MPH Posted 23 June 2017 Share Posted 23 June 2017 40 minutes ago, Stevosevic said: john Rudkin on being told about the buy-back clause: " What?!?!? since when?!? first i have heard of this!! Totally shocked!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPH Posted 23 June 2017 Share Posted 23 June 2017 25 minutes ago, Stevosevic said: He's have to be exceptional for Man City to want to buy him back....so we would have had a cracking player for 2 years if that was the case Fair point by Stevie.. he'd have to be in the class of Sergio Aguero for them to want him back... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPH Posted 23 June 2017 Share Posted 23 June 2017 31 minutes ago, UPinCarolina said: Would rather not have him, than have to give him back and be in the same position a year or two years down the road. I don't rent what I can afford to purchase AND need. I do see what you are saying, but it appears from the onset that we were always a stepping Stone for Kante. In Hindsight, knowing he was only going to stay a season, would you of said the same about Kante? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weller54 Posted 23 June 2017 Share Posted 23 June 2017 4 minutes ago, MPH said: john Rudkin on being told about the buy-back clause: " What?!?!? since when?!? first i have heard of this!! Totally shocked!" There's no WiFi in Skegness! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheppyFox Posted 23 June 2017 Author Share Posted 23 June 2017 Only way Man City would want him back is if he's exceptional, and also pep needs to be sacked, he isn't peps kind of player and we all know how stubborn that slap head is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieB Posted 23 June 2017 Share Posted 23 June 2017 2 hours ago, Babylon said: Let me guess, he's your mate as well I haven't got time for mates mush, too busy in sandy holes shooting locals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted 23 June 2017 Share Posted 23 June 2017 Even if there is a buy back clause he'd still have to want to/agree to go back. When we've won the league twice in a row with his goals triggering Man City's interest why would have want to go there?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonthefox Posted 23 June 2017 Share Posted 23 June 2017 If he bangs in 20 a season , the 'big guns ' will be sniffing around anyway. At least this way we know what we're getting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKCJ Posted 23 June 2017 Share Posted 23 June 2017 If he turns out to be successful enough for Man City to want him in their first team (Aguero/Jesus level) then we'll have had a world class striker on loan for a year or two and we'll have been paid for the pleasure. Win/win. Obviously we'd prefer not to have the buy-back clause but if Man City insist then I think it's still a deal worth doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smileysharad Posted 23 June 2017 Share Posted 23 June 2017 I think some here are missing the issue with a buy back clause. He doesn't have to be good enough for Man City's first team he just needs be worth more than his buy out clause. Man City can then just take him off us and sell him on for a profit. Maybe even back to us....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Fox Posted 23 June 2017 Share Posted 23 June 2017 If it all hinges on a buy back I am not sure I would go through with it.....our owners don't want to be a stepping stone for the so called big boys and having developed a player to then sell him for £10m net benefit if he is that good would not be taking us forward.....just my view mind! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RODNEY FERNIO Posted 23 June 2017 Share Posted 23 June 2017 On a more positive note if Man City are insisting on a buy back clause they obviously can see the potential. Can't see any of the other players being culled at the moment having buy back clauses. In a couple of years I should imagine people like Aguero will be on the wane so you can understand the logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st albans fox Posted 23 June 2017 Share Posted 23 June 2017 5 minutes ago, Old Fox said: If it all hinges on a buy back I am not sure I would go through with it.....our owners don't want to be a stepping stone for the so called big boys and having developed a player to then sell him for £10m net benefit if he is that good would not be taking us forward.....just my view mind! whilst it may not seem too fair, as has been pointed out a page or so back, the buy back can only exist if the player wants to leave and return there. they cant insist that we sell him to them when they want. if the player wants to leave or if we want to sell the player, man city will have first dibs at an agreed price which is ten mill above what we have paid. if the player wants to return there then the deal is done. in the meantime, we get the player we clearly want for as long as he wants to be here . its just their way of avoiding a lukaku situation where they could have to pay a huge premium to bring the player back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gw_leics772 Posted 23 June 2017 Share Posted 23 June 2017 6 minutes ago, st albans fox said: whilst it may not seem too fair, as has been pointed out a page or so back, the buy back can only exist if the player wants to leave and return there. they cant insist that we sell him to them when they want. if the player wants to leave or if we want to sell the player, man city will have first dibs at an agreed price which is ten mill above what we have paid. if the player wants to return there then the deal is done. in the meantime, we get the player we clearly want for as long as he wants to be here . its just their way of avoiding a lukaku situation where they could have to pay a huge premium to bring the player back. Or if someone else wants him, they offer man city £11m more and man city get a million squid for the pleasure of taking our star striker. It stinks, but I'd probably still do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lifted*fox Posted 23 June 2017 Share Posted 23 June 2017 **** sake Rudkin just get some ****ing decent players in for once you floppy ****ing cock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the fox Posted 23 June 2017 Share Posted 23 June 2017 Looking at how much young players are going for, I don't want a buyback clause! Its a win-win situation for man city. They would get good money for him and leave a back door for them to get him back for £10-15 million! No thank you but I will pass. Leicester would be taking all the risks! The team will invest time just for man city to come and pick him up again for the cheap! Just for example, look at the lukaku situation. Imagine if they excepted a buyback Claus! Won't that be disasters for Everton? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bunyip Posted 23 June 2017 Share Posted 23 June 2017 Why not have him just on loan then ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnegan Posted 23 June 2017 Share Posted 23 June 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UPinCarolina Posted 23 June 2017 Share Posted 23 June 2017 1 hour ago, turtmcfly said: ...and we could also be looking at losing more if he's a flop. Seems academic anyway if the option is clause or no deal. A few minutes ago this was a flat 'no' from you based on a buy-back clause being in place. I'm now none the wiser. If you admit 'we would ultimately benefit in a buy-back deal' then that would be a very strange position to still hold. The only downside to an activated buy-back that I can see is that we could have bought someone else who would have been as good or brought on one of the youngsters through the ranks during the year/two years he'd be here. Not a very convincing argument if you ask me... I'm just acknowledging that if he pans out, then the buy-back being activated would be that we had benefited. I hadn't considered the £10 million difference when writing my original post, and if I had given it more thought, I would have said what I said next - which was that I can understand the argument for buying, even with a clause. I'd rather it not be a buy-back, as I believe that the ever increasing costs of players and his young age mean that it's very unlikely that we couldn't make our money back if we could get the deal done without a buy-back. He seems likely to be a success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyFox Posted 23 June 2017 Share Posted 23 June 2017 2 hours ago, AKCJ said: Was that article written by Roy Fox? Yeah I'm secretly Ade Emmanuel from Nigeria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FraserSorensen Posted 23 June 2017 Share Posted 23 June 2017 28 minutes ago, Bunyip said: Why not have him just on loan then ? Because we'd be paying for it... if he's brilliant then we make a profit and if he's not then we sell him on anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st albans fox Posted 23 June 2017 Share Posted 23 June 2017 41 minutes ago, gw_leics772 said: Or if someone else wants him, they offer man city £11m more and man city get a million squid for the pleasure of taking our star striker. It stinks, but I'd probably still do it. Only if he wants to leave here. lets be honest - man city will be setting their sights on players who are better than him in the future. they are just covering their backs in case he turns out to be a superstar. he hasn't had enough exposure for them to be sure. no way would he accept going back there for them to sell him onto another club at a profit. we would make sure that we split that with him and his agent. I repeat, he will only go back to man city if he wants to. they cant force through a deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickyblueeyes Posted 23 June 2017 Share Posted 23 June 2017 If they want a buy back option it must depend on where Leicester are when (or if) Man City come back for him. If its its next season and we have a stinker and finish 16th but he scores, it should be one price. if we play a blinder, it clicks and we are in Europe than it should be another. Scale the payments according to where we are and how he does. I think its worth the risk as he has the potential to be a real talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxpleasure Posted 23 June 2017 Share Posted 23 June 2017 59 minutes ago, FraserSorensen said: Because we'd be paying for it... if he's brilliant then we make a profit and if he's not then we sell him on anyway. Wouldn't touch this with a barge pole! Look at the fuss when we made a huge profit on Kante. Everyone was slagging off the cub for allowing the release clause. Just imagine if he's brilliant and we are forced to sell him for way below his actual value ( and possibly in January when we are pushing for top 6 or higher). Let's move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RODNEY FERNIO Posted 23 June 2017 Share Posted 23 June 2017 Must be a minimum time we can keep him .. can't see the contract saying they can buy him back next January otherwise might as well go for a short term loan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.