Leroy Sané

[RichardDunneOwnGoal]

Would be poor form if we had to pay that much after being adamant we wouldn't for so long.

Consistently showing ourselves to be poor negotiators IMO, always buckle in the end. Most high profile one is Sterling, similar situation with Stones now.

I don't understand how we can have players fully tapped up and solely wishing to join us, yet still always end up paying, more or less, the inflated asking prices in full, even having 'final take it or leave' bids called for bluffs as well.

Frustrating.

 

[mosssideblue]

Would be poor form if we had to pay that much after being adamant we wouldn't for so long.

Consistently showing ourselves to be poor negotiators IMO, always buckle in the end. Most high profile one is Sterling, similar situation with Stones now.

I don't understand how we can have players fully tapped up and solely wishing to join us, yet still always end up paying, more or less, the inflated asking prices in full, even having 'final take it or leave' bids called for bluffs as well.

Frustrating.

possibly, but would you just rather we give what anyone asks straight away? Bargaining also buys us time to consider other avenues

 

[kaz7]

Would be poor form if we had to pay that much after being adamant we wouldn't for so long.

Consistently showing ourselves to be poor negotiators IMO, always buckle in the end. Most high profile one is Sterling, similar situation with Stones now.

I don't understand how we can have players fully tapped up and solely wishing to join us, yet still always end up paying, more or less, the inflated asking prices in full, even having 'final take it or leave' bids called for bluffs as well.

Frustrating.

They wanted 60 m euro's and we have met in the middle,they didn't want to sell so meeting us in the middle is perfectly ok

 

[pudge]

I don't care how much a player costs but the Everton hierarchy will be smiling like fuck right now.

 

[Dax777]

Then why are we and others not doing that kind of deal on a regular basis? I suspect it doesn't suit all parties

My guess is part of it is greed. The selling club and agents want as much up front.

For example if you are a selling club ( well no one really is a selling club) but if you have to sell your best young talents. You can project that about 75% of the wouldn't reach their potential. For example, You make more money overall if say you sold 10 young players at 30 mil each. Which gives you 300 million. This is better than selling at 10 million each with add ons to 60 million. Assuming 3 make it to the very top, you only get 250 million guaranteed plus however much add ons the other players get. Which may not cover the last 50 million.

I get that rational. But the problem here is that the industry itself gets inflated, and your buying power is actually reduced by that inflation you helped cause.

On the other hand, inflation doesn't affect the agents as they have no buying interest like clubs. In the end, agents become the sole profiteers in the process.

This is an unfortunate outcome for all else involved.

 

[RichardDunneOwnGoal]

possibly, but would you just rather we give what anyone asks straight away? Bargaining also buys us time to consider other avenues

I'd rather we just never made the 'take it or leave it' offer to Liverpool last summer if we didn't have the bottle to actually walk away when they rejected it.

It's precedents like that which come back to haunt you. Exactly what we're going through with Stones now as well apparently.

You've got to show you're prepared to walk away when selling clubs take the piss otherwise you'll get the piss taken out of you every time you buy.

 

[CityStu]

Would be poor form if we had to pay that much after being adamant we wouldn't for so long.

Consistently showing ourselves to be poor negotiators IMO, always buckle in the end. Most high profile one is Sterling, similar situation with Stones now.

I don't understand how we can have players fully tapped up and solely wishing to join us, yet still always end up paying, more or less, the inflated asking prices in full, even having 'final take it or leave' bids called for bluffs as well.

Frustrating.

Because we're after a calibre of player where if we don't pay the asking price, another club will sooner or later. We apparently pulled out of the race for Pogba because things got a level that we didn't deem good value.

 

[our tommy]

I'd rather we just never made the 'take it or leave it' offer to Liverpool last summer if we didn't have the bottle to actually walk away when they rejected it.

It's precedents like that which come back to haunt you. Exactly what we're going through with Stones now as well apparently.

You've got to show you're prepared to walk away when selling clubs take the piss otherwise you'll get the piss taken out of you every time you buy.

How sure are we that these figures are correct? There have been wide ranging figures quoted in our media.

 

[Rammy Blue]

£37mil up front.

 

[RichardDunneOwnGoal]

Because we're after a calibre of player where if we don't pay the asking price, another club will sooner or later. We apparently pulled out of the race for Pogba because things got a level that we didn't deem good value.

But we're talking about players that only have eyes for us, even rumours that Sane would've stayed for a year and then with his agreement we would've triggered his £31m release clause with terms already agreed for next summer.

How can we still buckle in that situation?

Shalke are the ones who would be set to miss about on a big payday and be left with an unhappy player who'll leave for less the following summer.

Hopefully the figures are inflated since it's a Shalke brief but these are continued poor precedents we're setting that are continually coming back to haunt us, like the other blue said, Everton will be rubbing their hands now.

Just giving continual encouragement to selling clubs to string us along on the knowledge that we always cave in, no matter how much we posture.