It's Quiet the £250m return

Coatigan said:
If it was an obligation to buy I'd agree. But we have seen options to buy come out to absolutely nothing so many times.

Anyway, as you both say, unlikely to matter as the club wouldn't commit to anything that doesn't suit us.
Click to expand...
If Roma negotiate an option to buy then we may lose the player.
 
mancboy said:
So AS roma want an option to buy at 33m and then give us a 40m buyback clause, so they want us to pay them 7m for us loaning them our player, sounds like a cracking deal if you're an idiot.
Click to expand...

Option to buy really so they hardly play him he has a stinker then they’ll say no thanks anyway the lad would have had 1 year wasted!

Why do city just come out and say he ain’t going there full stop why we getting all this bullshit from the Roma side!

Only way city should agree to any loan deal is 1 year loan and he has to play at least 60% of league games and 40% of European games!
 
1961_vintage said:
They are mainly accounts run by @Ric and the moderator teams, posting stuff in order to generate hits and responses. Similar to the Talksport business model. This then helps to pay for the servers and software and maintenance and support needed to keep this Forum operating.

If enough people subscribe then Subscribers may get a kind of personal moderator concierge service (Superbia option I think) to filter out some of the shite so that those kind of posts are far less annoying.

Only some of the above is true.
Click to expand...
You left out the part about sending in your bank details to be eligible for the free weekly drawing for the free Superbia membership.

Disclaimer: none of the above is true.
 
Marvin. said:
If Roma negotiate an option to buy then we may lose the player.
Click to expand...

Only if the conditions suit us, as Coatigan said. If they buy the player for 35m and develop him into a cracking player over 2-3 years, then bying him back for 50m may make sense. If he isn't worth, say, 70m in the market in 2-3 years, then he might not be good enough for City anyway.

Echeverri isn't in a position to dictate the conditions of the loan. We do what makes sense to both us and the player, not just the player.
 
Marvin. said:
If Roma negotiate an option to buy then we may lose the player.
Click to expand...

only option to buy should be 50m and we have buy back option for the same amount and a sell on!

Man City are in control of the player don’t matter how much his people are pushing for Roma we will do a deal for a loan that we are happy with!

Also pep be gone in two seasons, whoever the new manager going to be maybe he should be able to asses all the players. The new manager might want to play more attacking..
 
Echeverri looks a good little player, but it's a bit too early for him to be a regular first teamer at City. A year's loan probably the best option when he's got players like Foden, Cherki, Marmoush and Reijnders ahead of him. Plus Haaland.
 
Pedestrian said:
I thought him coming on in the cup final was a message that he’s part of the future. Loaning him out seems odd. I’d rotate him with Bernie. I’d rather savinio went on loan than this lad or OB.
Click to expand...


He was a speculative buy with maybe a small profit in is as David Dickenson is likely to say.
 
Marvin. said:
If Roma negotiate an option to buy then we may lose the player.
Click to expand...
Only if all parties agree.

We may lose the player even if they don't negotiate an option to buy, because if he plays well and likes it there they can come in with an offer and he may ask to leave, and the club might not want to stand in his way. Same if he goes to Girona, or anywhere else.

I don't see why the risk is any higher. You could argue with an option to buy, they may be more likely to give him meaningful appearances.
 
blueparrot said:
Doesn't make sense, he will be a better player in 12 months playing regularly somewhere than sat on our bench and playing league cup games.Then in 12 months he and we benefit.
Click to expand...
All depends.

Yes, of course, if the two ends of that are - playing regularly for 12 months at a side in ine of the top leagues vs, being sat on the bench and playing the odd league cup game.

But there is a big grey area inbetween. He may develop more training with us and playing a few games and being used in big games. A club he goes to might not use him as much as we think, hope. A loan move doesn't guarantee development.

In fact, I can think of only one single player of ours that has gone out on loan and then actually made it into the first team. And that was by a bit of a quirk if coincidence too! So the odds are actually against him with a loan, imo.
 
Coatigan said:
Only if all parties agree.

We may lose the player even if they don't negotiate an option to buy, because if he plays well and likes it there they can come in with an offer and he may ask to leave, and the club might not want to stand in his way. Same if he goes to Girona, or anywhere else.

I don't see why the risk is any higher. You could argue with an option to buy, they may be more likely to give him meaningful appearances.
Click to expand...


An acceptable scenario for City would be to loan the player for 1 season. That's as far as I would go otherwise we risk losing the player for good. He is a potentially world class player. Clubs look at City and they see low hanging fruit.
 
Coatigan said:
In fact, I can think of only one single player of ours that has gone out on loan and then actually made it into the first team. And that was by a bit of a quirk if coincidence too! So the odds are actually against him with a loan, imo.
Click to expand...

Sort of tells everyone why these players go on loan, it isn't to make them better for us it's to make a profit.
 
Coatigan said:
So the odds are actually against him with a loan, imo.
Click to expand...

You can't calculate the odds without including the level of talent. How big of a talent Echeverri is is anyone's guess. If he really is a top, top talent, chances are he will play for us in 1-2 seasons. Personally, I rate him and think he will play for us, unless both Cherki and Foden are outstanding. Then it might be difficult to find a place for him. But it depends on the talent ultimately. If he shows his ceiling is higher than theirs, then he returns and starts.
 
Coatigan said:
All depends.

Yes, of course, if the two ends of that are - playing regularly for 12 months at a side in ine of the top leagues vs, being sat on the bench and playing the odd league cup game.

But there is a big grey area inbetween. He may develop more training with us and playing a few games and being used in big games. A club he goes to might not use him as much as we think, hope. A loan move doesn't guarantee development.

In fact, I can think of only one single player of ours that has gone out on loan and then actually made it into the first team. And that was by a bit of a quirk if coincidence too! So the odds are actually against him with a loan, imo.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's the same, previous loans it was obvious players wern't coming back and displacing players we had at their peak ,Bernardo KDB, Silva,Stones, Gundogan Aguero etc. Now we are at a very different stage and there are places opening up for players like Echeverri, Bobb, Nypan, Reis,Doku to grab if they can go and take their chances either on loan or with us.
 
alexmcity said:
Only if the conditions suit us, as Coatigan said. If they buy the player for 35m and develop him into a cracking player over 2-3 years, then bying him back for 50m may make sense. If he isn't worth, say, 70m in the market in 2-3 years, then he might not be good enough for City anyway.

Echeverri isn't in a position to dictate the conditions of the loan. We do what makes sense to both us and the player, not just the player.
Click to expand...
I had assumed that that the discussion with Roma was over a season-long loan, and a buy option.
 
Echeverri believes with a stellar season in a top European league & appearances in the high profile CL, he has a good outside chance of making the WC. He's wants what's best for his career & is obviously confident in his talent. Can't blame the kid for wanting Roma, & I can't blame Roma for wanting an option to buy.

He wouldn't be a nailed on starter if he were to stay at City, but I saw enough in his brief appearances against Palace & in the CWC to suggest he's a special player, just not one ready to start the majority of games.

It'd still be my preference to press ahead with clearing the decks squad-wise & keeping him here.

The problem is Pep's not an up & coming manager willing to spend 2-4 seasons building a young elite squad to challenge for honours. He wants to win everything, every season & there in lies our problem. Pep's more likely to win something during 2025-26 by keeping the best of the old guard around & wringing one or two seasons out of them.

The youngsters we've bought, will probably start coming into that elite level in the next 2-4 years, with the likes of Doku, Savinho, Bobb hopefully reaching that level in the next year or two.

It's about timing & what's the priority for City. Do we clear the decks with the old guard, & take a step back for a couple of seasons as we blood the young guns. Or do we try to win everything with experienced players, & gradually phase in the young guns?

The issue then becomes about squad spaces & the inevitable loans it'll lead to. This is all so unnecessary. We should've started the succession planning immediately after winning the treble, when it was obvious we'd had the best of that squad & they'd peaked.

I always assumed the idea behind having a Director of Football was to ensure long-term thinking...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top