Taylor Swift Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 The difference between those deals and the one Marseilles is asking from us is that those deals had the fee agreed but the purchase was optional (hence Distin not signing, Viana coming back etc.). Marseilles are asking us to commit to signing him today. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATB Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 Why are people on here complaining at Ashley about transfers? surly he doesn´t have anything to do with them? Hopefully he says to Hughton what he can spend and then leave the rest to him. What happens then I quite sure none of us can answer. Funny thing to judge someone without having anything to judge on. Why Ashley isn´t a money-milking-cow I think he´s the only one to answer that question. But surly he must do business with the best interest of the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kasper Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 Who else does or doesn't want Ben Arfa shouldn't come in to his valuation, it's irrelevant. It's irrelevant? No its not. It's got everything to do with his valuation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 So basically we're assuming that we are just playing hardball with them right up until the last day, until they agree to our offer. It would explain the non-story of the Werder rumour, Dassier trying every trick under the Sun to try and drum up interest from elsewhere so he doesn't have to sell to us. However if it gets to the last day and there are no other serious offers forth coming they will have 2 options, to either swallow their pride and just let him come here on our terms or be stuck with a very unhappy player refusing to play and chewing up a large chunk on their wage-bill. If this is the situation at the moment I wouldn't be surprised if we've had a word in his ear with something along the lines of "Just keep digging your heels in son, by the end of the window you'll be a Newcastle player aslong as you reject everything else". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 No, with you We'll you're doing an awful job so their! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kasper Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 So I assume the people who are arguing against this loan & buy next summer wouldnt want to us to buy him all upfront either? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skirge Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 I just want him here loan or buy am not bothered, loan then buy no matter just sign him!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 Who else does or doesn't want Ben Arfa shouldn't come in to his valuation, it's irrelevant. It's irrelevant? No its not. It's got everything to do with his valuation. I meant in the hypothetical situation we're discussing as none of us know who is or isn't interested. The valuation could obviously go up if more than one club was interested and the player went to the highest bidder, which doesn’t always happen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 So I assume the people who are arguing against this loan & buy next summer wouldnt want to us to buy him all upfront either? 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 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 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kasper Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 So I assume the people who are arguing against this loan & buy next summer wouldnt want to us to buy him all upfront either? 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. But what is actually the difference between signing him permanently now or signing him on a loan with agreed transfer next summer? The risk is the same, no? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 All this chat of whether he will be a success or not is daft imo. The question of whether he would improve the team should already be redundant. He is a far far better player than anyone on the club's books. The only uncertainty is over whether he will be fucking brilliant or just a class above anything we already have in attack/midfield. If we can't afford him now, then just agree to pay for him in 12 months! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 But what is actually the difference between signing him permanently now or signing him on a loan with agreed transfer next summer? The risk is the same, no? No, the risk is still in our favour as he goes back if we don't stay up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belfast Boy Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 So I assume the people who are arguing against this loan & buy next summer wouldnt want to us to buy him all upfront either? 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 see how the terms of their loan deal (ie forced purchase in the summer) could be seen as less beneficial than buying him outright now. Either way, he would be our player regardless of how he plays, the way they are offering it we are basically signing him permanently now, but not having to pay the majority until next summer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kasper Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 But what is actually the difference between signing him permanently now or signing him on a loan with agreed transfer next summer? The risk is the same, no? No, the risk is still in our favour as he goes back if we don't stay up. Well yeah. Exactly why I dont understand why someone would want us to sign him now permanently but not get him on loan with an agreed deal in place for next summer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 If this lad's too much of a risk maybe we can send some accountants and lawyers out onto the pitch instead. They seem to have played a blinder so far. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 I've never ever heard of a loan deal where you are obligated to buy someone whether or not they have played well. Didn't we have that kind of agreement with Birmingham when they loaned Butt - if they stayed up they'd have to buy him? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 I wouldn't want us to sign him permanently now if it meant him eating up a significant portion of our budget. Let's be honest, he would eat up our whole budget. The point of signing him on loan is as a trial, and the fact that he's already said he won't stay at Marseilles means that we clearly have the advantage in this transfer. There's no reason to sign him on a buy now pay later thing because if the other option available for us is clearly better. Like I said, we won't be big spenders in the next couple of years so to commit a what-I'm-sure is significant portion of next year's budget to a player this year isn't the brightest thing to do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 Well yeah. Exactly why I dont understand why someone would want us to sign him now permanently but not get him on loan with an agreed deal in place for next summer. I can understand people being worried that he'll throw his toys out of the pram in a year or two but that would be our problem to manage and prevent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 So I assume the people who are arguing against this loan & buy next summer wouldnt want to us to buy him all upfront either? 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. But what is actually the difference between signing him permanently now or signing him on a loan with agreed transfer next summer? The risk is the same, no? Well if we sign him permanently now his value can increase or decrease depending on how he plays for us. We could get him cheap now and make a profit, for example. With a loan and optional purchase, we have a season to assess him and the club's situation and make another decision later. In that case Marseille might benefit because he performs well and they can charge us more, or they might lose out in the opposite situation. So risk shared. In the case of loan with compulsory purchase, we have to buy him for his current value even if his stock goes down... risk all on us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 So I assume the people who are arguing against this loan & buy next summer wouldnt want to us to buy him all upfront either? 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) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 But what is actually the difference between signing him permanently now or signing him on a loan with agreed transfer next summer? The risk is the same, no? No, the risk is still in our favour as he goes back if we don't stay up. Well yeah. Exactly why I dont understand why someone would want us to sign him now permanently but not get him on loan with an agreed deal in place for next summer. Again I'll refer you to Zaki with Wigan and Benitez at Birmingham. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 I think I've explained it TBH, basically we might survive and still not want to buy him (because he's disruptive and/or useless, for example). With a permanent transfer now, we'd be getting him at his current market value, meaning if he played really well this season only we would benefit from his price going up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 I think I've explained it TBH, basically we might survive and still not want to buy him (because he's disruptive and/or useless, for example). With a permanent transfer now, we'd be getting him at his current market value, meaning if he played really well this season only we would benefit from his price going up. Why don't we do all our deals like that if it's so beneficial? Why did we buy Nolan and Leon Best outright rather than loaning them and "share the risk"? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kasper Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 So I assume the people who are arguing against this loan & buy next summer wouldnt want to us to buy him all upfront either? 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. But what is actually the difference between signing him permanently now or signing him on a loan with agreed transfer next summer? The risk is the same, no? Well if we sign him permanently now his value can increase or decrease depending on how he plays for us. We could get him cheap now and make a profit, for example. With a loan and optional purchase, we have a season to assess him and the club's situation and make another decision later. In that case Marseille might benefit because he performs well and they can charge us more, or they might lose out in the opposite situation. So risk shared. In the case of loan with compulsory purchase, we have to buy him for his current value even if his stock goes down... risk all on us. I didnt ask about the difference between a transfer and a loan because I knew what that is So the two options are: Option a) "Well if we sign him permanently now his value can increase or decrease depending on how he plays for us. We could get him cheap now and make a profit, for example. " Option b) "In the case of loan with compulsory purchase, we have to buy him for his current value even if his stock goes down... risk all on us." Are you honestly trying to say there's some difference between these two Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts