Other clubs' transfers

[joeyt]

 

[Disco]

And yet again so called Eddie Howe is nowhere.

[KennyUtd]

33 minutes ago, Disco said:

And yet again so called Eddie Howe is nowhere.

"so called Eddie Howe"

😆😁😄

[Nobody]

10 hours ago, SteV said:

The bold bit we can go round in circles arguing as we’ll never know, but I disagree.

 

When a player views a move as a stepping stone, as long as it’s to a PL club, I think they’ll choose the one that offers the best release clause (assuming there isn’t a massive discrepancy in wages).

 

It’s all about how they’ve mapped their careers out. 
 

We’re trying hard to establish ourselves with the elite (despite being massively handicapped by the rules), so it’s no good allowing the perception of the club being a stepping stone in any way.

 

Having said that, if a player were to ask for a release clause where, if activated, the money would be genuinely transformative, that’s different, and I can probably get on board with it (so if Isak said ‘I’ll sign a new contract but I want a release clause of £150m’, then fair enough).

I see a lot of people saying this, but I don't really see the upside of that for us (regarding Isak). As it is, he's still under contract for another 3 years, where we hold all the cards. If he signs a new contract with a £150m release clause, he's probably leaving next summer and there's nothing we can do about it. All the while we'll be paying him more for the next 12 months as well

[SteV]

23 minutes ago, Nobody said:

I see a lot of people saying this, but I don't really see the upside of that for us (regarding Isak). As it is, he's still under contract for another 3 years, where we hold all the cards. If he signs a new contract with a £150m release clause, he's probably leaving next summer and there's nothing we can do about it. All the while we'll be paying him more for the next 12 months as well

Tbh, it was just an example. Maybe he isn’t the best player to use because perhaps there’s a theory we could get even more than that if he was sensational again next season.

 

I suppose what I was trying to say was that in general I’d be against release clauses, unless the amount is so significant it completely transforms one, two, maybe even three windows for us, and perhaps allows a wage structure increase alongside that.

 

If we look at Huijsen, who the convo originated about, making ~35m off him is great, but, for us, it probably buys one very good, or maybe two good players. Set against the (what I would consider negative) impact that has on the perception of the club externally, that’s nowhere near enough.

[The Prophet]

Fancy Quansah to do well at Leverkusen.

[Bunk Moreland]

 

[r0cafella]

2 minutes ago, Bunk Moreland said:

 

Good signing for the toffees. 

[joeyt]

Are they getting Kyle Walker too?

[The College Dropout]

The Huijsen stuff is air.

 

He was signed for £15m and was sold for £50m and they got a good season out of him.

 

 

It would be annoying having to get a new CB again - but Huijsen would've paid for 2 £50m signings for a single season. Or one £50m signing for 3 years.

 

The key to establishing ourselves as a top club is consitently delivering on the pitch. Qualifying for the CL again next season is priority 1. If a player that comes in for 1 season and then leaves - but is key in helping to achieve that - it's absolutely fine. In the mean time we are cracking up the FMV of our sponsorships and eating prize money.

 

 

Edited 7 hours ago by The College Dropout

[Pablo123]

11 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

The Huijsen stuff is air.

 

He was signed for £15m and was sold for £50m and they got a good season out of him.

 

 

It would be annoying having to get a new CB again - but Huijsen would've paid for 2 £50m signings for a single season. Or one £50m signing for 3 years.

 

The key to establishing ourselves as a top club is consitently delivering on the pitch. Qualifying for the CL again next season is priority 1. If a player that comes in for 1 season and then leaves - but is key in helping to achieve that - it's absolutely fine. In the mean time we are cracking up the FMV of our sponsorships and eating prize money.

 

 

 

You're making too much sense here. Not sure if you're angling for a reach around, but I'm prepared to give you one. Just this once, though 

[The Prophet]

Chelsea allegedly after Kolo Muani.

[KaKa]

Turns out Liverpool included a buy back clause. Not surprised by that.

[El Prontonise]

Buy back clauses should be banned.

[KaKa]

1 minute ago, El Prontonise said:

Buy back clauses should be banned.

 

Yeah, they're a bit shady.

 

Having said that, would have been great if we included one for both Minteh and Anderson, but we had no leverage at the time.

[Jack0]

Can a player reject the chance to go back to their old club even if they meet the buy back clause?

[KaKa]

Just now, Jack0 said:

Can a player reject the chance to go back to their old club even if they meet the buy back clause?

 

Yes, I believe so.

[r0cafella]

Buyback clauses are fine. 

 

The buying club can always refuse. 

[Nucasol]

30 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

Chelsea allegedly after Kolo Muani.

Hopefully. Theoretically keeps Boehly’s sweaty palms off Joao Pedro but, knowing the way his degenerate Rent Boys operate, it’s no guarantee.

 

Wayland-Muani.

[LFEE]

1 hour ago, The College Dropout said:

The Huijsen stuff is air.

 

He was signed for £15m and was sold for £50m and they got a good season out of him.

 

 

It would be annoying having to get a new CB again - but Huijsen would've paid for 2 £50m signings for a single season. Or one £50m signing for 3 years.

 

The key to establishing ourselves as a top club is consitently delivering on the pitch. Qualifying for the CL again next season is priority 1. If a player that comes in for 1 season and then leaves - but is key in helping to achieve that - it's absolutely fine. In the mean time we are cracking up the FMV of our sponsorships and eating prize money.

 

 

 

EH ain’t the manager for you unfortunately. I think anyone he signs to start in the first team he’ll not be doing so to flip in 12 months. 
 

I appreciate Kelly could be used against this argument but I’d still argue he was never more than a squad player to cover two positions if desperate.

[LFEE]

On a different topic… I think all clauses for sell on and buy back should be outlawed. File that alongside my views on no loan deals 

 

 

[joeyt]

Sell on clauses are fine for smaller clubs selling to bigger clubs.

 

Buy back clauses are awful

[Bunk Moreland]

 

[Conjo]

4 hours ago, El Prontonise said:

Buy back clauses should be banned.

 

Isn't it only a pre-agreed fee that Leverkusen has to accept and allow Liverpool to talk to the player? Surely Quansah wouldn't be forced to join Liverpool if he didn't want to? Or does a buy back usually include pre-agreed terms with the player too, which the player might regret a few years down the line...?

[LFEE]

3 hours ago, joeyt said:

Sell on clauses are fine for smaller clubs selling to bigger clubs.

 

Buy back clauses are awful

I get what you mean. Problem is the big clubs are able to enforce them like Chelsea whereas the smaller clubs are forced to accept less than agreed in reality or fear the deal won’t happen.

 

Wolves screwed someone over only last summer iirc. Basically refused to pay Maidenhead for Max Kilman when selling him to West Ham forcing them to accept a much smaller agreed fee.