Traore sell on clause?

uncle_rico

uncle_rico

Well-known member
Wolves are looking to sell Adama Traore to raise funds apparently. Anyone know if we had the foresight to put a sell on clause in his transfer? I seem to remember something about this last year and for some reason there wasn’t such a clause, but can’t find anything.

Also I noticed he’s been called up to the Spain squad for the upcoming two Nations League games 👍🏻
 
I’m sure it has been said a few times previously that as Traore had a buy out clause which if a club meets it means they get the player no strings ( or later sell on clause) attached
 
The Gazette were speculating at the time that his buy out clause was £18M upfront but Wolves were paying £21-22M (above the clause) to allow for it to be paid in installments. If this was the case you'd hope that a sell on could have been inserted, but who knows. The paper certainly have not talked about anything like this since, and often get the wrong end of the stick, so it could be a load of b***ks.
 
erimus86 said:
The Gazette were speculating at the time that his buy out clause was £18M upfront but Wolves were paying £21-22M (above the clause) to allow for it to be paid in installments. If this was the case you'd hope that a sell on could have been inserted, but who knows. The paper certainly have not talked about anything like this since, and often get the wrong end of the stick, so it could be a load of b***ks.
Click to expand...
Usually the club calls them out on mistakes though so it could be right
 
Why would not having a buy out clause be a “mistake” or lack of “foresight” when you don’t know any other terms of the deal?

It is literally like saying “why didn’t we have the foresight to sell him for £25m instead of £18m”.

Amazes me how many people on social media talk about sell-on clauses as if the club would never have thought of it. Sometimes in negotiations you don’t get everything you want, it depends what you’re actually setting out to achieve.
 
Last edited:
atypical_boro said:
Why would not having a buy out clause be a “mistake” or lack of “foresight” when you don’t know any other terms of the deal?

It is literally like saying “why didn’t we have the foresight to sell him for £25m instead of £18m”.

Amazes me how many people on social media talk about sell-on clauses as if the club would never have thought of it. Sometimes in negotiations you don’t get everything you want, it depend what you’re actually setting out to achieve.
Click to expand...
Fans are experts don't you know
 
Duffman said:
I’m sure it has been said a few times previously that as Traore had a buy out clause which if a club meets it means they get the player no strings ( or later sell on clause) attached
Click to expand...
I've not yet seen any proof that this is necessarily the case. If there's a buy out clause, that obviously means that if another club meets a particular valuation, the player has to be sold but I don't see why it would absolutely have to go beyond that and determine every other single clause in the final deal.

Unless someone's seen both Traoré's original contract with the Boro and his new one with Wolves, there's surely no way of knowing what exactly they contained.
 
There's a clause in the deal that says if he gets sold for upwards of 70m then Bauser has to have a secondment to McDonalds for a year where he will act as Ronald Mcdonald and also perfect the art of burger flipping.
 
It’s been examined on here before and regardless what Wolves sell him on for we get diddly squat !
 
Remember he was a gamble and we only paid 4 million for him and he couldn’t even look up and if on goal couldn’t hit a barn door . I think we did ok in that respect . It was Pulis who shook him up
 
Canyoudigit said:
There's a clause in the deal that says if he gets sold for upwards of 70m then Bauser has to have a secondment to McDonalds for a year where he will act as Ronald Mcdonald and also perfect the art of burger flipping.
Click to expand...
That’s the most sensible suggestion in this entire thread
 
Liamo said:
I've not yet seen any proof that this is necessarily the case. If there's a buy out clause, that obviously means that if another club meets a particular valuation, the player has to be sold but I don't see why it would absolutely have to go beyond that and determine every other single clause in the final deal.

Unless someone's seen both Traoré's original contract with the Boro and his new one with Wolves, there's surely no way of knowing what exactly they contained.
Click to expand...

you don’t need to see the contract, if his release clause was met, which was widely reported at the time so safe to assume, there is no bargaining position to insert such a clause - the move is down to the player to agree and the player isn’t going to negotiate that for the club he is leaving.

Why would a buying club agree to forgo future sale proceeds to a club that can’t say no to the sale? That’s the sort of thing that gets put in as a negotiation point, for example Barcelona selling Traore to Villa in the first place in case he became a star after he left. Barcelona could have not sold traore in this instance hence could negotiate that clause.
 
TheFair86 said:
you don’t need to see the contract, if his release clause was met, which was widely reported at the time so safe to assume, there is no bargaining position to insert such a clause - the move is down to the player to agree and the player isn’t going to negotiate that for the club he is leaving.

Why would a buying club agree to forgo future sale proceeds to a club that can’t say no to the sale? That’s the sort of thing that gets put in as a negotiation point, for example Barcelona selling Traore to Villa in the first place in case he became a star after he left. Barcelona could have not sold traore in this instance hence could negotiate that clause.
Click to expand...

It’s clear that some fans think you can just put whatever you want in a contract and that the other party either wouldn’t notice or wouldn’t care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top