Kelechi Iheanacho

[dpjfox]

£25 million is a lot considerring Man City are rumoured to want a "buy back clause", which means if he does well they might want him back so therefore it would basically be a loan deal

[lgfualol]

1 minute ago, dpjfox said:

£25 million is a lot considerring Man City are rumoured to want a "buy back clause", which means if he does well they might want him back so therefore it would basically be a loan deal

Yeah, this is the thing that bothers me about this transfer. If he scores a bunch Man City will just bring him back and we'll be screwed. 

[wasthedestroyer]

would be a good signing but doubt he will come honestly.

[foxfanazer]

I'd say you can have a buy back clause but you have to give us a seasons notice to take him back

[Kitchandro]

Clauses are shit. We should learn our lesson and say no if they're insisting on one.

[RODNEY FERNIO]

If we assume Mahrez goes is the plan to play him just behind Vardy and Slimani ? Sounds quite tasty if this is the case with a triple goal threat,

[ARM1968]

Just get it done. Guy is mustard. 

[AKCJ]

Just now, Kitchandro said:

Clauses are shit. We should learn our lesson and say no if they're insisting on one.

Its not really shit in this case.

 

I'd still take him on loan, which is effectively what the clause would mean should Man City decide to want him back (highly unlikely, they'll just buy another foreign ready-made star).

[TheUltimateWinner]

35 minutes ago, SheppyFox said:

Omgosh he's been promised his favourite role.

 

 http://owngoalnigeria.com/2017/06/22/leicester-entice-man-city-iheanacho-with-favourite-role-after-25m-bid/

Just don't tell him we've been trying to get someone to fill that role for about 3 seasons now  

 

[Finnegan]

I don't like the idea but it's essentially a loan. The buy back clause isn't going to be less than we pay, in fact it should represent a reasonable profit for us. These days if you loan a player of his caliber, you get charged millions for the pleasure - where as we'd be getting reimbursed.

 

If he comes here and he's excellent, we won't keep him anyway. Makes no bones to me if we sell him back to Man City or if he went to Juve or Bayern or whatever.

 

Juve paid 17m for Morata, sold him back a couple seasons later for profit.

 

In football there's always a bigger fish. No point crying about players using us as a stepping stone. Just get on with it.

 

Edit: plus AKCJ is right, unless he turns out to be genuine ballon dor material they probably won't want him back anyway.

[ARM1968]

Agreed. The buy back clause is a safety net for them if he turns out to be unbelievably good. 

 

Unless he reaches top 10 status in terms of world strikers I doubt they'd bother. 

 

Get it done. 

[Babylon]

4 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

I don't like the idea but it's essentially a loan. The buy back clause isn't going to be less than we pay, in fact it should represent a reasonable profit for us. These days if you loan a player of his caliber, you get charged millions for the pleasure - where as we'd be getting reimbursed.

 

If he comes here and he's excellent, we won't keep him anyway. Makes no bones to me if we sell him back to Man City or if he went to Juve or Bayern or whatever.

 

Juve paid 17m for Morata, sold him back a couple seasons later for profit.

 

In football there's always a bigger fish. No point crying about players using us as a stepping stone. Just get on with it.

 

Edit: plus AKCJ is right, unless he turns out to be genuine ballon dor material they probably won't want him back anyway.

They would just take him back to sell him on again at a higher margin. Taking him back doesn't mean he'd have to stay there.

[ARM1968]

Well if Rudkin had an ounce of common he'd agree to the buy back but make sure we earn a profit on the whole deal including wages. That way we get the guy effectively for free if they choose to excercise their option. 

[Sammy]

In reality it is extremely unlikely City will use the option of buying him back, as they're far more likely to go and buy the best in the world and while I hope he scores 30 a season for us I'm not sure it will get to that. Therefore great business yes please 

[Foxxed]

Why have a buy back clause when you loan him out? Is the only difference short term financial gain? (Ie we'd put 25m temporarily on Man City's books until I assume/hope next season?)

 

We are missing a creative midfielder, but is this withdrawn role a CAM role? Three in central midfield?

[Finnegan]

1 minute ago, Babylon said:

They would just take him back to sell him on again at a higher margin. Taking him back doesn't mean he'd have to stay there.

 

Why would he agree to that though?

 

Lets say the clause is 30m. City want a reasonable return on their investment so they want, maybe 45m for him from PSG.

 

Leicester have to accept Man City's bid but that doesn't mean we can't also accept a 35m bid directly from PSG who sweeten the deal for Ihenacho by lumping on some of their savings to his salary? We're happy, he's happy, PSG are happy.

 

Obviously the numbers and clubs are just examples but the logic follows. Ihenacho is under no obligation to return to Man City if they bid and it's rarely going to be more advantageous for an interested party to buy via Man City who will inflate the cost.

 

It only works if we're refusing to sell but why would we if Man City are going to do the deal anyway?

 

It's why the rumours that Madrid were only buying Morata to sell him straight to a premier league club were quite obviously complete fantasy.

[foxfanazer]

3 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

Why would he agree to that though?

 

Lets say the clause is 30m. City want a reasonable return on their investment so they want, maybe 45m for him from PSG.

 

Leicester have to accept Man City's bid but that doesn't mean we can't also accept a 35m bid directly from PSG who sweeten the deal for Ihenacho by lumping on some of their savings to his salary? We're happy, he's happy, PSG are happy.

 

Obviously the numbers and clubs are just examples but the logic follows. Ihenacho is under no obligation to return to Man City if they bid and it's rarely going to be more advantageous for an interested party to buy via Man City who will inflate the cost.

 

It only works if we're refusing to sell but why would we if Man City are going to do the deal anyway?

 

It's why the rumours that Madrid were only buying Morata to sell him straight to a premier league club were quite obviously complete fantasy.

This. As you say Iheanacho is under no obligation to go back to Man City. If he does well enough for us that Man City want to exercise this clause then I'd imagine there would be bigger clubs interested in him

[Foxxed]

6 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

Why would he agree to that though?

 

Lets say the clause is 30m. City want a reasonable return on their investment so they want, maybe 45m for him from PSG.

 

Leicester have to accept Man City's bid but that doesn't mean we can't also accept a 35m bid directly from PSG who sweeten the deal for Ihenacho by lumping on some of their savings to his salary? We're happy, he's happy, PSG are happy.

 

Obviously the numbers and clubs are just examples but the logic follows. Ihenacho is under no obligation to return to Man City if they bid and it's rarely going to be more advantageous for an interested party to buy via Man City who will inflate the cost.

 

It only works if we're refusing to sell but why would we if Man City are going to do the deal anyway?

 

It's why the rumours that Madrid were only buying Morata to sell him straight to a premier league club were quite obviously complete fantasy.

What if PSG want to remove his buy back clause?

[foxfanazer]

1 minute ago, Foxxed said:

What if PSG want to remove his buy back clause?

If PSG were to sign him from us it would be a new contract therefore there wouldn't be a buy back clause

[Jacnah]

45 minutes ago, Costock_Fox said:

Anyone's favourite roll that doesn't include a sausage can get ****ed as far as I'm concerned.

I 'liked' the original, but you've made a powerful and compelling case that i was terribly wrong.....how do I withdraw my like and condemn weller54 to a lifetime of ridicule for leaving out the sausage?

 

 

Having read that back I might have written it better 

 

[Babylon]

17 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

Why would he agree to that though?

 

Lets say the clause is 30m. City want a reasonable return on their investment so they want, maybe 45m for him from PSG.

 

Leicester have to accept Man City's bid but that doesn't mean we can't also accept a 35m bid directly from PSG who sweeten the deal for Ihenacho by lumping on some of their savings to his salary? We're happy, he's happy, PSG are happy.

 

Obviously the numbers and clubs are just examples but the logic follows. Ihenacho is under no obligation to return to Man City if they bid and it's rarely going to be more advantageous for an interested party to buy via Man City who will inflate the cost.

 

It only works if we're refusing to sell but why would we if Man City are going to do the deal anyway?

 

It's why the rumours that Madrid were only buying Morata to sell him straight to a premier league club were quite obviously complete fantasy.

If City had a first refusal clause then we wouldn't even be able to negotiate with another team should city bid the required amount. I'd imagine that clause comes hand in hand with the buy back to stop exactly what you are suggesting.

 

So his option would be to stay, or to go to city and for them to sanction his move elsewhere.

 

The fine print in this deal will be pretty complex. I'm sure they could insert certain detail that almost removes the players decision making should they want him back.

[norwichfox]

2 minutes ago, Jacnah said:

I 'liked' the original, but you've made a powerful and compelling case that i was terribly wrong.....how do I withdraw my like and condemn weller54 to a lifetime of ridicule for leaving out the sausage?

 

 

Having read that back I might have written it better 

 

 

Bloody hell....you read your post's back?

[Finnegan]

2 minutes ago, Babylon said:

If City had a first refusal clause then we wouldn't even be able to negotiate with another team should city bid the required amount. I'd imagine that clause comes hand in hand with the buy back to stop exactly what you are suggesting.

 

So his option would be to stay, or to go to city and for them to sanction his move elsewhere.

 

The fine print in this deal will be pretty complex. I'm sure they could insert certain detail that almost removes the players decision making should they want him back.

 

First option just means we have to accept a deal from them.

 

They quite obviously can't write a clause that says we either sell to them or have to let his contract run down.

 

Like I said, the key is that he is under no obligation to return to Man City and if he refuses to go they can't then shackle us from selling to someone else.

[Foxxed]

4 minutes ago, foxfanazer said:

If PSG were to sign him from us it would be a new contract therefore there wouldn't be a buy back clause

Sounds like a shit clause to me. So if we sell him before they ask for him back they'll lose him forever? Also, if there's news on an offer, can't Man City then exercise the clause, it taking precedence, and he's back at Man City?

 

Eh, if he can create chances for us, rather than our midfield being a barren wasteland wih an isolated Vardy, which I know don't enough about the player to say if it's true or not, then I'm happy with a crazy one season loan.

[foxfanazer]

5 minutes ago, Babylon said:

If City had a first refusal clause then we wouldn't even be able to negotiate with another team should city bid the required amount. I'd imagine that clause comes hand in hand with the buy back to stop exactly what you are suggesting.

 

So his option would be to stay, or to go to city and for them to sanction his move elsewhere.

 

The fine print in this deal will be pretty complex. I'm sure they could insert certain detail that almost removes the players decision making should they want him back.

Don't think it works like that. Just means they need to offer the figure in the clause and we have to accept.