Hatem Ben Arfa

[STM]

I'm still convinced we are in the box seat on this transfer.

 

Ben Arfa has told Marseille he want's to come here (although footballers are fickle) and we are holding our cards close to our chest.

 

On the other hand Marseille aren't happy with our offer and trying every trick in the book to make us up it, including over exaggerating other clubs interest and using the media.

 

We would all love us to simply give in to their demands but if we get him in at a cut price it would be a marvelous piece of business. However, if we lose out on him because we took the risk, i'd be gutted.

[Taylor Swift]

What's clear is that OM's attempts to offload the player to another club are getting nowhere.

 

To put it the other way - if Ben Arfa had publicly set his heart set on joining Bremen, had turned up there to try to force the move, and was refusing to train at Marseilles, would you want to put in a bid of £5 million for him?

 

At best, you get a player with a bad disciplinary record, who has made it plain he'd rather have gone elsewhere.

 

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).

[UV]

What's clear is that OM's attempts to offload the player to another club are getting nowhere.

 

To put it the other way - if Ben Arfa had publicly set his heart set on joining Bremen, had turned up there to try to force the move, and was refusing to train at Marseilles, would you want to put in a bid of £5 million for him?

 

At best, you get a player with a bad disciplinary record, who has made it plain he'd rather have gone elsewhere.

 

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.

 

I too think this is the case

 

What worries me is the back up plan, if they have even heard of such a thing

 

Agreed, if Ashley was going to budge we'd have him now, and there's absolutely no incentive for Marseille to budge until the last minute, so we have a stalemate until deadline day. Even then there's no guarantee that Marseille wont decide to keep him anyway and they will now be working on him to persuade him to want to stay.

[TRon]

Not very flattering to Ben Arfa that we wont commit to keep him even if we stay up really, isn't it.  Sounds like a pretty reasonable clause to clinch the deal to me.

 

That's not the point though is it.

 

They are wanting us (allegedly) to commit to buying him at the end of season if we stay in the Premiership.

 

So if he has a crap season, or is an arsehole, we would still have to fork out £5m or whatever to buy him if that clause exists. That doesn't sound like good business sense to me.

 

Right...then let's move onto the next rising young superstar who we can pick up on a loan if this one falls through. No doubt Hughton has a queue of clubs lining up to loan us their hot prospects. What is everyone panicking for?

Hindu Times makes a very good point in the NUFC Transfer Rumours thread, he said we wouldn't even have known about this deal if it wasn't for OM's Chairman coming out and telling the press everything. So for all we know the club are working behind the scenes on signing some players that we don't have a club about.

 

Mike Ashley and his team obviously know a lot more about negotiating than many of us here. If he wants to play hardball over Ben Arfa that's fine by me. All I will say is this: by the end of this transfer window he had better signed some players who are genuine premiership quality i.e., not Nolan, Best, Taylor, Simpson etc. He took us down once before with his hotshot financial dealing, he better not do it again.

[Guest neesy111]

Not very flattering to Ben Arfa that we wont commit to keep him even if we stay up really, isn't it.  Sounds like a pretty reasonable clause to clinch the deal to me.

 

That's not the point though is it.

 

They are wanting us (allegedly) to commit to buying him at the end of season if we stay in the Premiership.

 

So if he has a crap season, or is an arsehole, we would still have to fork out £5m or whatever to buy him if that clause exists. That doesn't sound like good business sense to me.

 

Right...then let's move onto the next rising young superstar who we can pick up on a loan if this one falls through. No doubt Hughton has a queue of clubs lining up to loan us their hot prospects. What is everyone panicking for?

Hindu Times makes a very good point in the NUFC Transfer Rumours thread, he said we wouldn't even have known about this deal if it wasn't for OM's Chairman coming out and telling the press everything. So for all we know the club are working behind the scenes on signing some players that we don't have a club about.

 

Mike Ashley and his team obviously know a lot more about negotiating than many of us here. If he wants to play hardball over Ben Arfa that's fine by me. All I will say is this: by the end of this transfer window he had better signed some players who are genuine premiership quality i.e., not Nolan, Best, Taylor, Simpson etc. He took us down once before with his hotshot financial dealing, he better not do it again.

 

i think this is what people are very concerned about, ashley not learning from his previous mistakes

[Taylor Swift]

Like I said, the buyout clause is a lose-lose situation for us so I'm in agreement with the hierarchy that we shouldn't be held to ransom like that.

 

I know this might not be popular to say, but there are other fish in the sea and I'm sure Hughton's working on them right now with the understanding that the Ben Arfa thing will be decided on deadline day.

[LucaAltieri]

So, any change in the last 2 days?

[Teasy]

Like I said, the buyout clause is a lose-lose situation for us so I'm in agreement with the hierarchy that we shouldn't be held to ransom like that.

 

I know this might not be popular to say, but there are other fish in the sea and I'm sure Hughton's working on them right now with the understanding that the Ben Arfa thing will be decided on deadline day.

 

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? 

[Kasper]

Mike and Chris heard the news that Barfa is training by himself in the Southern France and went looking for the lad.......

 

 

http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/420/findingbarfa.gif

[Mick]

Like I said, the buyout clause is a lose-lose situation for us so I'm in agreement with the hierarchy that we shouldn't be held to ransom like that.

 

I know this might not be popular to say, but there are other fish in the sea and I'm sure Hughton's working on them right now with the understanding that the Ben Arfa thing will be decided on deadline day.

 

How is the buyout clause lose-lose?  The signing is basically a buy now pay later transfer if it goes through on the terms required by Marseille and is no more a lose-lose than signing anybody else on a normal contract.

[Taylor Swift]

What's clear is that OM's attempts to offload the player to another club are getting nowhere.

 

To put it the other way - if Ben Arfa had publicly set his heart set on joining Bremen, had turned up there to try to force the move, and was refusing to train at Marseilles, would you want to put in a bid of £5 million for him?

 

At best, you get a player with a bad disciplinary record, who has made it plain he'd rather have gone elsewhere.

 

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).

[Mick]

Mike and Chris heard the news that Barfa is training by himself in the Southern France and went looking for the lad.......

 

 

http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/420/findingbarfa.gif

 

[Taylor Swift]

Like I said, the buyout clause is a lose-lose situation for us so I'm in agreement with the hierarchy that we shouldn't be held to ransom like that.

 

I know this might not be popular to say, but there are other fish in the sea and I'm sure Hughton's working on them right now with the understanding that the Ben Arfa thing will be decided on deadline day.

 

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're fucking shit, man. R Taylor will probably play 25 games this season and I would offload him for £1m if there was a taker.

 

The fact is we cannot tie our hands like this. We're desperate but we don't have to be setting precedents in football by signing a contract like this. No other has had to, no matter their situation.

[Mick]

 

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).

 

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.

[UV]

Like I said, the buyout clause is a lose-lose situation for us so I'm in agreement with the hierarchy that we shouldn't be held to ransom like that.

 

I know this might not be popular to say, but there are other fish in the sea and I'm sure Hughton's working on them right now with the understanding that the Ben Arfa thing will be decided on deadline day.

 

 

"Held to ransom" They want to sell a player like normal clubs do, not on a try before you buy basis. If anything we (and the player) are holding them to ransom.

 

Imagine how you'd feel if this was Enrique and he was saying he never wanted to play for us again, but the only club he wanted to go to only wanted to get him on loan for the season & send him back if they weren't happy with him or if they broke him.

[Taylor Swift]

No, when we make a signing we tie our hands because we can afford to. I'm pretty sure everyone knows we won't be big spenders in the next couple of years so to tie our hands like this is just not prudent.

 

We're desperate for new signings and this kid's quality, sure, but come on, no one has ever signed this type of contract before so why should we succumb to Marseilles' wish when it looks to me as if no one else out there wants to buy this kid outright for cash.

[Taylor Swift]

Like I said, the buyout clause is a lose-lose situation for us so I'm in agreement with the hierarchy that we shouldn't be held to ransom like that.

 

I know this might not be popular to say, but there are other fish in the sea and I'm sure Hughton's working on them right now with the understanding that the Ben Arfa thing will be decided on deadline day.

 

 

"Held to ransom" They want to sell a player like normal clubs do, not on a try before you buy basis. If anything we (and the player) are holding them to ransom.

 

Imagine how you'd feel if this was Enrique and he was saying he never wanted to play for us again, but the only club he wanted to go to only wanted to get him on loan for the season & send him back if they weren't happy with him or if they broke him.

 

That's what happens all the time, man. We loaned Viana out a couple of times with a fee agreed and Sporting Lisbon weren't happy so they sent him back.

 

Why shouldn't we be doing the same thing to a player who's situation is actually quite comparable to Viana's (highly rated youngster, hasn't settled, would like to move)?

[Teasy]

What's clear is that OM's attempts to offload the player to another club are getting nowhere.

 

To put it the other way - if Ben Arfa had publicly set his heart set on joining Bremen, had turned up there to try to force the move, and was refusing to train at Marseilles, would you want to put in a bid of £5 million for him?

 

At best, you get a player with a bad disciplinary record, who has made it plain he'd rather have gone elsewhere.

 

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?

[Taylor Swift]

Yes! What the fuck? It happens all the time. Rossi was sent to Villareal with the fee agreed, Viana sent to Sporting Lisbon, Distin to us, a whole load of deals have happened this way.

[Teasy]

 

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).

 

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..

[Ketsbaia]

While Werder Bremen, Hoffenheim etc. have been mentioned, I'm sure other teams are watching closely and are waiting to pounce as deadline day looms. Whereas Werder looking to sign Wesley and Wolfsburg getting Diego rules them out, theres others to worry about. Thats the risk we take by letting this play out til the 31st. The longer this takes, the less chance we'll have.

[Mick]

No, when we make a signing we tie our hands because we can afford to. I'm pretty sure everyone knows we won't be big spenders in the next couple of years so to tie our hands like this is just not prudent.

 

We're desperate for new signings and this kid's quality, sure, but come on, no one has ever signed this type of contract before so why should we succumb to Marseilles' wish when it looks to me as if no one else out there wants to buy this kid outright for cash.

 

You're missing the fact that we sign players on contracts and pay for them up front, the only difference with this is that we would only have to pay next year and that would only come into play if we stay up.  If we do stay up then we will be much healthier financially as we'll have been paid 12 months worth of Premiership payments and everything which comes with that.

 

Who else does or doesn't want Ben Arfa shouldn't come in to his valuation, it's irrelevant.

[Taylor Swift]

A deal with a minimum games is a good deal. That's the type of deal that would be good for us.

 

A deal without a minimum games is not a good deal because we could be forced to sign him even if he doesn't actually play because I reckon our chances of survival are still decent.

 

I haven't read this thread to find out what kind of deal we're negotiation with Marseilles but I assume they've asked fo the one without the minimum games. If I'm mistaken, then apologies

[Teasy]

Yes! What the fuck? It happens all the time. Rossi was sent to Villareal with the fee agreed, Viana sent to Sporting Lisbon, Distin to us, a whole load of deals have happened this way.

 

Are you arguing with yourself now?

[Taylor Swift]

No, with you