Tiago Ilori

[Lecter]

You've obviously seen the contract/paperwork so I bow to your knowledge on the subject.

As must you

Its a nonsense. Basically means if he's not good enough for us we don't want less than X amount. If he is brilliant then you have the option to bid but we don't have to accept.

[BigChief]

As must you

So we both don't know.

[Lecter]

So we both don't know.

Of course nobody knows for certain unless its the clubs etc.. but as a general rule if you are loaning with a view to a permanent move the fee will be set in stone and will be activated by the loaning club with the consent of the player

The selling club seems to have little say in things in general

The Echo is stating that the eventual fee would be based on the number of games which suggests to me that its in Villas ballpark to decide how much they pay for him. Hell they could probably play him for the bare minimum number of games and get him on the cheap

[Bender]

More speculation
[ame]https://twitter.com/liddellpool/status/639103187610411008[/ame]

[RichC]

Strange one this along with Markovic. The signings of last summer have all pretty much been a disaster so far, let's hope that we actually get an actual strategy in place rather than throw cash at players without a plan.

[calvoboy]

Of course nobody knows for certain unless its the clubs etc..

It is reasonable to assume from their article that the Echo have been told the terms of the deal, and they quite clearly state that Villa have the option to buy him at the end of the year and that the agreed fee depends on the number of games he plays this season for them. That understanding is supported by other journalists from national newspapers who claim to have been told the terms of the deal, and also by journalists close to the Villa side of the deal (e.g. http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/spor...ng-you-9976338)

In the absence of any further information, they are most likely to be the terms of the contract. There is nothing I've read that supports the alternative premise suggested by BigChief, that we still have the right to refuse to sell him at the end of the season if Villa decide they want him.

[Shaggy]

Re the earlier part of the discussion, about our net spend this summer. I thought it was between £10m and £11m, but others have said it was about £20m.

SSN are using this. Do we have a definitive answer cos I'd like to know

[RichC]

Not sure how accurate this is but our purchases add up to £77.5M and the sales £47.5M with the caveat below

[tanner]

Players IN:

James Milner – Man City – Free
Danny Ings – Burnley – Tribunal
Adam Bogdan – Bolton – Free
Joe Gomez – Charlton – £3.5m
Roberto Firmino – Hoffenheim – £29m
Nathaniel Clyne – Southampton – £12.5m
Christian Benteke – Aston Villa – £32.5m
Taiwo Awoniyi – Imperial Academy – £800k

Spent: £78.3m

Players OUT:

Iago Aspas – Sevilla – Unknown (loan made permanent, then sold to Celta Vigo)
Sebastian Coates – Sunderland – £2m
Javier Manquillo – Atletico Madrid (loan terminated early)
Raheem Sterling – Man City – £49m
Rickie Lambert – West Brom – £3m
Rafael Paez – AD Alcorcon – N/A
Fabio Borini – Sunderland – £8m

Received: £62m

[Scratch]

I'm a wee bit sceptical about the "Option to Buy" clause. Not questioning whether there is one, but that it would be of the "the less you play him, the less you pay for him" variety.

I know Ian Ayre gets some stick, but even he wouldn't agree to such a weird deal, surely? It would be the one fixed, "you want him then pay up" price.

[BigChief]

I'm a wee bit sceptical about the "Option to Buy" clause. Not questioning whether there is one, but that it would be of the "the less you play him, the less you pay for him" variety.

I know Ian Ayre gets some stick, but even he wouldn't agree to such a weird deal, surely? It would be the one fixed, "you want him then pay up" price.

You would have thunk so.

[fah-q]

Taiwo Awoniyi – Imperial Academy – £800k

He's a stormtrooper?

[Lecter]

I'm a wee bit sceptical about the "Option to Buy" clause. Not questioning whether there is one, but that it would be of the "the less you play him, the less you pay for him" variety.

I know Ian Ayre gets some stick, but even he wouldn't agree to such a weird deal, surely? It would be the one fixed, "you want him then pay up" price.

On the face of it, it does seem an odd clause

Depends on how its structured

EG

If you play him less than 20 times its £6 million
If you play him more than 25 times its £7 million
If you play him over 30 times its £8 million

Etc.....

That means we get at least £6 million for him (which is probably nearer Villas valuation), yet if they use him more we will get nearer a figure we had in mind

Also I wouldnt rule out Ian Ayre agreeing to such a thing

We've done some very weird deals during his tenure

[fah-q]

Shouldn't that be play him less than 25 times it's £6m?

[Exiled_red]

I'm a wee bit sceptical about the "Option to Buy" clause. Not questioning whether there is one, but that it would be of the "the less you play him, the less you pay for him" variety.

I know Ian Ayre gets some stick, but even he wouldn't agree to such a weird deal, surely? It would be the one fixed, "you want him then pay up" price.

I assume our valuation of him now would be £7m if we were to let him go now from Villa's perspective that would be £1m loan fee whether they buy him or not, and £6m so that they get him at the end of the season for the "agreed price" (of £7m) The additional fee (i.e. anything above the £6m they pay next summer if they buy him) will be due to his improvement over the season - Villa won't play him if he is ****, therefore the more he plays the more important/valuable he is to them therefore they need to pay a higher fee to take this into account. Of course this only becomes relevent *if* they buy him which presumably they don't have to if they don't want to.

If you look at it from this perspective it makes more sense IMO.