Rodrigo Hernandez - Atletico confirm deal - p192

[MillionDollarDream]

The kit deal isn't holding anything up. Rodri's release clause activates on July 1 and we'll pay it shortly after, there's not much mystery behind this one. In a case like Angelino, where we're exercising our buyback in a relatively low stakes transfer? Sure, maybe hold off the extra week to put him in the Puma kit, but if there was something time sensitive theres no way which brand shirt they wear in the photoshoot would have any impact on football operations.

With Rodri it’s the release clause
With Angelino he had to get the all clear from PSV to leave training to complete the deal as they have early Champions League qualifiers.

Also Atleti are paying over the release clause for Joao Felix to split payments as well.

 

[Deleted member 81382]

Wonder if Laporte will go to 4 and Rodri 14?

Think that was more to do with Simeone. I'd have thought he'd take the #6 as it's available. Agree on Laporte taking the #4, a fine successor to Kompany.

 

[GoldenLitefut]

You’ve got to be a bit more subtle, mate.

About what? More subtle about our owners running the business like a business?

 

[GeorgeHeslop'sTackle.]

Our owner hasn't put in money for several years,the loan is to be able to spend big but you don't pay more than a release clause imo

Oh I don’t know, I was so elated, on full time, (after VInnie’s goal At the Etihad against Leicester), that I gleefully stumped up, the best part of £3, no questions asked, for a bag of bloody Revels

 

[No One Understands]

Can someone explain to me why we would be splitting payments? I thought the purchase price was amortized over the life of the contract regardless of payments split, or is this just a cash flow issue?

 

[PrezIke]

Is it July 1st yet?

 

[Sir peace frog]

Can someone explain to me why we would be splitting payments? I thought the purchase price was amortized over the life of the contract regardless of payments split, or is this just a cash flow issue?

I can only think we have a budget, say for e.g. 150million ,why would we spend 70m of the budget when we can say pay 35m and still have plenty for other players,

 

[kaz7]

Oh I don’t know, I was so elated, on full time, (after VInnie’s goal At the Etihad against Leicester), that I gleefully stumped up, the best part of £3, no questions asked, for a bag of bloody Revels

They got you there sucker lol

 

[MillionDollarDream]

Can someone explain to me why we would be splitting payments? I thought the purchase price was amortized over the life of the contract regardless of payments split, or is this just a cash flow issue?

Release clauses have to be paid in full unlike regular transfers I believe.

 

[Mon Autre]

I’m guessing it’s to stay within FFP guidelines if we have several other signings to make.
Also If we get a transfer ban which is largely reported, we could spend say £400m but split the payments over two transfer windows. So if we split payments then net spend for the year we are banned from signing players will be £200m. So instead of £400m in one season/window is would be 200 now, 200 when we are banned.
If that don’t make sense it’s cos I’ve had a few Uri Gellers

If it's down to FFP then paying above the release clause is going to hamper us more not less. In accounting terms, the cost will be spread over the term of the player's contract regardless of when we pay it. If we agreed to pay £50m for a player on a 5yr contract in full today, it'll hit our books at £10m per year. If we agreed to pay £100m for the same player but in installments spread over 5 years, it'd hit our books at £20m per year. And even if we have a transfer ban next year, the cost of existing contracts will hit the books. Net spend doesn't come into it.