Guest ttfn Posted 24 June 2017 Share Posted 24 June 2017 8 hours ago, sdb said: Chances of City coming back in for him given their spending power?! Slim. And if they do it'll mean he's done amazingly with us. Basically we we keep him or he turns world class and leaves. Which he would anyway. Get it it done Yes but if it turned out he was world class and would leave anyway without this clause we'd get twice as much for him. As others have said, the whole reason you pay a big fee for young players is for the potential to make a return in the future. If that return's capped, it seriously diminishes the logic in paying £25 million to sign somebody. And Man City don't need him to be a world beater to sign him back. They just need to be confident that they can get more than his buy-back clause for him in the open market, irrespective of whether there's room for him in the squad. Look at Morata at Juventus - playing every week, bought back by Real because they could see his value was rising. They'll sell him on for a fortune this summer despite the fact that he only started 14 games this season. If there's profit to be made, they'll be back in for him. Even Deulofeu had his buy-back triggered by Barcelona. With the way the market is going and the prospect of the overseas rights deal going up, (hypothetically) £35 million in 2 years' time will be worth no more than the £25 million we're supposed to be paying now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claridge Posted 24 June 2017 Share Posted 24 June 2017 6 hours ago, Walkers said: How is a buy back clause any different tosigning somebody who turns out to be good, selling him to a top 6 side for a profit a couple of years later because he is too good for us!? Because it might be a few months Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nalis Posted 24 June 2017 Share Posted 24 June 2017 Surely a buying team should get a significant discount if a buy back clause is in place but it doesnt sound like thats case. In crude terms, buy back clauses creates a glorified loan system with guaranteed income for the seller and just act as another way the bigger clubs remain big. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AS78UK Posted 24 June 2017 Share Posted 24 June 2017 If we are negotiating a buyback then in needs to be for at least triple his current value. Then both parties get a decent deal. Sure it sounds like a loan otherwise and can't be ok under FA rules. ( although think it probably is today but will change if this becomes common practice). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Posted 24 June 2017 Share Posted 24 June 2017 16 minutes ago, Nalis said: Surely a buying team should get a significant discount if a buy back clause is in place but it doesnt sound like thats case. In crude terms, buy back clauses creates a glorified loan system with guaranteed income for the seller and just act as another way the bigger clubs remain big. Yeah - they shouldn't be legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roblcfc84 Posted 24 June 2017 Share Posted 24 June 2017 A lot been made of the buy back clause. It's an insurance policy for city in the unlikely scenario he turns into a mega star - that's unlikely and clearly they don't feel based on what they have seen that he will reach that level. I hardly think they are looking at this like a loan or they would just loan him out - makes no sense to lose money on a deal. Most players only stay at a club for 3 seasons or so - it's about next season and if he adds something get him in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddog Posted 24 June 2017 Share Posted 24 June 2017 Man City have Aguero and Jesus who are both streets ahead of Nacho. They are linked with Messi regularly and who knows what sort of money they'd be willing to spend on a top top player? What makes you think they would buy Nacho back if they have players of the Jesus calibre at the club already and they only play 1 striker? That said, 10m is pathetic. 15m profit and I would take it, with the clause set at 40m, which is highly unlikely to be enacted anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Posted 24 June 2017 Share Posted 24 June 2017 16 minutes ago, roblcfc84 said: A lot been made of the buy back clause. It's an insurance policy for city in the unlikely scenario he turns into a mega star - that's unlikely and clearly they don't feel based on what they have seen that he will reach that level. I hardly think they are looking at this like a loan or they would just loan him out - makes no sense to lose money on a deal. Most players only stay at a club for 3 seasons or so - it's about next season and if he adds something get him in. Yeah but in these times of Pogba and Lukaku big clubs know it can happen - trouble is, it's hard to measure the 'why' is it because they have been dropped and become more determined, is it because a wantaway player doesn't suit their style of football (e.g. Slimani) and just looks better in a different side/formation or is it because of the coaching in the players new side? Whatever the reason I still think it's a monopoly clause that shouldn't be allowed in football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 24 June 2017 Share Posted 24 June 2017 16 hours ago, chadlcfc said: I am a big Football Manager fan and do a lot of listening to podcasts and reading on the game and the background. Sports Interactive who make the game have a separate database they work on with ProZone which includes a lot of real time stats. Basically the same as FM but with running distances, sprints etc for the current season. Big clubs around the world use this to find players. The subscription is a huge amount for it but it is very heavily used by big teams. Massive difference between a stats database from real life, and ratings in a computer game tbf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankieADZ Posted 24 June 2017 Share Posted 24 June 2017 dunno if this has been said but i guess a buy back clause with an expiry date, so Man City have 2 seasons with the clause but knowing Man City they wouldnt swing for that since that want to be like Barca Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheppyFox Posted 24 June 2017 Author Share Posted 24 June 2017 More I think about it the more I say get it done regardless, they won't want him back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LCFC_Oak Posted 24 June 2017 Share Posted 24 June 2017 Buy back clause or not we would potentially have a very good player on the books for at least 2 years. If he's as good as promised we would have to sell him anyway. Understand there is a pride element but we don't need to rely on big transfer fees in to be able to spend big. If he helps us finish in the top 8 for the next 2 seasons then he has already paid back the difference. Buy back should not be a deal breaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted 24 June 2017 Share Posted 24 June 2017 27 minutes ago, FrankieADZ said: dunno if this has been said but i guess a buy back clause with an expiry date, so Man City have 2 seasons with the clause but knowing Man City they wouldnt swing for that since that want to be like Barca Buyback clauses do tend to have time factors on them. Like maybe the price goes up each year or something. I'm sure there is a deal to be thrashed out here, one that doesn't end up with us having Iheanacho for a year and then selling him for a mere £10m profit 8 months later. Lets hope we have some hard nosed negotiators in the room... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonthefox Posted 24 June 2017 Share Posted 24 June 2017 We have to remember as well, it might not be just Man City that are interested in him. Example. Just suppose he's just had a great season with us and Arsenal want him. Man City want Sanchez and it's possible to bring Iheanacho as a makeweight in deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusko187 Posted 24 June 2017 Share Posted 24 June 2017 What are we dithering at, we buy for £25m and if he's mustard we get £40m back... nice £15m profit. If he's not we get to keep him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheffield_fox Posted 24 June 2017 Share Posted 24 June 2017 39 minutes ago, SheppyFox said: More I think about it the more I say get it done regardless, they won't want him back. Totally agree. Look at the players they've been buying in recent years. They won't buy back one of their own who didn't break through... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheppyFox Posted 24 June 2017 Author Share Posted 24 June 2017 4 minutes ago, sheffield_fox said: Totally agree. Look at the players they've been buying in recent years. They won't buy back one of their own who didn't break through... You know the other thing? This transfer will happen with or without it, if the media timing is to be believed atleast, because when we went in for him we knew about the clause, West Ham had just pulled out through it. I have hope! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmt Posted 24 June 2017 Share Posted 24 June 2017 We should demand a buy back clause where if he's rubbish we can send him back and they'll pay us 20 mil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edingleyfox Posted 24 June 2017 Share Posted 24 June 2017 Provided the release clause cannot be activated for at least 2 years I would agree to it as long as only Man City have the option and there is at least 10 million profit.May need to be some small print to stop Man City buying him back and selling him on immediately at a profit.If he scores 15 goals a season it will have been worth it to have a quality striker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Flair Posted 24 June 2017 Share Posted 24 June 2017 Get it done, gives us something to moan about when he's broken the PL goalscoring record next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARM1968 Posted 24 June 2017 Share Posted 24 June 2017 And we can tell everyone to fuch off after 5 games when he hasn't scored. Question Rudkins parentage. Slag off the scouting team and complain that he's no Vardy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcfc81 Posted 24 June 2017 Share Posted 24 June 2017 For me it's not the money involved that is an issue, in the modern world of the premiership 10-20million is nothing. For me it is the fact that they would have the power to buy him back whenever they liked. That could be very disruptive to us, imagine a situation where we were approaching January and Man City were our rivals for a second title, they could just buy our main striker without negotiation! Very unlikely but makes us vulnerable to them and ensures they hold power over us for the duration of his time with us. I hope that nobody buys him and the ludicrous idea of having buy back fee's withers away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcfc81 Posted 24 June 2017 Share Posted 24 June 2017 16 minutes ago, Edingleyfox said: Provided the release clause cannot be activated for at least 2 years I would agree to it as long as only Man City have the option and there is at least 10 million profit.May need to be some small print to stop Man City buying him back and selling him on immediately at a profit.If he scores 15 goals a season it will have been worth it to have a quality striker. I agree also, something about summer transfers by a certain date. A buy back window if you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian_marshall Posted 24 June 2017 Share Posted 24 June 2017 The way I see it, it's all about managing the risk. People are assuming that the player will come in and have a blinder but how many times over the years have we seen player's who unfortunately haven't quite fulfilled their potential or simply struggled to fit in at our club. £25m represents a big risk to us in my opinion, so any benefits that Man City receive as part of the deal need to be proportionate to the risk. Therefore I think we should be pushing for either a reduced fee if they are insistent they want a buy back at £35m, a first refusal clause rather than a buy back clause should we choose to sell, or a buy back clause which applies the average market value for a forward player in similar form at the time of the transfer. I rate Iheanacho very highly but we can't be held to ransom on these types of deals and need to stand our ground. Hopefully we can find a resolution which is mutually beneficial to all parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RODNEY FERNIO Posted 24 June 2017 Share Posted 24 June 2017 As stated before if there is not a minimum of two seasons before the buy back deal can be invoked the whole deal is a complete waste of time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.