lovejoy Posted Sunday at 18:02 Share Posted Sunday at 18:02 (edited) 1 minute ago, Joe1984 said: Because if he's going to be a key player for Madrid, we could get more for him? Then again if we asked for more, Madrid could just shrug their shoulders and buy whoever else comes along because they're Madrid... So we sign a player for £30m, he does so well next season Madrid want him (win) and we sell him there at a £15m profit (win) yet in some fans eyes we’re still losing? I’d take that deal, sounds like one we should definitely do to me. but maybe I’m missing something. Edited Sunday at 18:02 by lovejoy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LFEE Posted Sunday at 18:05 Share Posted Sunday at 18:05 3 minutes ago, lovejoy said: So we sign a player for £30m, he does so well next season Madrid want him (win) and we sell him there at a £15m profit (win) yet in some fans eyes we’re still losing? I’d take that deal, sounds like one we should definitely do to me. but maybe I’m missing something. That we don’t want to sell him after 12 months. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe1984 Posted Sunday at 18:06 Share Posted Sunday at 18:06 (edited) 4 minutes ago, lovejoy said: So we sign a player for £30m, he does so well next season Madrid want him (win) and we sell him there at a £15m profit (win) yet in some fans eyes we’re still losing? I’d take that deal, sounds like one we should definitely do to me. but maybe I’m missing something. See Anderson saga. Sold for £20m (I know we had to) He's now valued around £100-120m. Did we win in that transfer? Yes because we satisfied PSR. No because we could have sold him for a lot more... Edited Sunday at 18:06 by Joe1984 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovejoy Posted Sunday at 18:07 Share Posted Sunday at 18:07 (edited) 1 minute ago, Joe1984 said: See Anderson saga. Sold for £20m (I know we had to) He's now valued around £100-120m. Did we win in that transfer? Yes because we satisfied PSR. No because we could have sold hom.for a lot more... We won a cup and not selling gordon was a huge part of that, so yep, we certainly did win. in the only way i want to in football, on the pitch. Edited Sunday at 18:07 by lovejoy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovejoy Posted Sunday at 18:08 Share Posted Sunday at 18:08 1 minute ago, LFEE said: That we don’t want to sell him after 12 months. Then don't do the deal, this seems like a condition of getting it done. I'd 100% do it as the 'downside' is still a win. You? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted Sunday at 18:08 Share Posted Sunday at 18:08 It doesn't sound like Real have any intention of activating the clause. They just want to prevent any pathway to Barca. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe1984 Posted Sunday at 18:08 Share Posted Sunday at 18:08 (edited) 2 minutes ago, lovejoy said: we won a cup and not sellig gordon was a huge part f that, so yep, we certainly did win. in the only way i want to in football, on the pitch. And thanks to PSR the way we win on the pitch is by maximising revenue. This is done by selling players for maximum value and reinvesting in the team. Its a business not a sport these days sadly. Edited Sunday at 18:09 by Joe1984 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovejoy Posted Sunday at 18:10 Share Posted Sunday at 18:10 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Joe1984 said: And thanks to PSR the way we win on the pitch is by maximising revenue. This is done by selling players for maximum value and reinvesting in the team. Its a business not a sport these days sadly. So this deal satisfies your take is well, as we'd profit on the pitch and on the balance sheet if this hypothetical situation ever arises. Happy days! Edited Sunday at 18:10 by lovejoy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryanegg Posted Sunday at 18:10 Share Posted Sunday at 18:10 Just now, Joe1984 said: And thanks to PSR the way we win on the pitch is by maximising revenue. This is done by selling players fir maximum value and reinvesting in the team. Its a business not a sport these days sadly. I don't think Anderson would have got the game time here to make him worth £100m. Certainly not in the position he plays at Forest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe1984 Posted Sunday at 18:11 Share Posted Sunday at 18:11 Just now, lovejoy said: So this deal satisfies your take is well, as we'd profit on the pitch and on the balance sheet fi this hypothetical situation ever arises. Happy days! Not if he goes on to be a superstar and worth £100m+ it doesn't... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovejoy Posted Sunday at 18:13 Share Posted Sunday at 18:13 Just now, Joe1984 said: Not if he goes on to be a superstar and worth £100m+ it doesn't... ah so the profit after one season in your hypothetical situation wouldn't be enough, thats the issue? this seems like a condition of the deal, would you do it, or not? genuine question. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe1984 Posted Sunday at 18:13 Share Posted Sunday at 18:13 1 minute ago, ryanegg said: I don't think Anderson would have got the game time here to make him worth £100m. Certainly not in the position he plays at Forest. Sure. But if we had fringe players we could have sold instead and kept Anderson. We would have sold him for more than we did without PSR pressure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe1984 Posted Sunday at 18:15 Share Posted Sunday at 18:15 Just now, lovejoy said: ah so the profit after one season in your hypothetical situation wouldn't be enough, thats the issue? this seems like a condition of the deal, would you do it, or not? genuine question. I mean if we stand to make a profit then sure, why not? I rather we keep all our best players obviously and bring success on the pitch consistently. But it's a building job PSR wise... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovejoy Posted Sunday at 18:15 Share Posted Sunday at 18:15 Just now, Joe1984 said: I mean if we stand to make a profit then sure, why not? I rather we keep all our best players obviously and bring success on the pitch consistently. But it's a building job PSR wise... Which is my exact point, so what on earth are you on about? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted Sunday at 18:15 Share Posted Sunday at 18:15 7 minutes ago, The Prophet said: It doesn't sound like Real have any intention of activating the clause. They just want to prevent any pathway to Barca. For just one year? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted Sunday at 18:16 Share Posted Sunday at 18:16 I think it’s worth remembering that if a player is wanted by Real Madrid, he’s going to go there regardless of a release clause or not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MileyCyrus Posted Sunday at 18:16 Share Posted Sunday at 18:16 (edited) If the buy back was 50 or higher i think the gap between what we're supposedly paying and what he's actually worth covers the money we'd lose on the sale. Lower than 45 and I'd be a bit annoyed. Edited Sunday at 18:20 by MileyCyrus Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe1984 Posted Sunday at 18:18 Share Posted Sunday at 18:18 (edited) 2 minutes ago, lovejoy said: Which is my exact point, so what on earth are you on about? In order to progress truly we need to sell players for MAXIMUM profit. If we sell him for £15m profit to Madrid fine. Great. If he does well enough that Madrid want him but he has no clause, we can get A LOT MORE profit! That is my point! 😄 Edited Sunday at 18:18 by Joe1984 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikon Posted Sunday at 18:18 Share Posted Sunday at 18:18 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Stifler said: I think it’s worth remembering that if a player is wanted by Real Madrid, he’s going to go there regardless of a release clause or not. Yes! But we’d then rather sell him for say 80-100m and not for a bargain price. It all depends on how high the clause would be obviously. Hypothetically speaking. Edited Sunday at 18:19 by Ikon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted Sunday at 18:18 Share Posted Sunday at 18:18 2 minutes ago, KaKa said: For just one year? Fair point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovejoy Posted Sunday at 18:19 Share Posted Sunday at 18:19 Just now, Joe1984 said: In order to progress truly we need to sell players for MAXIMUM profit. If we sell for this £15m profit to Madrid fine. Great. If he does well enough that Madrid want him but he has no clause, we can get A LOT MORE profit! That is my point! 😄 But, in this situation, we're not signing him with no clause, so it's totally moot, surely? It's blatantly obvious to say 'sign him without a clause as we could make more', but that doesn't appear to be an option, so on we go. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe1984 Posted Sunday at 18:22 Share Posted Sunday at 18:22 (edited) 2 minutes ago, lovejoy said: But, in this situation, we're not signing him with no clause, so it's totally moot, surely? It's blatantly obvious to say 'sign him without a clause as we could make more', but that doesn't appear to be an option, so on we go. So basically your happy with us signing players with clauses in so if they prove to be good, the big clubs can sign them for a lot less than market value? That'll go well... Edited Sunday at 18:22 by Joe1984 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LFEE Posted Sunday at 18:23 Share Posted Sunday at 18:23 (edited) 16 minutes ago, lovejoy said: Then don't do the deal, this seems like a condition of getting it done. I'd 100% do it as the 'downside' is still a win. You? I wouldn’t. Don’t see the benefit of signing and training a key player for just 12 months for zero benefit. I’ve never been one for loans which essentially is what you are agreeing (if allowed/true). You agree that with one club/agent you’ll be beholden forever. Hence why I wouldn’t of sold Isak. Edited Sunday at 18:25 by LFEE Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gawalls Posted Sunday at 18:23 Share Posted Sunday at 18:23 6 minutes ago, KaKa said: For just one year? Yeah that's what I posted as well and everyone posted around it and ignored it. A one year only doesn't protect it all as we could just for one and a half and sell then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted Sunday at 18:24 Share Posted Sunday at 18:24 2 minutes ago, lovejoy said: But, in this situation, we're not signing him with no clause, so it's totally moot, surely? It's blatantly obvious to say 'sign him without a clause as we could make more', but that doesn't appear to be an option, so on we go. In a world where the cartel use and abuse us, it also can't hurt to have a void relationship with Barca and Real. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now