Rico is obviously very versatile and may be asked to move into the midfield or even to the left side. Walker is pushing 33 and Cancelo isn't exactly on the best of terms or in the peak of form at this time. Bringing in a player we originally found for $15 million when he's worth easily $40 million in the open market is just plain good business...
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.
Could Pedro Porro be a long-term replacement for Walker?
- Thread starter PepGuardiola
- Start date
Rico isn't going anywhere...He's been starting games at that. 2 year loan? WTF!
Decent idea.We are also in a good position on this transfer like Lavia. Ideally we may want him back but another year at sporting being 1st choice would arguably be better for his development. If some goes in for him seriously we activate the buy back.
Correct. If we buy him back its not to resell him any time soon.That clause will be in the contract. There's no way a club would accept a buy back clause which enables the club to then sell the player at full market value. They'd restrict that for either a period of time, or agree an overage where they receive any money that the selling club secures from a further sale once the player is "bought back" to prevent the club from doing it.
OccupiedPalestineBlues
Well-Known Member
Correct. If we buy him back its not to resell him any time soon.
Is it not the case that buying clubs accept buy back clauses because they get the player for less in the first instance and the buy back clauses pay them a guaranteed profit if enacted?
As example; a young player may be notionally valued at £20m but gets sold for £15m with a buy back clause set a £25m.
The buying club gets the player for less than market value, if the player improves and the selling club implements the buy back clause then the there’s a guaranteed profit.
It’s a win-win. The selling club effectively pays for an insurance that protects their interests if the players development suddenly accelerates. By accepting a less than market price, as per the above example -£5m, that is effectively a £5m investment, and then if buying back paying a further £25m (£25m minus the sale proceeds of £15m = £10m that would need to be covered by the players improved market value.
Having a buy back doesn’t necessarily preclude a bought back player from being sold on immediately, and I doubt that would ever be the case.
What more often happens, when a player improves and then is sold, is that the players original club gets a percentage of the sale price (% of sale is generally included alongside the buy back).
Understanding what you've stated I can't recall a single player of note being bought back on a buy back clause who was then in turn basically "flipped" for a monetary profit. Not just by City, but by anyone else either. Does anyone have an actual example of this happening in recent times?Is it not the case that buying clubs accept buy back clauses because they get the player for less in the first instance and the buy back clauses pay them a guaranteed profit if enacted?
As example; a young player may be notionally valued at £20m but gets sold for £15m with a buy back clause set a £25m.
The buying club gets the player for less than market value, if the player improves and the selling club implements the buy back clause then the there’s a guaranteed profit.
It’s a win-win. The selling club effectively pays for an insurance that protects their interests if the players development suddenly accelerates. By accepting a less than market price, as per the above example -£5m, that is effectively a £5m investment, and then if buying back paying a further £25m (£25m minus the sale proceeds of £15m = £10m that would need to be covered by the players improved market value.
Having a buy back doesn’t necessarily preclude a bought back player from being sold on immediately, and I doubt that would ever be the case.
What more often happens, when a player improves and then is sold, is that the players original club gets a percentage of the sale price (% of sale is generally included alongside the buy back).
Gaz (FMwkdsoul)
Well-Known Member
Benik Afobe, prob the most obvious.Understanding what you've stated I can't recall a single player of note being bought back on a buy back clause who was then in turn basically "flipped" for a monetary profit. Not just by City, but by anyone else either. Does anyone have an actual example of this happening in recent times?
OccupiedPalestineBlues
Well-Known Member
Understanding what you've stated I can't recall a single player of note being bought back on a buy back clause who was then in turn basically "flipped" for a monetary profit. Not just by City, but by anyone else either. Does anyone have an actual example of this happening in recent times?
No, I agree with you.
I wasn’t saying that would happen, just that I could and that both clubs could be pleased with the outcome if it did.
I don’t know of an example of it happening and I’d suppose that it‘s because it’s an overlying complicated way of making some money when a player ends up at a different club again, especially when there’s a % of the sell on coming back anyhow.
No, I know what you're saying. I was just saying I haven't seen teams doing that, definitely not us.No, I agree with you.
I wasn’t saying that would happen, just that I could and that both clubs could be pleased with the outcome if it did.
I don’t know of an example of it happening and I’d suppose that it‘s because it’s an overlying complicated way of making some money when a player ends up at a different club again, especially when there’s a % of the sell on coming back anyhow.