Once again you're ignoring what I'm actually saying in order to make an argument where there isn't one.
Still waiting for that example though. Got any in mind?
Transfer Rumours Summer '22 Transfer Thread
- Thread starter originallambrettaman
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Once again you're ignoring what I'm actually saying in order to make an argument where there isn't one.
Still waiting for that example though. Got any in mind?
Us & Baxter last year. We had the option, wanted to take it, yet he's not ours permanently
Source? I don't recall there being an option in his deal last year.
https://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation...n-baxter-joins-hull-city-on-loan-from-chelsea
This doesn't mention anything to do with an option to buy and I doubt they would have agreed to putting one in last season. No doubt we tried to sign him permanently this window but that's not the same thing clearly.
Nor does this: https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/hull-city-hopes-chelsea-starlet-6283120
Would be strange to write an article about our chances of signing him permanently without mentioning "Oh yeah there's an option in his deal".
Theres been the usual reliable sources on here that said there was an option.
Just because it wasn't broadcast, it doesn't mean there wasn't one. It wasnt in the official announcement that Allahyar had an option either. Throw Longman into that too as we must have had an option as there was no way we would've got him so cheaply otherwise.
Even with Salah, why aren't Arsenal just letting him go to us permanently? From everything that was reported, we wanted him permanently but Arsenal wanted a loan and we managed to include a buy option after much debate
This is such a stupid discussion. If Baxter doesn't sign it will be because we change our mind.
Could you find a quote on here? This is the first I'm hearing of it.
Arsenal not wanting to sell but agreeing an option is as good as them selling as they're setting a fee. Think it through..
Sorry, saw someone complained there was no pointless bickering the other day..
Such a ****ing dumb conversation though.
This is what I don't understand how you don't get. It's clearly not as good. If Arsenal want to keep him badly, they'll keep him. We can't compete with them financially so if they change their minds and say that he'll be part of the 1st team squad, he'll be staying and we're powerless to stop it.
The reason he's coming is because he's been told he won't be getting the 1st team football he wants. But that can change a lot in a year
Chelsea did the exact same thing with Jay Dasilva. He went on loan with an option to Bristol, did well, Bristol wanted to trigger the option but it got delayed because Lampard was undecided about whether he wanted him. He decided against keeping him and let him go, but Chelsea held the power because Jay, like Baxter, wanted to play for Chelsea as a 1st priority.
Oh ok that's good you came up with an example, so who did he end up signing for if not Bristol City?
The point which you don't get is that Chelsea maintained the power to decide and as you wrongly put it, it isn't in solely our hands if we want to sign Baxter. We still need the selling club to be accepting of a sale.
You've still not answered why Chelsea or Arsenal haven't just sold us Baxter or Salah then if it makes no difference to them
They didn't maintain the power, the player was undecided which held up the decision, which I've said it must be close to 10 times now. IF THE PLAYER WANTS TO COME and we trigger the option, Baxter will sign for us.
Perhaps we wanted the loan for FFP purposes? Defers the transfer fee to next season. Perhaps those clubs wanted to structure the deal in a particular way that results in a higher fee? (If you want to sign him after he's played for you, he must have done well so we're going to charge a higher fee) Plenty of reasons.
The point being if Arsenal want to keep him, sanctioning a loan with an option makes no sense. Just have a read of all the reaction to the reports around that, Arsenal fans are in agreement that it means he's gone. Why if they could turn around and stop it?
Last post I'm making on the topic as this is now the third time you've brought up this ridiculous topic.
You must log in or register to see media
Dunno if this has already been posted but this is becoming a joke
Chelsea do maintain the power and they do that by using money. Whatever we can offer, they can offer more, so if they want to keep him, they will. Money gives them the power.
It's nothing to do with FFP about Salah, Baz has said repeatedly that we wanted a permanent deal but Arsenal wouldn't sanction one. We've reached a compromise which also allows Arsenal to see how he does while giving us a bit of a middle ground.
There would have been no FFP concerns over Baxter either as he was one of the first signings. Even if there was, we could easily structure the deals so that there's less paid this season and more paid over future years. The fees wouldn't be massive and if the desire to do the deal is there, it can be done.
From what I've read, Salah has wanted to leave permanently and was expected to go abroad but clearly Arsenal won't sanction that.
It can't be long term as we'd leave the deal till January
Chance for some of the young lads who impressed tonight had no attackers on the bench against West Brom
Oh ffs, this must be some kind of record. ‘The club supporting him through it’ makes it sound serious to me
That's not how FFP works with signings.
You can't 'structure' a fee differently to get around FFP. Amortisation is done on a flat basis. When the cash is actually paid has no bearing on that.