You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
It's Quiet 18 - Wanna ring the bell?
- Thread starter tolmie's hairdoo
- Start date
Given that we take a hit on every transfer we add a buy back to, and most of them are being reported as quite high, I wonder what the benefit is?Loan or sell on with buy back clause ?
Even if a player really improves, we're relying on us needing them at that particular time. Maybe it'll all become clear years down the line, but I'd be interested if anyone knows roughly what we knock off the purchase prices in order to insert them?
Sleeping_Easy
Well-Known Member
It worked out massively with AngelinoGiven that we take a hit on every transfer we add a buy back to, and most of them are being reported as quite high, I wonder what the benefit is?
Even if a player really improves, we're relying on us needing them at that particular time. Maybe it'll all become clear years down the line, but I'd be interested if anyone knows roughly what we knock off the purchase prices in order to insert them?
decmancity
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 12,007
I doubt there is any reduction in the price. It's simply a necessity for us to have it.Given that we take a hit on every transfer we add a buy back to, and most of them are being reported as quite high, I wonder what the benefit is?
Even if a player really improves, we're relying on us needing them at that particular time. Maybe it'll all become clear years down the line, but I'd be interested if anyone knows roughly what we knock off the purchase prices in order to insert them?
Clubs can either include it or go elsewhere.
Would Burnley have paid 25m for Trafford if we had taken the buy back out. Highly unlikely.
It usually gets reported as some kind of hit for the buy back.I doubt there is any reduction in the price. It's simply a necessity for us to have it.
Clubs can either include it or go elsewhere.
Would Burnley have paid 25m for Trafford if we had taken the buy back out. Highly unlikely.
That also assumes that there's plenty of clubs willing to pay the same amount, which I'm not sure is the case. Having a buy back that's anything of a bargain, clearly reduces the value to the club doing the buying. I just wonder how much a high buyback has.
I agree that £6m extra would be a big hit for the Trafford deal, given the reported buyback is pretty high for a keeper. But I assume it must have some value.
That was a really odd deal though - and there was quite some difference in what PSV said they got and what City's buyback was supposed to be.It worked out massively with Angelino
Still, Angelino's was reported as £5.5m on a fee of £5m, while most of the ones being reported now are very different - e.g. Lavia's buyback was reported as £40m, based on a fee of £10-14m, while Trafford's was reported as £57m on a £15-19m deal.
People are not being negative it’s just no one can understand why we are not getting stronger in this window because Liverpool atm will be a major threat as will arsenal and even Utd and all 3 teams will be loving our transfer business or lack off . Just bringing kovacic in is nowhere enough for us especially if we get any injuries to key players which in turn would give us major problems .
Your panicking a bit too early the windows not shut.People are not being negative it’s just no one can understand why we are not getting stronger in this window because Liverpool atm will be a major threat as will arsenal and even Utd and all 3 teams will be loving our transfer business or lack off . Just bringing kovacic in is nowhere enough for us especially if we get any injuries to key players which in turn would give us major problems .
Also Liverpool don't even have a DM yet. There transfer business is incomplete.
Once gvardiol signed we don't have a squad space so outgoings are required too. I expect things start moving now where back off preseason tour.