Motown Fox
Well-Known Member
Number 8 come on in then is it?
Number 8 come on in then is it?
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 hereSounds like Rudkin has done well there.
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 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
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.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.
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 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.
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 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).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
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.
Unless it meant they got him £10 million cheaper...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.
P | Pld | Pts | |
1 | Liverpool | 20 | 47 |
2 | Arsenal | 21 | 43 |
3 | Nottm F | 21 | 41 |
4 | Newcastle | 21 | 38 |
5 | Chelsea | 21 | 37 |
6 | Manchester C | 21 | 35 |
7 | Aston Villa | 21 | 35 |
8 | Bournemouth | 21 | 34 |
9 | Fulham | 21 | 30 |
10 | Brentford | 21 | 28 |
11 | Brighton | 20 | 28 |
12 | West Ham | 21 | 26 |
13 | Tottenham | 21 | 24 |
14 | Palace | 21 | 24 |
15 | Manchester U | 20 | 23 |
16 | Everton | 20 | 17 |
17 | Ipswich | 20 | 16 |
18 | Wolves | 21 | 16 |
19 | Leicester | 21 | 14 |
20 | Southampton | 20 | 6 |