How is €70m not money? Do you think we will find a buyer to pay us £70m straight?Transfer Tweets - 2019/20 | Check the OP for blacklisted sources before posting
- Thread starter KM
- Start date
- Status
How is €70m not money? Do you think we will find a buyer to pay us £70m straight?Transfers tend to get paid in stages anyway, it's basically a transfer just massively back loaded, it gets him off the books now.
Yeah, we will get to that i think.
That's just their oppening offer ... pretty sure they can go higher and will.
Simply reply: ‘remember being awkward about Perisic. Feck off.’
A similar level striker won’t play for free either. And by that fat loan fee do you mean 5m euros or something?
Not calculating a transfer fee for his replacement either.
Don’t mind Longstaff for 2 reasons:
1 - if we don’t sign him now he will be 3 times the price next season and everyone will moan that we didn’t sign him
2 - At the very least we are being sensible with our money, how much money have we actually risked if we sign Longstaff, James and Wan Bissaka ?
Realistically we could recoup pretty much all our money with Longstaff and James irrespective of whether or not they are a rousing success, and with wan bissaka probably at least 25 - 30 million of what we paid.
People moan about us being terrible at moving players on, but being good at that means buying players with re-sale value on reasonably low wages. Not buying good to average internationals on stupid wages.
Only caveat I would have is that you need to combine these types of signings with exceptional talents, which we haven’t been linked to much this summer.
1 - if we don’t sign him now he will be 3 times the price next season and everyone will moan that we didn’t sign him
2 - At the very least we are being sensible with our money, how much money have we actually risked if we sign Longstaff, James and Wan Bissaka ?
Realistically we could recoup pretty much all our money with Longstaff and James irrespective of whether or not they are a rousing success, and with wan bissaka probably at least 25 - 30 million of what we paid.
People moan about us being terrible at moving players on, but being good at that means buying players with re-sale value on reasonably low wages. Not buying good to average internationals on stupid wages.
Only caveat I would have is that you need to combine these types of signings with exceptional talents, which we haven’t been linked to much this summer.
70m euros in 2 years time. Or in business terms, no player and no money at the moment. We will need multiple millions for a replacement also.
These pricks wanted 50m for Perisic?!? I’d rather we sell for 50m to some other club right now then to Inter.
Not that I give a feck about the Lukaku money as it's not my money but if it's a loan shouldn't that loan at least be as much as his wages plus a little extra for the headache?
I think Ole has seen all he needs to see of Lukaku and long ago decide Rashford is his main man.
I think Ole has seen all he needs to see of Lukaku and long ago decide Rashford is his main man.
Not necessarily. After what Inter did when we wanted Perisic, the last thing we should do is do them a favor. Getting him off the books should not be a priority this summer. Only if we can get an upgrade.
Looks like mark Schwarzer- do they all look the same?
No one pays this amount of money immediately. It's pretty much always split in instalments for 2-3 years. And unless we are going bankrupt, we don't need all this money right now as when we sign someone, it's going to be instalments again.
Not necessarily. I wasn't saying the second player (doesn't need to be a youngster) would be forced to move against their will, what if they're interested in the move / the buying team sees a role for them?
From the selling clubs perspective it may make financial sense to move that second player on - perhaps even well below their market value - in order to get around the sell on percentage.
Not even sure what this means “with an obligation to option to buy” either you have an obligation to buy or you have an option, you can’t have an option on an obligation! This tweet makes no sense
EDIT - also how do you quote a tweet so it can be seen?
No one? First of all you and me we don’t know that, there are plenty of transfers where the fee is paid immediately probably. Release clause transfers are done in full for one. We don’t need all the money yeah? How do you know that? We are spending 150-200 approximately per summer? We know what we don’t need, and that is, we don’t need to sell unless we upgrade. Everything else is a bunch of assumptions.
And Inter is the last club we need to do any favors. Feck them.
"Obligation to option to buy". Nice try Inter.
Nah I meant the ITK assholes on Reddevils who are still pushing the MDL to United bullshit
Tell them to feck off. Asking price or no deal. Same terms as Perisic. Don't have the money? Too bad.
I hope we play Inter at their own game and make them sweat it out like they made us with Perisic.
Skriniar swap deal or feck off.
Skriniar swap deal or feck off.
They don't have it though. Also Ole clearly doesn't want him and he wants out too.
He's leaving. An agreement will be reached soon enough.
But if we make them sweat too hard we might have to keep him.
Conte seems to really want him, I think that will play right into our hands. The last time he went for an alternative Chelsea ended up with Morata
Longstaff, Ben Yedder and Bruno could be done quickly to be honest. We are the only clubs interested and they have more or less a set price, that isnt that high.
Think CB signing will be heavy. I can see us bringing in 2 or 3 players, but thats about it. Think CB wont be done something. Koulibaly and Maguire were the only 2 links and they are both getting outpriced
Think CB signing will be heavy. I can see us bringing in 2 or 3 players, but thats about it. Think CB wont be done something. Koulibaly and Maguire were the only 2 links and they are both getting outpriced
I think this is more a payback time for what they told us for Perisic, rather than anything else about us needing anything. Which I am fine with.
Italian clubs will do everything to get the 'option to buy' and not 'obligation to buy' and if it is the latter they'll want to pay in instalments over a period. I remember with us trying to sell Aquilani in 2010, Season long loan to Juventus + agreed an option to buy end of season for 13m, (13m they wanted to pay over three years!) that's how stingy they are.
They refused to take up the option of course, he came back, went out on loan again to Milan where they too tried it on. A season long loan with option to make move permanent if he made 25 appearances, what did Milan do? stopped playing him after 23 games. This is why I'm glad we don't engage in these type of negotiation deals with Italian clubs anymore, if your in for their players you just have to pay the money up front like Roma with Alisson, and demand the same in return, else they just dictate to you what they want.
They refused to take up the option of course, he came back, went out on loan again to Milan where they too tried it on. A season long loan with option to make move permanent if he made 25 appearances, what did Milan do? stopped playing him after 23 games. This is why I'm glad we don't engage in these type of negotiation deals with Italian clubs anymore, if your in for their players you just have to pay the money up front like Roma with Alisson, and demand the same in return, else they just dictate to you what they want.
Same for me.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
They're owned by some huge investment group that owns fiat and ferrari amongst other stuff, i believe.
Yeah, release clauses are done in full and is exactly the reason some clubs are willing to offer more than the release clause so just they can split payments. We are not finding anyone paying £80m at once for Lukaku. Inter's offer is decent having in mind it's the first offer, I cannot see how it is 'pathetic'. €20m loan for 2 years covering 100% wages with obligation to buy for €60m is pretty much our asking price, I don't see what's wrong with that.
By itself, not much, but with their history and the way they handled Perisic, they are going to have to align the cash to even see the L of Lukaku. Full stop.
If that was the case then they would buy both players. I get your logic but I can't think of anything similar that has set a precedent for this type of deal and it sounds bonkers. Can't see Palace going along with some weird double player deal which would clearly raise massive questions and likely bring a ton of negative PR, in order to go help Arsenal sign a player they don't really want to sell. You're having to make a lot of ifs and buts to an already pretty random idea. I don't mean to sound harsh but it just sounds mental mate.
This sounds about right, actually.
I rememeber it happening fairly recently, but for the life of me can't remember who was involved, players or clubs. They bought two players though, one worth 20m, and one 50 or so, and officially the transfer was 35 each or something as the 50m guy had a large sell on clause. Tbh, even those numbers could be miles out.
£20 Mn up front for a 1 year loan (all wages paid by Inter) and an Obligation to buy after the loan for £60 Mn should seal it.
It's 10 million for 2 year loan + 60 million to buy isn't it? So total worth is 70 million euros or 62 million pounds
I see Saul Niguez's name gets thrown into that Telegraph article about Longstaff. Think we can safely say there is no legs to that one at all. I am sure I read somewhere he has quite a hefty price tag too.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Classic mistake.
The way Higuain is passed about all the Italian sides.
How about Inter buys the player and pays £26.666 million over three years.
- Status