Geronimo Rulli

[WRicko]

Seems like we are almost certain to want him further down the line.

So not sure why we cannot just keep loaning him or have the buy back clause at the same prices as the selling price.

I wanted him to come but getting rid of Hart did not seem like good idea now or anytime soon given his quality and his age and nationality. Having said that I would like better distribution and use of feet.

 

[TonyM]

We need to think this through.....HES NOWHERE NEAR THE FUCKIN BALL;)

Excellent!!!! :-)

 

[Delphacito]

Seems like we are almost certain to want him further down the line.

So not sure why we cannot just keep loaning him or have the buy back clause at the same prices as the selling price.

I wanted him to come but getting rid of Hart did not seem like good idea now or anytime soon given his quality and his age and nationality. Having said that I would like better distribution and use of feet.

If it was just a loan, Real Sociedad won't have any incentives to play him/develop him really. They won't stand to make anything from that. GKs aren't like outfield players that can be rotated. He has to play week in week out. By using this arrangement, they will get some money if City manages to activate the buy back clause. If City don't activate it and other clubs want him then Sociedad would get the full release clause.

On the City side, they're paying 2M insurance money basically that if he becomes the next Buffon or some shit, City can buy him for 14M only.

 

[Ashleymcduff]

Let's be hypothetical for a minute. I'm going to use some figures purely for illustrative purposes, they wont be ridiculous but probably won't be accurate either. I'm using £ rather than euros as well, but to be fair there isn't much difference at the minute. Anyway.

The lad doesn't want to come. He wants to go to Sociedad. He is guaranteed to start as No 1, rather than playing cup football for City. We see him as a great keeper long term and don't want to lose out, and then he become brilliant and cost £30m for example, in a few years. We also have first option on him via some third party.

So, we buy him from Deportivo Maldonado, let's say the deal is heavily incentive based like most we do, maybe we only pay £2m up front. We then loan him to where he actually wants to go, with them paying his wages and an obligation clause to buy him. Deal goes through and he signs permanently for Sociedad for £7m. This then negates the incentives in the original deal as he hasn't achieved them and no longer plays for the club, so we're currently in profit having sold a player for more than we paid for him and he hasn't kicked a ball for us. We insert a buy back clause at a fee where we still feel we're getting him cheap (if he goes on to be the player we think), but it's still profit for Sociedad, and enough profit for them to bother being included in this bizarre deal in the first place. If he doesn't develop into what we think he will, we don't activate the clause and we've made £5m on a player that has never played.

If he goes on to be a world class keeper, we buy him back for £14m. Net spend is £9m. Sociedad have made money, Deportivo have made money (they will have future sell on fee entitlements as well), and we've spent £9m on a world class keeper that could now be worth £30m. We either cash in, or he goes in the first team.


This is purely hypothetical, but none of us know the actual terms of this agreement so we can't call the above speculative, and in the other breath say it doesn't make sense. We just don't know either way. However, if it's similar (it won't be the same) to how i've described it above, it's a good move for all parties right?

Time for a coffee.

That made my eyes go back to front !!!
Sounds good to me though lol
Where's my coffee

 

[kupest]

Check out these posts, which do a good job of explaining the deal:

https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/com...t_to_sign_geronimo_rulli_for_75m_will/d5a3gcv
https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/com...t_to_sign_geronimo_rulli_for_75m_will/d59y3bp
https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/com...t_to_sign_geronimo_rulli_for_75m_will/d5a36mh
https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/com...t_to_sign_geronimo_rulli_for_75m_will/d59wuox

But its still weird. Why do we pay Real to "educate" him? Wouldn't we normally get a loan fee if we just loaned him out?

 

[TonyM]

At least we avoid a Cortois situation. They're not in CL this season right so we'd not bump into him while on loan. They could be the next year but no issue while they own him. :-)

 

[Centurions]

He is not going to come to us this season. That is his decision and we can't change that presumably unless we promise him Hart's spot. So we have essentially spent 1.7 million to secure the right to buy him in the future for 12 million. We could not have bought him and loaned him for 2 years like many have said because he would not have agreed. If he is as good as many think, his going price could be around 40 by the time we buy him back. We are preserving (at a low cost) the ability to buy the keeper that we want in two years at a price that is much much lower than his going price will be (we think). We are also making sure that other clubs don't get him. If in the next two years he turns out to be shit...we have spent 1.7 million, we don't have to worry about selling him and we move on--thats the risk...1.7 million. That's my understanding of it at least. Quite shrewd. Also makes me wonder if we are in for Bravo...

Let's be hypothetical for a minute. I'm going to use some figures purely for illustrative purposes, they wont be ridiculous but probably won't be accurate either. I'm using £ rather than euros as well, but to be fair there isn't much difference at the minute. Anyway.

The lad doesn't want to come. He wants to go to Sociedad. He is guaranteed to start as No 1, rather than playing cup football for City. We see him as a great keeper long term and don't want to lose out, and then he become brilliant and cost £30m for example, in a few years. We also have first option on him via some third party.

So, we buy him from Deportivo Maldonado, let's say the deal is heavily incentive based like most we do, maybe we only pay £2m up front. We then loan him to where he actually wants to go, with them paying his wages and an obligation clause to buy him. Deal goes through and he signs permanently for Sociedad for £7m. This then negates the incentives in the original deal as he hasn't achieved them and no longer plays for the club, so we're currently in profit having sold a player for more than we paid for him and he hasn't kicked a ball for us. We insert a buy back clause at a fee where we still feel we're getting him cheap (if he goes on to be the player we think), but it's still profit for Sociedad, and enough profit for them to bother being included in this bizarre deal in the first place. If he doesn't develop into what we think he will, we don't activate the clause and we've made £5m on a player that has never played.

If he goes on to be a world class keeper, we buy him back for £14m. Net spend is £9m. Sociedad have made money, Deportivo have made money (they will have future sell on fee entitlements as well), and we've spent £9m on a world class keeper that could now be worth £30m. We either cash in, or he goes in the first team.


This is purely hypothetical, but none of us know the actual terms of this agreement so we can't call the above speculative, and in the other breath say it doesn't make sense. We just don't know either way. However, if it's similar (it won't be the same) to how i've described it above, it's a good move for all parties right?

Time for a coffee.

Hopefully this clears things up.....not!;)

AS: Gerónimo Rulli set to join Manchester City… in a very confusing deal

http://www.mcfcwatch.com/2016/07/13...oin-manchester-city-in-a-very-confusing-deal/

Manchester City have exercised their clause to sign 24-year-old Argentine goalkeeper Gerónimo Rulli, according to AS, in a complex deal that needs some explaining.

Rulli had been poised to join Real Sociedad on a permanent deal from Deportivo Maldonado, a second division Uruguayan side who ‘host’ players for third-party owners such as Rulli’s. City are said to have a stake in the South American investment group that owns Rulli’s sporting rights, granting them a first option to sign the player. They have now used this option and there is a complete agreement for City to buy the player outright.

What will happen next, according to this story, is very confusing. City will loan Rulli back to Real Sociedad, where he has was parked last season, but La Real will then be obliged to sign the goalkeeper for a fee of around €7 million (£5.8 million) next summer. City will therefore have signed Rulli, loaned him out, and sold him within a year.

But it doesn’t end there. Having sold Rulli, City will have a buy-back clause, allowing them to sign him in future for around double what Sociedad gave them, so approximately €14 million (£11.6 million). 2018 is mentioned as the year in which City could bring him back to the Etihad. They would have to pay to re-sign a player they had previously owned, in what could be viewed as a developmental fee to Sociedad. If City didn’t decide to buy him back, Rulli’s release clause would be €40 million (£33.4 million) for any other club wishing to acquire him.

If Rulli left Sociedad for any club besides City, whether for his €40 million clause or lower, City would be entitled to 30% of the total amount with Sociedad getting the other 70%.

After many mixed reports on which goalkeepers City may be signing, this one seems the most reliable, simply because of how incredibly confusing and complex it is. The indications are that Gerónimo Rulli is set to become a Manchester City player, but only for a year… and then he may become a Manchester City player again in a couple of years.

Admittedly I missed all the excitement (and confusion) last night about this but that looks like a brilliant piece of business by City (and Txiki). Expect Fifa and UEFA to bring in rules to block further exploitation very shortly.

 

[kupest]

The only way this makes sense is if his market value is around 15 million right now.
That way we are mitigating the risk factor. Rulli doesn't want to be no.2 to Hart right now (understandably). So we sign a player who is worth 15million pounds for 7.5mill. We then sell him to Real for 5.8, hence our total outlay would be 1.7mill. So 1.7 mill is basically giving us a "right" to buy back the player for 13.3mill. Add the 1.7mill to 13.3mill and we get to his presumed value 15mill. So after a year or two years we either buy him for 15mill or we also have a 30% sell on clause for the 1.7mill we paid, which would mean he would have to be sold by Real to any club for more than 5.7mill for us to make a profit on him. In a way we are mitigating the risk either way.

What do you guys think?

 

[g180aj]

we're up to some fucking nonsense business this window.

Buy for £7.5m, sell for £5.8m, buy back for £11.6m. So we could end up with a player for £13.3m that we bought for £7.5m.

The fuck Txiki?

So I'm assuming we would sell him with a buy back in 2 years like barca did with Denis and Gerard but Sociadad can't afford to buy him now.
Do we know if they are giving us a loan fee now tho like the Roma and inter deals for Edin and Stevan?

 

[Centurions]

So I'm assuming we would sell him with a buy back in 2 years like barca did with Denis and Gerard but Sociadad can't afford to buy him now.
Do we know if they are giving us a loan fee now tho like the Roma and inter deals for Edin and Stevan?

A pure guess on my part but I'd say they're paying his wages only.