| Closing in on Broja on 09:01 - Aug 21 with 1615 views | pointofblue |
| Closing in on Broja on 08:41 - Aug 21 by Kieran_Knows |
That’s not how an ‘obligation to buy (if we stay up)’ works though. A contract with him will be agreed now for when he (hopefully) signs permanently once we secure our status in the Prem for next season.
I saw another tweet mention that his permanent contract has already been agreed to 2029. |
So why are the BBC stating that the transfer would be contingent on us agreeing a contract with Broja at the end of the season? If it had already been agreed in principle there would be no reason to say that? |  |
|  |
| Closing in on Broja on 09:03 - Aug 21 with 1589 views | DanTheMan |
| Closing in on Broja on 09:01 - Aug 21 by pointofblue |
So why are the BBC stating that the transfer would be contingent on us agreeing a contract with Broja at the end of the season? If it had already been agreed in principle there would be no reason to say that? |
I'd assume for situations where maybe Broja comes here and doesn't like it and refuses to sign a contract.
I also assume we've agreed in principle at this point. |  |
| |
| Closing in on Broja on 09:10 - Aug 21 with 1493 views | pointofblue |
| Closing in on Broja on 09:03 - Aug 21 by DanTheMan |
I'd assume for situations where maybe Broja comes here and doesn't like it and refuses to sign a contract.
I also assume we've agreed in principle at this point. |
In that case, I appreciate it's semantics but, it does protect us and him to a degree if the loan doesn't work out how we hope. | |
| |
| Closing in on Broja on 09:40 - Aug 21 with 1322 views | Trequartista |
| Closing in on Broja on 19:58 - Aug 20 by Kieran_Knows |
His contract for next summer will already be agreed as part of the agreement with Chelsea/him. |
BBC are saying "A transfer would also be contigent on Ipswich agreeing a contract with Broja at the end of the season."
BBC are often wrong although its not Nick Mashiter this time. |  |
| |
| Closing in on Broja on 10:12 - Aug 21 with 1227 views | Kieran_Knows |
| Closing in on Broja on 09:40 - Aug 21 by Trequartista |
BBC are saying "A transfer would also be contigent on Ipswich agreeing a contract with Broja at the end of the season."
BBC are often wrong although its not Nick Mashiter this time. |
Fair enough, I hadn’t seen that. I presume if it was simply an ‘option’, then a contract wouldn’t need to be agreed prior. But when it’s obligation I think terms have to be agreed already.
We shall see I suppose! |  |
| |
| Closing in on Broja on 10:28 - Aug 21 with 1128 views | J2BLUE |
| Closing in on Broja on 08:48 - Aug 21 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
Why not? It works both ways - if he is a rousing success then the fee may look a complete bargain and/or we would have had competition to sign him
Chelsea may be seen as a basket case but they are notoriously hard nosed when selling players and no mugs in that area - why would they agree to the deal if we had easy get outs?
As someone else has pointed out, we are in effect buying him this season but structured in a way that doesn’t cripple us if we go down, and presumably a financial standpoint that works for both |
Well the easiest get out is the idea we offer him £1 a week. I think we can agree that's not going to be allowed. Let's assume we have agreed to basically take over his contract if we stay up. What if he gets a career ending injury in October but we still stay up? There must be other clauses in the deal. Not necessarily all in our favour.
I would imagine it's something more like this:
Obligation to buy if we stay up (including mandatory minimum contract offer)
AND if plays in 20 or more league games
Surely that makes more sense for both parties? We can't low ball a contract if we don't want him and they can't force us to take him if he hasn't played a major role in us staying up.
FWIW, if we do stay up, I think we will jump at the chance to sign him for £30m. |  |
| |
| Closing in on Broja on 10:51 - Aug 21 with 1030 views | Ryorry |
| Closing in on Broja on 10:28 - Aug 21 by J2BLUE |
Well the easiest get out is the idea we offer him £1 a week. I think we can agree that's not going to be allowed. Let's assume we have agreed to basically take over his contract if we stay up. What if he gets a career ending injury in October but we still stay up? There must be other clauses in the deal. Not necessarily all in our favour.
I would imagine it's something more like this:
Obligation to buy if we stay up (including mandatory minimum contract offer)
AND if plays in 20 or more league games
Surely that makes more sense for both parties? We can't low ball a contract if we don't want him and they can't force us to take him if he hasn't played a major role in us staying up.
FWIW, if we do stay up, I think we will jump at the chance to sign him for £30m. |
The possibility of an unfortunate long term injury must surely be something MA & co had to bear in mind, so I’d have thought no. of appearances would be a pre-requisite for them, yes |  |
| |
| Closing in on Broja on 11:43 - Aug 21 with 871 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Closing in on Broja on 10:28 - Aug 21 by J2BLUE |
Well the easiest get out is the idea we offer him £1 a week. I think we can agree that's not going to be allowed. Let's assume we have agreed to basically take over his contract if we stay up. What if he gets a career ending injury in October but we still stay up? There must be other clauses in the deal. Not necessarily all in our favour.
I would imagine it's something more like this:
Obligation to buy if we stay up (including mandatory minimum contract offer)
AND if plays in 20 or more league games
Surely that makes more sense for both parties? We can't low ball a contract if we don't want him and they can't force us to take him if he hasn't played a major role in us staying up.
FWIW, if we do stay up, I think we will jump at the chance to sign him for £30m. |
A career ending injury would presumably make it null and void as there is no player to agree terms with. Clubs have insurance for that sort of thing anyway
Min apps in this sort of deal but nothing of the sort has been reported so can only assume it is a straight obligation. In which case we are presumably just happy to take the risk as we think he is worth that, and the worst case (he is crap but we’re forced to buy him) still sees £100m+ coming into the club coffers |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
