Teasy

Not this "we'd have done the same" tripe again

How fucking old are you lot?

Come on, lets do this bunch of cunts! 2:1 to Newcastle.

Not really like, I mean I don't see anyone believing he's Essien.

I got excited there until I clicked on the link

Why would he leave though? On silly money, still playing and even made vice-captain of the club. No incentive whatsoever. I can't see him being anywhere near a regular this season, especially if the Tiote signing is completed. Also with him now being 30 it would probably be a good idea to try to get a longer contract somewhere now, even if its on slightly less per week. When his current deal here finishes he'll be 32 and will be lucky to get any kind of deal from a Premiership club, let alone something near £60k a week.

How do you know what he wants in wages or what we'll offer? If you really put any stock in an article by the NOTW I really don't know what to say. He's supposedly on 55k a week at Marseille, MA will not pay that kind of money. This is a non story for us now unless there is a major change by one or other party. I've no idea what Ben Arfa wants in wages but it'll not be less than he gets now & it looks like W Bremen may not have been able to agree terms after having a bid accepted (unconfirmed but something stopped what looked like a done deal). I haven't seen any reputable source name his current wage, I might have missed it though. I also don't believe even our lot would reach advanced discussions on a transfer without having a very good idea of what that player was currently being paid. Its been said plenty of times in many articles posted here that our initial deal for Ben Arfa was canceled due to the sale of Niang, getting Ben Arfa's wages off the bill was no longer a necessity, so a pure loan wasn't an attractive option for them anymore. Ben Arfa's lawyer confirmed this (without naming Niang specifically) in an interview a week ago. But even without that I'd trust all the other sources ahead of the single worst excuse for a news paper I've ever seen. Bremen's offer was never confirmed by the way.

Bringing Skirge's advancing years into this is really unfair.

Based on a NOTW article? You don't think that its, just maybe, an issue of the fee they want or the structure of the loan deal like every other source has told us?

How do you know what he wants in wages or what we'll offer? If you really put any stock in an article by the NOTW I really don't know what to say.

That's just one of the reasons why this article is obviously bullshit, the most obvious one however is the fact its from the NOTW.

Its quite obvious that the stumbling block is agreeing a deal with Marseille, nothing to do with wages, don't give this utter nonsense any credence.

We're in the Premier League now. Lovenkrands would be next to useless on sunday.

But he's got great looking hair!

Has no other source gotten a hold of this story yet? How reliable is the mail anyway?

Yeah I suppose this squad with loads of turmoil and no manager for long periods gives us a much better chance

Then he gets sacked and we end up with another season of turmoil which guarantees our relegation, no thanks. Pre-season was the time to tell Ashley he's an arsehole, we needs to just stick it out now the seasons going.

But this rumoured loan deal has the final fee agreed at the start of the loan. So the final would would be at his current market value no matter what. Yes, I fucked up, you're right! (As long as the fee was set now). Good, get on the phone to Lambiarse and persuade him

But this rumoured loan deal has the final fee agreed at the start of the loan. So the fee we'd have to pay next year would be at his current market value no matter how he plays.

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..