Video: Should Arsenal be making more use of ‘buy-back’ clauses?


Lots of other clubs use them, but buy-back clauses when we sell players don’t seem to be a thing for Arsenal.

Perhaps our new contract whizzkid can do something about that, and in this video James outlines why he thinks it’s something we should start doing – especially for someone like Calum Chambers who is being strongly linked with a move away from the club this summer.

Feel free to give us your thoughts in the comments below.

Leave a Reply

20 Comments on "Video: Should Arsenal be making more use of ‘buy-back’ clauses?"

newest oldest most voted

Would be sensible, I’m sure there must be a cost but if we are getting options on players to return lots better then worth doing.


We did have buy back clauses/first option clauses before. He’s now won two Premier League titles at Chelsea.


One thing I always notices about wenger is that he is a stickler for not even considering to call back the players who have left the club . players like cesc, anelka , hleb and so many others left arsenal for bigger clubs , but most of them did not work . we should have made an effort to bring then back . probably not everyone would want to come back but some of them would still love to as they already know the club and the manager.and It might not work in every case but look at dormtmund , they annually sell most of their best players . but gotze and kagawas transfer didn’t work out they bought them back . they might not the same players and they might have other players in same position but players like gotze and kagawa are still phenomenally gifted players . having them will only be advantageous to the team .

To be fair to him Wenger did get flaminy . but there are so many other players that we sold who still might have came to arsenal if wenger made an effort to sign them


Didn’t we have one for Carlos Vela? There’s some precedence here



George Bush


Eric Blair

How does it work if the player simply doesn’t want to return? What if he’s pissed off at not getting a proper chance first time around? What if he would rather join a different club? He might not then be inclined to rejoin Arsenal and there would be nothing we could do about it.


A buy back clause does not mean anything other then the original club has first right to buy if they meet the price and the player is happy to go back.

not so fed up

Definitely include buy back clauses for promising players like chambers (who we should keep incidentally) but not the more obvious deadwood


To quote the Ghost of Transfer Windows Past:
‘We don’t need no buy-back clause no-o-o,
we’ve got Yaya Sanogo-o-o-o-o’.

At least up to this summer 😉

Stuck on repeat...

Whilst there’s something to be said about making a set & final decision about whether we actually want a certain player or not…It does seem madness that a buy-back clause is not included as potentially standard on contracts.

The only upfront cost is realistically that of paying a lawyer to include the words “In (x) years time, or if the player becomes available for Sale, Arsenal are given first option at an established & pre-agreed rate of (x million) over what we originally sold him for” (or similar). Both clubs would potentially benefit. As stated in the video if the player has become that good & is again that wanted, then we’d pay the money surely. All that has to be agreed upfront is the number of years & the value of the buy-back.

If the club are that worried about the cost of paying a lawyer for this, for a free shirt they can use the above & simply copy & paste it into all future sale contracts where the club want the option.

Original Paul

Why would you buy a player with a clause that said if he does well you have to sell him back to the seller? I wouldn’t do it, but I don’t have the cash anyway…:-)


Exactly. Obviously everyone we sell (or anyone sells) would ideally have a buy-back clause as it negates all the risk.

I’m pretty sure the buying party would make you pay through the nose for it by a super low fee.

La Cazette with Zest and Zeal
La Cazette with Zest and Zeal

Buy-back is only valid if buyer club later wants to sell the player not that the club of origin has the power to snatch the player they sold at any time.

Original Paul

I’m confused, announce Lemar 🙂


Clubs that buy a player for their current ability and not their potential. Clubs that can potentially take advantage of a phenomenal season, and after, receive a guaranteed return in the form of the agreed transfer fee. Clubs that can secure a reduced transfer fee for a player, that doesn’t perhaps live up to his potential, but still improves the quality of their team. Just of the top of my head.

Spanish Gooner

We:be already been doing it in the past – La Real paid us €12m (I think) to cancel Vela’s buyback clause a couple of years ago, we had a “first refusal” clause on Fábregas which we turned down and we are apparently activating Wellington’s buy back clause to sell him on at a higher fee this year. I do agree it’s something we should do more of though, I think Joel Campbell is the most obvious option of them all


Yes we should. Also mental that we should consider offloading Chambers this summer. in my eyes he showed plenty of potential with us, Middleborough, and England over the summer and he’s still young for a defender. We know Per has one year only, and Kos is managing a chronic injury.
Rather than a buy back option I’d be much happier offering a new contract and loaning for a further season until Per hangs up his boots.
If we persist with 3 at the back well need a good number of CBs.

David Hillier\'s luggage
David Hillier\'s luggage

What are you on about? We’ve been doing it for years. We had sell on/buy back clauses notably with Vela, Bentley & Fabregas and are acting on one with Wellington Silva at the moment.