I know they're standard fayre these days, but sell on fees are pretty ridiculous; we're paying what they think he's worth at a price they've agreed to, but that apparently isn't enough because they also want a cut of any future deal we make having developed him and given him the game time they refused to. I understand if it's a smaller club selling to a bigger one, like we did with KLP or Bowen, but the other way round is essentially kicking the chair from under smaller clubs who could really do with that money going forward.
Isn't it driven from us to get a cheaper deal? Fairly certain Acun said previously that he wanted to do a 50% ownership deal with Fener for Allahyar but that's not allowed in England, so we did a big sell on clause instead.
Trumpian economics innit. The Haves must crush the Have Nots until they cave. The Have Nots are LOSERS. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Fair point but looking at it another way. I'm sure Aston Villa are not desperate for £3.5m for one of their more talented younger players who may or may not be a squad player in the coming months and therefore could hang onto him hoping he would come good and develop him into a first team regular. Or they could sell him reasonably cheap, by todays outrageous standards ( how much did we pay for Kyle Joseph from League 1 Blackpool for example ?) to a club who could promise him first team action, giving him time to develop and make a name for himself thus pushing up his value, like we did with Philogene. If that comes off then both clubs share the profit....if the said player is sold on relatively quickly into his initial contract.
Eh? Jim was saying the sell on should be on any profit above what we paid for him, which is the definition. It was tautology.
The article doesn’t say that? It’s unclear from the article whether City knew about the clauses before hand.
Do players still get fined for returning to training overweight like these?.... https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YLFL-k3W7hI
IMO its been lost in translation and not from Turkish that we cant afford him. I think the clubs absolute priority are the two strikers this season and as with Rushworth last year this became an option and maybe too good a deal to miss. If the 'maths' dont add up though sales of Puerta,. Alzate, Slater, Mehlem not happening quickly enough then if we have to miss him in favour of first options so be it.
I asked last night if anyone knew who Crooks might have been encouraging to come here (mentioned by Acun)... anyone any knowledge...?
I’ve just seen somewhere that the stumbling block is wages. Apparently, we’ve already offered him £30,000-a-week
A couple of hours ago there was some pos honestly I’d rather pass on him if that’s the case and use that money to buy a striker(s)
Blackburn and Portsmouth now linked to Triantis. Valued at £1 million. Think we should be all over that. We definitely need another number 6 after selling Simons, Zambrano banned until November, Matazo injured and Alzate likely going and it needs to not be Jonjo Shelvey.
As TigersCave said, think this has ultimately come across the desk as an opportunity that they felt they couldn’t not explore but is ultimately not something they want if it gets beyond a certain level. Baz Cooper said initially a move for Barry was initially unlikely due to it coming as a loan and his recovery time frame. It’s obviously a disappointment if it doesn’t come off but I’d assume the initial squad planning was done without Barry.
Not too fussed if we miss out on Barry. He looked neat and tidy when he was here on loan but nothing outstanding. For someone not tried and tested at championship level I think he is a big gamble.
