Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm not worried about the clause, like. In addition to a club wanting him and bidding that, he also has to want to make the move happen. There's probably only about 2-3 clubs I could see him ever being tempted by, and £100m is a fair fee given he'd likely be 27-28ish by the time that happened. The other midfielders going in the £100m bracket seem to be 21-24ish. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

I'm not worried about the clause, like. In addition to a club wanting him and bidding that, he also has to want to make the move happen. There's probably only about 2-3 clubs I could see him ever being tempted by, and £100m is a fair fee given he'd likely be 27-28ish by the time that happened. The other midfielders going in the £100m bracket seem to be 21-24ish. 

Say we finish outside of Europe. That opens a lot of doors for others. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Say we finish outside of Europe. That opens a lot of doors for others. 

 

If we finish out of Europe he'd likely want to go anyway and £100m is a big amount. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Not concerned by this at all, we aren’t a pound shop club anymore. IF he leaves he will be replaced. 

Spot on. 100m is a serious chunk in the plus FFP column. IF a bid comes and he wants out then he will be replaced and more quality added at other positions. Never get too attached to a player, esp one that wants a release clause in their contract. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Gallowgate Toon said:

Don't release clauses have to be paid in full? Or that's at least a very consistent condition? There are very few clubs who can do that with £100m.

 

If that's the case as well then yeah, we're pretty well covered. FFP that'd be huge (Balance Sheet Champions 2024, etc) and I've no doubt we'd go and spend it well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

If that's the case as well then yeah, we're pretty well covered. FFP that'd be huge (Balance Sheet Champions 2024, etc) and I've no doubt we'd go and spend it well. 

Iirc, Chelsea had to go over Enzo's release clause to be able to pay in installments.

 

Or that could be total shite [emoji38]

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gallowgate Toon said:

Iirc, Chelsea had to go over Enzo's release clause to be able to pay in installments.

 

Or that could be total shite [emoji38]

 

Exactly this. Release clause has to be paid in one go. Chelsea wanted to pay over many years so had to negotiate a higher fee.

Link to post
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

If that's the case as well then yeah, we're pretty well covered. FFP that'd be huge (Balance Sheet Champions 2024, etc) and I've no doubt we'd go and spend it well. 

 

How does it count in terms of FFP? For the buying club, even if they pay upfront, the FFP money be split over the length of the contract. What happens if they pay in installments?

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Erikse said:

 

How does it count in terms of FFP? For the buying club, even if they pay upfront, the FFP money be split over the length of the contract. What happens if they pay in installments?

 

It's all booked in the current year as revenue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Erikse said:

 

 

What if we buy a player through installments? It's just not evenly split between each year of the contract anymore?

 

How a player is actually paid for in real money and how they are amortized for accounting / FFP is not the same.

 

A £20m player signed on a five year deal is £4m per season on the books whether that £20m is paid in cash up front or £2m per year for a decade.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The "selling Bruno will help us with FFP" attitude is small-time and a little myopic IMO.  Keeping your elite players and building a team around them is what really sends a message in terms of your level of ambition and also the prestige that you're able to build as a club over time. If we take the evolution of Man City as a case in point, the likes of Kompany, Silva and Aguero were integral to their development not only because of their quality but also due to their longevity and what that signified. 

 

Our job, at the very least, is to be highly unwilling sellers. And a £100m release clause doesn't really speak to that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Barnes23 said:

The "selling Bruno will help us with FFP" attitude is small-time and a little myopic IMO.  Keeping your elite players and building a team around them is what really sends a message in terms of your level of ambition and also the prestige that you're able to build as a club over time. If we take the evolution of Man City as a case in point, the likes of Kompany, Silva and Aguero were integral to their development not only because of their quality but also due to their longevity and what that signified. 

 

Our job, at the very least, is to be highly unwilling sellers. And a £100m release clause doesn't really speak to that. 

I don't think anyone's advocating selling, just if the clause is met it will help with FFP. The alternative is that he doesn't extend and 2yrs down the line we risk losing him for nowt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A grand total of nine players in the history of football have been sold for £100m+. They are the following:

  • Neymar, age 25
  • Mbappe, age 19
  • Coutinho, age 26
  • Felix, age 19
  • Enzo, age 22
  • Griezmann, age 28
  • Grealish, age 25
  • Rice, age 24
  • Caicedo, age 21

Five of those nine have been bought by Premier League clubs. It's been four years since a non-PL club spent that much money on a player. Despite the lunacy of ever increasing transfer fees, £100m is still a big number.

 

Bruno turns 26 in a month. The soonest we'd sell him is next summer, at which point he's closer to 27 and firmly on the high end of this list. Both of the 'old' players on this list went to drunk spending Barcelona and we know how those turned out. 

 

I'm all for some worrying™ and debate, but there are far better ways to spend time than letting this clause overshadow a new contract for the best player this club has had in a long time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, timeEd32 said:

 

How a player is actually paid for in real money and how they are amortized for accounting / FFP is not the same.

 

A £20m player signed on a five year deal is £4m per season on the books whether that £20m is paid in cash up front or £2m per year for a decade.

 

If all is booked in the current year regardless of installments or not, why does it matter that the money is paid upfront? Our owners have infinite money, pretty much the only thing that matters is the FFP limit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Erikse said:

 

If all is booked in the current year regardless of installments or not, why does it matter that the money is paid upfront? Our owners have infinite money, pretty much the only thing that matters is the FFP limit.

Because we as a club have to show where the money came from. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Erikse said:

 

If all is booked in the current year regardless of installments or not, why does it matter that the money is paid upfront? Our owners have infinite money, pretty much the only thing that matters is the FFP limit.

 

Because most buying clubs aren't going to have 100m to pay as a lump sum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...