Teasy

Not necessarily. I would like a permanent signing or a loan with an option to buy. But loan with compulsory purchase isn't how these deals usually work, it seems like too much in favour of the selling club. He could play terribly, ruin the team spirit or whatever, and we would still have to buy him. With the loan with the option to buy, both parties share the risk. If he does well, he'll cost a buyer more at the end, if he does shit we don't have to buy him but we've taken him off their wage bill for a season. Out of not signing him at all and signing him in that way, I'm not sure which I'd prefer. But we should definitely try to avoid it if possible. I don't get that, how can you want to sign him permanently but not want to sign him on loan with a sale agreed should be survive? The permanent transfer offers no advantages at all over the loan, in fact the loan offers an advantage over the permanent deal as it removes the risk of having his wages and transfer fee on our finances if we're relegated. Just to clarify this deal is supposed to have a fee agreed when the loan starts. So at the end of the loan should we survive we would have to sign him for a previously agreed fee (rumoured to be £5m)

I really think we've left this to deadline day and OM will try and offload him for straight cash till then, if that doesn't happen we'll get him on the original terms. That is where I honestly think MA is with this. Agreed. We're playing hardball. It's risky and I'm not sure we're in a position to risk it when given the chance to sign a quality player like Ben Arfa but I sure as hell would not sign up to the buyout clause as well so I can see why Ashley and Llambias are playing hardball. Imagine if we did sign that clause that the guy is turbo s*** for the whole season, comes on as a sub for 20-25 games but we still survive. To be forced to buy him would be reduce our transfer budget for next season and it would be an outlay which would not improve the team at all. If we're going to agree to a buyout clause, we have to stick in some other clauses like x amount of starts or x amount of games as well because otherwise we have no leverage come next season. Tbf to Ashley and Llambias, this buyout clause thing is the first time I've ever seen mentioned. I would understand a fee agree and first refusal because that's something that's quite common but for Marseilles to demand this shows that they're not really seriously entertaining our offer (yet). If he was total s*** we wouldn't play him for 25 games. I really don't understand why anyone would have a problem with such a clause. Most would be ecstatic if we signed him right now for £5m. Yet wouldn't like to sign him now for the season with the proviso that we must sign him for £5m next year if he plays 25 games and we stay up, its f***ing crazy IMO. It doesn't matter whether he's s*** or not, do you get it? We have to sign him if we survive, even if he's a horrible ball-hog who doesn't track back and ends up playing only a portion of our home matches and none of our away matches. Let's face it, this is a possibility. For us to tie our hands like that is insane. No contract has been signed like this in football because no club has been desperate/mental enough to sign it. The fact that Marseilles have asked us to commit to it is probably a sign that our bid is way too low and they're taking the piss, or it's just them playing hardball and we're calling their bluff (which I think will work, imo). Man what the f*** are you on about? Of course it matters how he plays because IF he was s*** we just don't play him for the required number of games, do you get that? This kind of deal certainly has been done in the past and its a f***ing good one. You get a player for a season, you only have to sign him if you needed him for the 25 game minimum (which means he's played well or why the f*** else would you play him in those games) and if the club is in a position to afford him (survival). You also have the fee fixed so if he sets the world alight Marseille are forced to still sell at the £5m price. Its a compromise, what do you expect?, for Marseille to send him here with absolutely everything on our terms? Teasy, I think you have mis-understood what Marseille are asking for. They want us to put a clause in the contract which makes us buy him next summer, no matter how many games he's played or how well he's played... kind of like buy now pay next summer. Either way, we have to buy him. We have offered to buy him if he plays more than 25 games. They have turned that down. I've never ever heard of a loan deal where you are obligated to buy someone whether or not they have played well. I think NUFC are doing the right thing not agreeing to it. If he meant without the 25 game clause then its not as good a deal as I thought, still far from lose lose though. It still protects us against having to bring in a layer we can't afford. Since survival would mean we could certainly afford a £5M fee.

We'll you're doing an awful job so their!

Are you arguing with yourself now?

You're making something out of nothing, we tie our hands with every signing we make, this would be no different other than not having to pay up front for him. It would be better because it also gives us the option to bench him if he's not contributing which would mean we could then send him back without buying. It also removes the risk of having to buy the player if we were relegated and could no longer afford it, both clauses protect us and Marseille to a degree but apparently its lose lose for us..

I really think we've left this to deadline day and OM will try and offload him for straight cash till then, if that doesn't happen we'll get him on the original terms. That is where I honestly think MA is with this. Agreed. We're playing hardball. It's risky and I'm not sure we're in a position to risk it when given the chance to sign a quality player like Ben Arfa but I sure as hell would not sign up to the buyout clause as well so I can see why Ashley and Llambias are playing hardball. Imagine if we did sign that clause that the guy is turbo shit for the whole season, comes on as a sub for 20-25 games but we still survive. To be forced to buy him would be reduce our transfer budget for next season and it would be an outlay which would not improve the team at all. If we're going to agree to a buyout clause, we have to stick in some other clauses like x amount of starts or x amount of games as well because otherwise we have no leverage come next season. Tbf to Ashley and Llambias, this buyout clause thing is the first time I've ever seen mentioned. I would understand a fee agree and first refusal because that's something that's quite common but for Marseilles to demand this shows that they're not really seriously entertaining our offer (yet). If he was total shit we wouldn't play him for 25 games. I really don't understand why anyone would have a problem with such a clause. Most would be ecstatic if we signed him right now for £5m. Yet wouldn't like to sign him now for the season with the proviso that we must sign him for £5m next year if he plays 25 games and we stay up, its fucking crazy IMO. It doesn't matter whether he's shit or not, do you get it? We have to sign him if we survive, even if he's a horrible ball-hog who doesn't track back and ends up playing only a portion of our home matches and none of our away matches. Let's face it, this is a possibility. For us to tie our hands like that is insane. No contract has been signed like this in football because no club has been desperate/mental enough to sign it. The fact that Marseilles have asked us to commit to it is probably a sign that our bid is way too low and they're taking the piss, or it's just them playing hardball and we're calling their bluff (which I think will work, imo). Man what the fuck are you on about? Of course it matters how he plays because IF he was shit we just don't play him for the required number of games, do you get that? This kind of deal certainly has been done in the past and its a fucking good one. You get a player for a season, you only have to sign him if you needed him for the 25 game minimum (which means he's played well or why the fuck else would you play him in those games) and if the club is in a position to afford him (survival). You also have the fee fixed so if he sets the world alight Marseille are forced to still sell at the £5m price. Its a compromise, what do you expect?, for Marseille to send him here with absolutely everything on our terms?

You're talking about loaning him for the season and having to sign him for £5m IF he plays 25 games and IF we survive yes? How on earth can you describe that as a lose lose situation?

We've fallen behind WBA in the food chain? http://www.diesel-ebooks.com/mas_assets/full/0470120363.jpg

That's where you're going badly wrong.

You can understand when it's Mike Ashley. Also he aint a Billionaire. He's only 30 odd million short at the last count £300m short. Just checked, you were looking at the 2009 list, in 2010 he's back up to just over £960m.

Fuck. That's it then game over.

That sounds like a rehash of the original article last night.

According to who? Forbes have him down as $1.5 billion as of March 2010.

No source of any worth has confirmed a bid from Bremen and it seems they now look like signing Wesley from Santos anyway so they may not even be interested in Ben Arfa.

You can understand when it's Mike Ashley. Also he aint a Billionaire. He's only 30 odd million short at the last count

You just keep telling yourself that mate, probably makes you feel better

It would be better for everyone if you just stopped making posts. After that post I have to agree. "Arfa or no Arfa the difference is minimum"

I'm not an Ashley supporter and I'm pretty peeved that we're simply refusing to spend money, but this ridiculous myth that Ashley is pocketing the TV money etc. just has to stop. He's not allowed to take money out of the club willy nilly, it's not how it works . Its his business, he owns all shares and can do and take exactly what he likes. His investments are all loans and he's using the cash coming in to fill his own pocket. Please, not this nonsense again.

I'm just glad that despite how easy this transfer was to complete I always kept the idea in the back of my mind that it would be fucked up (which isn't easy because I'm quite positive in general). Otherwise I'd be absolutely fucking gutted right now

Anyone saying "Ah we were never going to sign him" give yourself a slap, this lad was desperate to come here and only an unfortunate set of circumstances and a clueless moron in charge stopped it from happening.

Turn us down?.. Even in the unlikely event we had an outright fee accepted now, I doubt he'd come here with those wages and guaranteed football accepted. Here's hoping Werder Bremen get stuffed in the CL tomorrow. Not sure what wages you mean since I haven't actually read the article but it seems clear that out of the clubs interested we were his first choice. But of course there's also going to be other clubs he was prepared to go to if the offer was good enough. I think its letting the club off lightly however to believe that he'd choose them ahead of us, he seemed desperate to play in the Premiership.

We don't have a bid accepted to its not an issue of turning us down, its a case of where he's prepared to go, and according to that article he's prepared to go to Bremen. If we actually matched the offer (which will never happen) I'm inclined to think he'd go here. There was always a big chance of this happening. Clubs were offering for him and we were basically just sitting back and praying no club he's prepared to sign for made an offer so they'd have to accept ours, ridiculous way to do things really. We've missed out on a player that could have transformed us.

His preferred position is behind the striker apparently. If you think a bad attitude would out way what a player like Ben Arfa could add to our team then you can't have watched the Manure game.

The market value for a player who couldn't cut it in the Championship should be £0 for Liverpool like.