Olajide.eth @Jide_io - Twitter Profile

Jide_io retweeted

4 months ago

A creature unlike any other. A dreamer, a disruptor … a … DEGEN. 777 supply. Free mint. Q1 2026 Enter the dream → https://t.co/AbBPCn4Zbs

100K

64K

53K

1K

1M

Olajide.eth @Jide_io

3 months ago

@et_alcodes Early

0

5

Olajide.eth @Jide_io

4 months ago

@degentokenbase nice

0

2

Jide_io retweeted

Ajoje⚽⚖️

@israel_ajoje

4 months ago

Let me tell you a very short story. Real Madrid sold Álvaro Morata to Juventus in 2014 for around €20 million. He thrived in Italy. Two years later, Madrid bought him back for €30 million using a buy-back clause they'd inserted in the original contract. Then, just one year after that, they flipped him to Chelsea for £60 million. Do the math. Real Madrid made a €30 million profit on a player they had already sold once. That's not super good business. And it's all because of one clause buried in a contract most fans never saw. Early on, we covered the fear clause, sell-on and add-on clauses. Now we're getting into the clauses that let clubs keep control even after a player leaves: options to buy, rights of first refusal, and buy-back clauses. These are the tools that separate smart clubs from the rest. BTW, you should absolutely read every word about the Right of First Refusal(ROFR). Let's go. Option to Buy This is usually tied to loans. It gives the borrowing club the right, but not the obligation, to make the transfer permanent. For Example, Mateo Kovačić joined Chelsea on loan from Real Madrid for the 2018-19 season with an option to buy for around €45 million. He performed well, Chelsea activated the option, and he became a permanent player. Do you get it? Yes, you do. But here's the twist: some "options" are disguised obligations. For example, the option that automatically becomes an obligation after 5 appearances. Suddenly, it's not optional at all. Lawyers read that differently. Legal Pitfall: The line between option and obligation gets blurred fast. Aston Villa currently has the same issue with Liverpool’s Harvey Elliot as his loan deal has an "option to buy for €55 million after 10 appearances."His minutes are currently being managed and despite playing brilliantly, he has just 7 Apps for Villa. Livepool could be furious because they expected the deal to become permanent. But technically, Aston Villa haven’t breached anything. They just managed the situation. That's why some selling clubs insist on obligations with clearly defined, unavoidable triggers. Another issue: unclear wording on who holds the option. Does the buying club decide unilaterally, or does the player have to agree to personal terms again? If the loan contract says "option to buy" but doesn't specify that the player has already pre-agreed to terms, the buying club might activate the option only to find the player refuses to sign. Then what? The clause needs to be explicit: "The buying club has the unilateral right to purchase the player for €12 million, and the player has pre-agreed to contract terms as per Annex A” or whatever part of the contract the terms are. Est-ce que c’est clair? Oui, c’est clair. On to the next. Right of First Refusal (ROFR) The right of first refusal (ROFR) is a clause in a football player's transfer deal that forces the current club (the one who bought him) to tell the previous club (who sold him) about any serious offer from another team. If another club wants to buy the player and makes a good offer, the current club must inform the original club first and give them the chance to match that exact offer. If the original club matches the offer, they can buy the player back instead of letting him go to the new team (though the player usually has the final say on where he wants to play). Sounds hazy right? I know. I will explain. But know that it's a way to maintain some control even after selling a player. Example: There are very few headline examples of this move, as clubs usually silently match the clause in private. But very recently, The ROFR clause was in Pablo Torre's transfer agreement from FC Barcelona to RCD Mallorca. It gives Barcelona priority to match any future offer if Mallorca decides to sell him. It pairs with Barcelona's buy-back optio and a 50% sell-on clause (entitling them to half of any future profit on resale). NB: ROFR is not the same as a buy-back clause. Big difference. One reacts to the market (ROFR), one fixes the price in advance (buy-back). The biggest issue with this is timing and enforceability. A ROFR sounds great in theory, but in practice, it can be a nightmare. Here's why: Assuming Liverpool makes a €15 million offer to Everton for a player. Everton notifies United, who has, say, 72 hours to match. But what if United doesn't have €15 million available in that window? What if they're in a transfer embargo? The ROFR becomes useless. And here's a sneaky one: sometimes the buying club (Everton) and the bidding club (Liverpool) collude to inflate the price artificially high, knowing United can't match it. The ROFR is technically honored, but it's been gamed. Unless the clause includes protections against bad faith dealing, it's vulnerable. So there you have it. We have discussed two very sneaky clauses today. We will talk about the Buy Back clause some other time. I hope you had a nice time reading. If you did, ensure you Follow and Repost.