Erling Haaland

[tolmie's hairdoo]

That is sound logic, however what is being argued here is that he wouldn't 'save' his buying club 50m by waiting till the summer, but instead wait to pocket it himself. Something I don't buy myself, cynicism for the sake of it.

It's the whole, if he costs 150m now, he'll still cost 150m next summer even with a release clause at half that, because his agent will want the difference for themselves arguement. But why would any club not prepared to pay 150m for him then go and pay 150m for him.

edit, not by the poster you replied to I should add btw.

If he costs £150m in January, he ultimately costs a club £200m plus. He wants paid handsomely, but more so if he knows that buying club saved themselves £50m waiting until the summer and, from his perspective, just five months extra in a Dortmund shirt.

Truth is, both parties would meet somewhere in between, happens a lot when a player is discounted, or on a free.

If City wait until June, both buyer and Haaland would expect to save £50m at least, with about £25m of that to further sweeten the pot added to his personal terms/signing fee.

 

[citizen_maine]

That is sound logic, however what is being argued here is that he wouldn't 'save' his buying club 50m by waiting till the summer, but instead wait to pocket it himself. Something I don't buy myself, cynicism for the sake of it.

It's the whole, if he costs 150m now, he'll still cost 150m next summer even with a release clause at half that, because his agent will want the difference for themselves arguement. But why would any club not prepared to pay 150m for him then go and pay 150m for him.

edit, not by the poster you replied to I should add btw.

I think that was me mate, and it appears I may not have explained what i meant very well :-)
I don't think that the club will change the total amount they're willing to pay - "why would any club not prepared to pay 150m for him then go and pay 150m for him." - we will have a limit, and won't go over it.
Using you're figure of £150m for example - if that was the total amount we were prepared to pay, then if we pay £130m of that to Dortmund, it leaves 'only' £20m to pay Club Haaland. If we 'only' pay the buyout of £75m, then there's £75m available to pay Club Haaland. One of the reasons they negotiated the 'low' buyout was to ensure that they got the most money out of the deal they possibly could. I can't see any reason why they'd agree to any club paying extra to Dortmund, as it reduces the amount the buying club can pay Club Haaland.

Edit - I see Tolmie has beaten me to it, in the time it took me to write this :-)

 

[Coatigan]

I think that was me mate, and it appears I may not have explained what i meant very well :-)
I don't think that the club will change the total amount they're willing to pay - "why would any club not prepared to pay 150m for him then go and pay 150m for him." - we will have a limit, and won't go over it.
Using you're figure of £150m for example - if that was the total amount we were prepared to pay, then if we pay £130m of that to Dortmund, it leaves 'only' £20m to pay Club Haaland. If we 'only' pay the buyout of £75m, then there's £75m available to pay Club Haaland. One of the reasons they negotiated the 'low' buyout was to ensure that they got the most money out of the deal they possibly could. I can't see any reason why they'd agree to any club paying extra to Dortmund, as it reduces the amount the buying club can pay Club Haaland.

Edit - I see Tolmie has beaten me to it, in the time it took me to write this :-)

Na don't think it was aimed at you or any one poster in particular, it is a recurring point. Apologies if you felt blanketed, it wasn't intentional.

I get what you mean now, I do still disagree to an extent though. In daid example, If say the club are prepared to pay all in 150m including 130m as a transfer fee and 20m to his agents, then of the price of the transfer fee halves, they wouldnt imo just lunp that over to the agent and still pay 150m. They might add a bit to play with, sure, 5-10m here and there and bonuses to the player, but I seriously doubt they go over 100m all in with the transfer fee reducing that much.

They werent prerpared to pay 150m though, in whatever combination, so I don't see why they then would in a different format.

Just how I think of it, myself.

Edit. i also disagree that he would have negotiated the release clause to het as much money as he could. He should have negotiated it in to ensure he can get a move to a big club when the time is right and not be priced out if one at his age.

 

[Keeper!]

The missing piece of the puzzle. Him and a young Fern replacement and we are set for years.

The above is a major worry for me, the injuries are mounting.

We also MUST sort the LB once and for all.

Then we are set.

 

[citizen_maine]

Na don't think it was aimed at you or any one poster in particular, it is a recurring point. Apologies if you felt blanketed, it wasn't intentional.

I get what you mean now, I do still disagree to an extent though. In daid example, If say the club are prepared to pay all in 150m including 130m as a transfer fee and 20m to his agents, then of the price of the transfer fee halves, they wouldnt imo just lunp that over to the agent and still pay 150m. They might add a bit to play with, sure, 5-10m here and there and bonuses to the player, but I seriously doubt they go over 100m all in with the transfer fee reducing that much.

They werent prerpared to pay 150m though, in whatever combination, so I don't see why they then would in a different format.

Just how I think of it, myself.

Edit. i also disagree that he would have negotiated the release clause to het as much money as he could. He should have negotiated it in to ensure he can get a move to a big club when the time is right and not be priced out if one at his age.

No offence taken mate.
I agree the club and Haaland will likely 'split the difference', and also agree that another reason for the buyout was to ensure he got his move - hence I said "One of the reasons..." was to get as much money for himself
:-)

 

[MarsLlama]

Haaland was going to cost north of £150m. Not a chance City entertaining that.

If you're right, which I suspect isn't the case, then we're idiots.

What kind of club won't pay £150m for Haaland but thinks £100m for Grealish is acceptable?

One is a great, but ultimately one amongst a dozen, creative wide player. The other is a beast five years his junior with the potential to be one of the best strikers ever.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

View attachment 28025

The above is a major worry for me, the injuries are mounting.

We also MUST sort the LB once and for all.

Then we are set.

Agreed, which is why I believe City had to move like we did on Grealish. Foden and Grealish will both play No.10 well into the future.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

If you're right, which I suspect isn't the case, then we're idiots.

What kind of club won't pay £150m for Haaland but thinks £100m for Grealish is acceptable?

One is a great, but ultimately one amongst a dozen, creative wide player. The other is a beast five years his junior with the potential to be one of the best strikers ever.

Sterling is leaving, Mahrez, 31 in February and into the final two years of his deal, Bernardo future still unclear.

City are preparing the decks, which is why we felt we had to move for Grealish this summer.

 

[Rhapsody in Blue]

Sterling is leaving, Mahrez, 31 in February and into the final two years of his deal, Bernardo future still unclear.

City are preparing the decks, which is why we felt we had to move for Grealish this summer.

Any word on Haaland mate?

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Any word on Haaland mate?

Nothing mate. I like that...