Speculation Motown's hysterical and annoying, but traditional, totally unfounded Summer 2017 rumours thread

[Motown Fox]

Number 8 come on in then is it?

 

[Graz]

Number 8 come on in then is it?

I think he'll get Musa's 7.

 

[bocadillo]

I think he'll get Musa's 7.

That will upset Demarai Gray!

 

[SwedeFox]

Sounds like Rudkin has done well there.

I don't like the buy back clause at all. I'd like the full details on that one. Don't want him to be snatched back for nothing if he does well here

 

[Lako42]

Bargain

 

[Feriol]

I don't like the buy back clause at all. I'd like the full details on that one. Don't want him to be snatched back for nothing if he does well here

It won't be for nothing, and there is usually still a profit to be made. If he plays well enough for Man City to want him back, then we will have had our monies worth, and will still make a bit on him.

 

[SwedeFox]

It won't be for nothing, and there is usually still a profit to be made. If he plays well enough for Man City to want him back, then we will have had our monies worth, and will still make a bit on him.

I suppose. That article made it sound as if we used that clause to make them come down in price. With the CL money in the bank I'd prefer us to take a chance (sorry wrong thread) and convert what is effectively a loan to a permanent transfer.

But then the buy-back clause could be huge or they wouldn't do the transfer without it or there are other circumstances that makes it a good option. Hence would be good to know the full details. As always.

 

[Mike - True Blue Tinter]

If we have got him for 4 years that will still be excellent for us, even if we then have to sell him back at the end.

If he performs and scores lots of goals, that will help attract other good players to us.

 

[FIF]

If we have got him for 4 years that will still be excellent for us, even if we then have to sell him back at the end.

If he performs and scores lots of goals, that will help attract other good players to us.

I don't think that's what it means. They can buy him back anytime upto 4 years but if they do that means he'll have proved that he's a world talent with us. They probably won't buy him if he's a near world talent.

 

[Feriol]

It will hopefully keep him motivated as well, rather than leaving with the feeling that he isn't good enough, he knows that Man City think he could be a great player, and he now has the challenge of proving it.

 

[TornadoShaunUK]

I guess it depends on the buy back fee but I'm not keen on it. Basically it seems like a gamble we can't really win... if he's crap we've paid out a high fee and it's our loss and if he's decent - Man City will have him back. Hopefully there's a handsome profit in there for the time and effort we've put into developing the player.

 

[FIF]

I guess it depends on the buy back fee but I'm not keen on it. Basically it seems like a gamble we can't really win... if he's crap we've paid out a high fee and it's our loss and if he's decent - Man City will have him back. Hopefully there's a handsome profit in there for the time and effort we've put into developing the player.

Whilst I'd rather not have a buyback clause, if he is crap we haven't lost as much money. If he's good we keep him, if he's great we benefit like a loan AND then make money on him.

 

[FIF]

After all we've developed Mahrez but even with a long contract we're unable to keep him.

 

[Volpone]

If we have got him for 4 years that will still be excellent for us, even if we then have to sell him back at the end.

If he performs and scores lots of goals, that will help attract other good players to us.

Why would we have to sell him back? If we didn't want to sell him we wouldn't have to.

Surely a buy back clause only means that if we did decide to sell him within 4 years then Man City have first refusal at the price agreed at the time he joins us. If they don't want him we can sell him for whatever we want.

 

[SwedeFox]

Why would we have to sell him back? If we didn't want to sell him we wouldn't have to.

Surely a buy back clause only means that if we did decide to sell him within 4 years then Man City have first refusal at the price agreed at the time he joins us. If they don't want him we can sell him for whatever we want.

I thought it meant that he had a release clause that applied to Man City only and if it is met then we have to sell him (provided player terms are agreed etc).

I know very little about these things though

 

[Graz]

I thought it meant that he had a release clause that applied to Man City only and if it is met then we have to sell him (provided player terms are agreed etc).

I know very little about these things though

Pretty sure you're right.

Also think we'd still be allowed to accept higher offers for him from other clubs, and the player himself of course could decide he doesn't want to go back to Man City.

I don't see the buy back clause being the end of the world, if it means we're getting a good player in the meantime. Might just mean we curse it in a few years if we feel he's going for half his asking price but hopefully they've negotiated a good deal now.

 

[SJN-Fox]

Here you go ... clear as mud ...

http://www.danielgeey.com/football-transfers-buy-back-clauses-explained/

 

[Volpone]

Pretty sure you're right.

Also think we'd still be allowed to accept higher offers for him from other clubs, and the player himself of course could decide he doesn't want to go back to Man City.

I don't see the buy back clause being the end of the world, if it means we're getting a good player in the meantime. Might just mean we curse it in a few years if we feel he's going for half his asking price but hopefully they've negotiated a good deal now.

I can't see that. It would be madness. What if Man City said at Christmas they made a mistake and wanted him back? No club would agree to that sort of arrangement.

 

[SwedeFox]

I can't see that. It would be madness. What if Man City said at Christmas they made a mistake and wanted him back? No club would agree to that sort of arrangement.

Unless it meant they got him £10 million cheaper...

 

[SwedeFox]

It is of course totally conceivable that he will be good enough for us but not good enough for Man City. In which case we've made a very shrewd signing. It just puts a very concrete upper limit on how good he can be before we lose him

But then, as others have pointed out, being Leicester City that is usually the case anyway