It's possible. There's definitely an arms race of hording talented young players and this trend for buy-back clauses is part of it, because it allows you to have young players without technically owning them. We've got Unal and Rulli so far who we'll be able to bring in if they become good enough. But 'good enough' may just mean good enough to make a profit rather than good enough to play for us. We've already made £8m on Unal, but if he continues his progress, we could easily be in a position where he's worth far more than the reported £17.5m buy-back clause and it'll be interesting to see whether we'd bring him in even if we didn't want him in our team, just to be able to sell him on for a lot more than that. But you'd hope that the buy back clause was because we hope that the player will develop into someone we can bring into the squad rather than shamelessly profit from. I think we are bringing in all of these young players in the hope that one will be good enough for the first team, but it doesn't hurt that it's often profit-generating and there may be a temptation to include young players who we know will never be good enough for us but can make us a profit after a good loan spell. The academy players will probably be largely the same, like when we got £9m for Rony Lopes after a successful loan spell at Lille. You do both of these things in the knowledge that the majority will not reach the heights you're hoping for, but also knowing that you'll be able to make a profit on players that don't quite make it. The buy-back clause just gives you another way of hedging your bets.