Raw Dykes Posted 2 August 2017 Share Posted 2 August 2017 6 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said: He's eating tuna... Tuna is an anagram of aunt... If my aunt had bollocks she'd be my uncle... The uncle in the Addams family is called Fester... I'll let you lot work out the rest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfox Posted 2 August 2017 Share Posted 2 August 2017 Just seen him come out of Scorpion on Narborough Road Only to be bundled in the back of a police van Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urban.spaceman Posted 2 August 2017 Share Posted 2 August 2017 It's official chaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitchandro Posted 2 August 2017 Share Posted 2 August 2017 42 minutes ago, Gerard said: http://owngoalnigeria.com/2017/07/11/man-city-agrees-50m-buy-back-fee-with-leicester-city-for-iheanacho-set-for-medicals-this-week/ Leicester City will pay Manchester City an initial fee of £22.5m for his services and they have also agreed on a buy back clause of £37.5m for the first four years of his stay with the Foxes. However if Leicester are able to qualify for the Champions League during Iheanacho’s first your years at the club, and City want to exercise their buy back option, a fee of £50m has been agreed between both parties. FFS Rudders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnglishOxide Posted 2 August 2017 Share Posted 2 August 2017 16 minutes ago, Kitchandro said: FFS Rudders. If that's the difference between capturing him and not then who ****in cares. We make money and if Man City even want him back we will have gotten a very good goal return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheppyFox Posted 2 August 2017 Author Share Posted 2 August 2017 1 hour ago, wasthedestroyer said: https://instagram.com/p/BXQZz5EnzsZ/ Spot the hint I swear thats beckham in the beany hat behind him on our left Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beechey Posted 2 August 2017 Share Posted 2 August 2017 20 minutes ago, Kitchandro said: FFS Rudders. That's probably the best we were going to get, to be fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheppyFox Posted 2 August 2017 Author Share Posted 2 August 2017 I swear if I don't get to see him play Friday night you'll weeping on camera at the ground Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Nacho Posted 2 August 2017 Share Posted 2 August 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Posted 2 August 2017 Share Posted 2 August 2017 52 minutes ago, Paddy. said: I really hope that's not true. That's ****ing weak if it is. Man City have wiped the floor with us if those figures are correct. the Telegraph say the buy back is £50m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HankMarvin Posted 2 August 2017 Share Posted 2 August 2017 1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said: It's official chaps. Soooo fake cmon, everyone knows iheanacho doesnt wear Puma boots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dedlock Posted 2 August 2017 Share Posted 2 August 2017 How is a buy back clause any different,ultimately,to a percentage sell on clause,other than limiting the team to which there is a sale? I'm not going to do an arithmetical illustration but the point is would we be any worse off with,say, a 33 % sell on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPH Posted 2 August 2017 Share Posted 2 August 2017 51 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said: It's official chaps. Fake Iheancho has thumbs. Saw them in a previous photo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluetintedspecs Posted 2 August 2017 Share Posted 2 August 2017 32 minutes ago, Worthington said: None of us are right or wrong, as none of us are party as to what MCFC and KI have agreed. Wasn't dismissing your view, in actual fact I concur with the fact that it's a likely scenario. Just pointing out that such an agreement would need to be in place in order for MCFC to have exclusive rights to re-sign the player. Where they could profit immeasurably would be if Iheanacho performs sensationally with us. In that case he could, in effect develop into a prospective £100m player, which several clubs would be willing to pay, yet City would be able to table their 'buy back' figure and we would have to let them speak to the player, and accept the lower fee, should Iheanacho agree to return! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wymsey Posted 2 August 2017 Share Posted 2 August 2017 It's probably the 'same old' legal rights issue holding the club back from officially announcing him.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oadby.fox Posted 2 August 2017 Share Posted 2 August 2017 19 hours ago, Leeds Fox said: Well they're not going to insist on a buyback which reflects the market value as it wouldn't benefit them. £50m is fair, they could save upto £20m and we get exactly £50m, no budging, should City want to re-sign him. Even if they don't it's a bargaining chip to any other transfer he might make. They must rate him to put something like that in there. Even in today's inflated market £50m buys you a proven player. Players are moving for those kinds of prices but only if they're quality and in demand. Of course and I'm not complaining - I still think that overall it's a good bit of business! But considering we are paying £25m for him, if he is resold for £50m then our net profit on him would actually only be £25m which is why I think we should have pushed for a buyback of £60m-£70m. Despite that you are right, if he does end up getting into those kind of figures then that can only be a good thing for our league position and thus future transfer business! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg_fried_rice Posted 2 August 2017 Share Posted 2 August 2017 20 minutes ago, dedlock said: How is a buy back clause any different,ultimately,to a percentage sell on clause,other than limiting the team to which there is a sale? I'm not going to do an arithmetical illustration but the point is would we be any worse off with,say, a 33 % sell on? With a sell on clause, we're not obligated to accept any bid. With a buy back clause, we are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 2 August 2017 Share Posted 2 August 2017 Now we need to get him out there and to get people providing the right service and pace of service to do both him and our other strikers justice. Maguire is an assured player but he, like others, is too slow releasing the ball. Two touches is enough and would do away with his being caught in possession as well. Mostly though fast service would give our attackers the extra split seconds they need to be at their most deadly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheppyFox Posted 2 August 2017 Author Share Posted 2 August 2017 Why panic about a buy back clause? We're not a good enough or a big enough club to hold onto a young world beater for more than a season or two anyway if he fulfils his potential Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAULCFC Posted 2 August 2017 Share Posted 2 August 2017 6 minutes ago, SheppyFox said: Why panic about a buy back clause? We're not a good enough or a big enough club to hold onto a young world beater for more than a season or two anyway if he fulfils his potential Good point,well made! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaelicFox Posted 2 August 2017 Share Posted 2 August 2017 1 hour ago, Beechey said: That's probably the best we were going to get, to be fair. On a player they have to sell ??? If rudders fell in a bucket of tits he would fail to get a nipple !!! the guy is the worst negotiatior in football ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Nacho Posted 2 August 2017 Share Posted 2 August 2017 Merge it and we're getting on for 300+ pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox 4 Life Posted 2 August 2017 Share Posted 2 August 2017 1 hour ago, Jimmy said: the Telegraph say the buy back is £50m It is, if we get in the champions league in the next 4 years (ain't happening!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beechey Posted 2 August 2017 Share Posted 2 August 2017 7 minutes ago, GaelicFox said: On a player they have to sell ??? If rudders fell in a bucket of tits he would fail to get a nipple !!! the guy is the worst negotiatior in football ! No, on a player that didn't want to leave Man City, and they were only selling because he wasn't getting game time. They held the cards, we did well to get a £50m buyback clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammie82uk Posted 2 August 2017 Share Posted 2 August 2017 34 minutes ago, Wymeswold fox said: It's probably the 'same old' legal rights issue holding the club back from officially announcing him.. waiting for the league to confirm the paperwork Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.