12% of any future fee.

From a business point of view we like all other clubs with the exception of the old firm initially want to avoid dropping to the 1st division. If Rooney scores 20 goals in a season we stay up we sell him and buy someone else with a point to prove.

And so it goes on

[ictchris]

Stoke will only buy him if he grows four inches and learns how to launch a throw-in sixty yards.

[Alex MacLeod]

The clause is, I believe, that Stoke have first option on him if we decide to sell. Thats not to say we'd want to sell nor does it say Stoke would want the player back. There certainly is no clause that says Stoke can demand we sell him back at their whim.

I thinl the reason for this is because he came across the border and if we sold him before he's 24 they would not get any compensation for their investment in him.

[caleyboy]

The clause is, I believe, that Stoke have first option on him if we decide to sell. Thats not to say we'd want to sell nor does it say Stoke would want the player back. There certainly is no clause that says Stoke can demand we sell him back at their whim.

I thinl the reason for this is because he came across the border and if we sold him before he's 24 they would not get any compensation for their investment in him.

Your knowledge is fantastic Alex- where do you get your info from?

[Alex MacLeod]

The clause is, I believe, that Stoke have first option on him if we decide to sell. Thats not to say we'd want to sell nor does it say Stoke would want the player back. There certainly is no clause that says Stoke can demand we sell him back at their whim.

I thinl the reason for this is because he came across the border and if we sold him before he's 24 they would not get any compensation for their investment in him.

Your knowledge is fantastic Alex- where do you get your info from?

No its not cos the above is garbage.

Doing a bit of research I find the deal was ?50k up front with the possibility of a further ?25k. Not sure if thats based on appearances or goals or what. There is also a percentage sell on clause in the agreement. So if we sell him Stoke get a cut.

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

Well my boss has asked around and as far as Stoke are concerned - they have sold him but they have first option should he be up fer sale - no price has been stipulated - apparently that is up to our valuation - but Stoke have the bid and if they are the top bid they get him back - there is no percentage bid to Stoke - that is the bottom line.

[Alex MacLeod]

THIS IS WHERE I GOT THE INFO

[caleyrule]

I am sure i read this in a paper one day i know papers aint always true but it was something like Stoke have a buy back clause but if stoke offered 80,000 but another club offered 20% we could accept the other offer and the percentage depends on the amount of the transfer as the higher the transfer the lower the %, vice versa, but its approxiametly around 15-20% which is understandable i feel

any thoughts?

Edited October 26, 2008 by caleyrule

[Yngwie]

which is understandable

Speak for yourself!

[Kingsmills]

The percentage sell on clause would be pretty standard these days.

[absent friend]

The percentage sell on clause would be pretty standard these days.

Standard in that the lower the market price you got the player for, the larger % the selling club will receive if he is sold on?

ie Buy him for ?50k, 40% from sellon - Buy for ?75k, 20% from sellon - ?!00k, no sellon fee.

If this be the case it is only a variation on a loan. The new club pays the full wages/maybe injury costs/training costs and if he is a hit - the selling club could reap a large transfer reward. If he is not a success the buying club have invested in the player to their cost. Win Win for the selling club with no offloading facility for the new club.

Rooney however will not be a liability for ICT and we could end up making a few bob when he is moved on. A hattrick for the red haired lad tonight!!

[Kingsmills]

Nothing wrong with that, we scooped a healthy six figure windfall from a similar clause when Barry Robson moved from Dundee United to Celtic.