James Trafford (now playing for Manchester City)

[Paully]

 

[Nucasol]

Just now, Paully said:

 

Fucking hate the Breakaway Bandits. Such a pack of insidious wankers for a range of reasons. City predominantly for the multi club model and buy back abuse.

[Poon Raccoon]

He made his bed……..

[SUPERTOON]

No sympathy for him or any of them who continue to make these choices. 

[Andy84]

11 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

No sympathy for him or any of them who continue to make these choices. 

With this transfer though he had literally no choice but to sign for City as he was contractually obliged.  It was us who didn’t move quick enough, the player clearly wanted to join Newcastle. And we missed out on Englands future keeper imo 

 

 

Edited August 21, 2025 by Andy84

[Elbel1]

3 minutes ago, Andy84 said:

With this transfer though he had literally no choice but to sign for City as he was contractually obliged.  It was us who didn’t move quick enough, the player clearly wanted to join Newcastle. And we missed out on Englands future keeper imo 

 

 

 

Surely this isn't how buy back clauses work and players still have a choice. 

I always thought that the clause meant the players original owners were entitled to a lower buy back price but still had to convince the player to return. 

[Andy84]

2 minutes ago, Elbel1 said:

Surely this isn't how buy back clauses work and players still have a choice. 

I always thought that the clause meant the players original owners were entitled to a lower buy back price but still had to convince the player to return. 

If City met the buy back with Burnley or agreed a fee then Trafford became their player as per the contract.  Man City are effectively loaning players, and if they don’t fancy them the loan elapses is essentially what this is. Of course Trafford knew this and agreed to it when signing for Burnley 

 

 

Edited August 21, 2025 by Andy84

[r0cafella]

8 minutes ago, Elbel1 said:

Surely this isn't how buy back clauses work and players still have a choice. 

I always thought that the clause meant the players original owners were entitled to a lower buy back price but still had to convince the player to return. 

Your right it isnt. He could have rejected city's offer. 

[Shadow Puppets]

Nope. In this specific case, if City triggered the clause he literally was contractually obliged to sign for them. It’s well documented and reported on from the time the deal went through. He had no choice.

[Dr.Spaceman]

3 minutes ago, Shadow Puppets said:

Nope. In this specific case, if City triggered the clause he literally was contractually obliged to sign for them. It’s well documented and reported on from the time the deal went through. He had no choice.

 

That's absolutely mental and shouldn't be allowed.

[Andy84]

It’s an elaborate loan but Burnley and Trafford agreed to it 

[Andy84]

8 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Your right it isnt. He could have rejected city's offer. 

Nope 

[lovejoy]

Hope said yesterday it’s one to watch for us next summer. He was desperate to come here.

 

also said Burnley wanted to sell to anyone but us due to Paul Mitchell’s conduct.

[SUPERTOON]

Not seen that reported anywhere tbf, only that City could meet any accepted offer.

[Emotic]

Eh perfect timing. Retire Pope, sign Trafford next season.

[RodneyCisse]

It would be a fair signing provided we don’t get our pants pulled down over the fee.

[Shadow Puppets]

12 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

Not seen that reported anywhere tbf, only that City could meet any accepted offer.

Downie and Hope both reported it extensively when he signed for City.

[SUPERTOON]

6 minutes ago, Shadow Puppets said:

Downie and Hope both reported it extensively when he signed for City.

Must have missed it, only thing i can find online is the matching clause. BBC reported he chose City over us. 

 

 

Edited August 21, 2025 by SUPERTOON

[NSG]

Not sure you can legally force a player to move to a specific club.
 

Tbh all I remember seeing reported is that Man City had 72 hours to match our bid and then it was up to the player. They matched it with an hour remaining and he chose Man City.

 

 

Edited August 21, 2025 by NSG

[Shadow Puppets]

7 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

Must have missed it, only thing i can find online is the matching clause. BBC reported he chose City over us. 

 

 

 

Hope and Downie both said in their videos that the “matching clause” meant he had to go there.

[Checko]

18 minutes ago, Shadow Puppets said:

Nope. In this specific case, if City triggered the clause he literally was contractually obliged to sign for them. It’s well documented and reported on from the time the deal went through. He had no choice.

Don't think that's right tbh. All I can see is that the buyback clause means Burnley had to inform Man C if they accept an offer and give them the chance to match the bid, which must be accepted. The player still needs to agree to an sign a contract of employment. Eg:

 

"They moved for the player following a £27m bid from Newcastle - and Trafford opted for a return to Manchester." - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cgk3k0654x6o

 

"City, who sold the 22-year-old to Burnley two years ago, activated the matching rights clause they put in that deal when Newcastle agreed a fee with the promoted club.

And Trafford, a long-term target for Eddie Howe, decided against going to St James’ Park in favour of a move to the former Premier League champions" - https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/james-trafford-man-city-burnley-newcastle-transfer-news-b2798330.html

 

"However, Burnley were obliged to inform City of Newcastle's offer due to a clause in the deal that saw Trafford leave for Turf Moor in 2023, and City have decided to match the bid.

It left Trafford to decide his next move and he chose City." - https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/45820102/man-city-re-sign-james-trafford-27m-deal-sources

[Shadow Puppets]

Just now, NSG said:

Not sure you can legally force a player to move to a specific club.
 

Tbh all I remember seeing reported is that Man City had 72 hours to match our bid and then it was up to the player. They matched it with an hour remaining and he chose Man City.

 

 

 

It’s not “forcing a player” if they already agreed to that clause when they left.

[Shadow Puppets]

Just now, Checko said:

Don't think that's right tbh. All I can see is that the buyback clause means Burnley had to inform Man C if they accept an offer and give them the chance to match the bid, which must be accepted. The player still needs to agree to an sign a contract of employment. Eg:

 

"They moved for the player following a £27m bid from Newcastle - and Trafford opted for a return to Manchester." - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cgk3k0654x6o

 

"City, who sold the 22-year-old to Burnley two years ago, activated the matching rights clause they put in that deal when Newcastle agreed a fee with the promoted club.

And Trafford, a long-term target for Eddie Howe, decided against going to St James’ Park in favour of a move to the former Premier League champions" - https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/james-trafford-man-city-burnley-newcastle-transfer-news-b2798330.html

 

"However, Burnley were obliged to inform City of Newcastle's offer due to a clause in the deal that saw Trafford leave for Turf Moor in 2023, and City have decided to match the bid.

It left Trafford to decide his next move and he chose City." - https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/45820102/man-city-re-sign-james-trafford-27m-deal-sources

I’m only going on Hope and Downie’s reporting… I’m sure the Geordie Journos mentioned it in one of their videos too. 

[Nucasol]

38 minutes ago, lovejoy said:

Hope said yesterday it’s one to watch for us next summer. He was desperate to come here.

 

also said Burnley wanted to sell to anyone but us due to Paul Mitchell’s conduct.

Sliding well into the NUFC hatred hierarchy. The bloke seems a complete weapon and massive bald fraud.

[Erikse]

So as mentioned.. They stole a £30m (almost record breaking) gk from us just because they can. Not because they thought he would be perfect for them. It barely put a dent in their budget, so why would they worry about it? Getting the money back later. The fee was something we actually had to think long and hard about, but we really wanted the guy..

 

 

Edited August 21, 2025 by Erikse