Summer window
- Thread starter Hudson92
- 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
-
- Status
I’m really confused. That article says an offer has been received for 8m for part of the player, and that Sunderland are interested.
It doesn’t say we’ve made the bid. And it certainly doesn’t say it means a sell on clause.
I worry people are reading other people’s tweets / posts as gospel here. Unless somebody has another link which says it’s us bidding?
It doesn’t say we’ve made the bid. And it certainly doesn’t say it means a sell on clause.
I worry people are reading other people’s tweets / posts as gospel here. Unless somebody has another link which says it’s us bidding?
The game is on Twitch. I don’t know if you are allowed to open it from England
It’s definitely not us
a) English clubs can’t buy percentages of players
b) the offer is in euros. We use pounds and the South Americans don’t use euros either. You would think USD would potentially be used if an international currency chosen
c) We ain’t spending £7m on a player - it just doesn’t fit. Not saying we have no money, just it doesn’t tally.
It simply has to be a club in Europe.
a) English clubs can’t buy percentages of players
b) the offer is in euros. We use pounds and the South Americans don’t use euros either. You would think USD would potentially be used if an international currency chosen
c) We ain’t spending £7m on a player - it just doesn’t fit. Not saying we have no money, just it doesn’t tally.
It simply has to be a club in Europe.
sounds like it could mean a sell on %
if the club believe the player is worth it the will
I believe you, I just don’t see it.
I also don’t agree it sounds like it. It literally says for part of the player and we seem to be optimistically twisting it to fit something that can be plausible when sometimes the clues are literally there in black and white
not twisting,I believe you, I just don’t see it.
I also don’t agree it sounds like it. It literally says for part of the player and we seem to be optimistically twisting it to fit something that can be plausible when sometimes the clues are literally there in black and white
if the is a sell on % of say twenty% the clubs in theory still owns % of that player,
it could mean anything
the problem is with all these different foreign out let's know one will actually know if it's been lost in translation, one thing i will say that andy has always been great at finding foreign reports, links about are club, and if he's saying it's based on us i believe him
I don’t understand people saying buying a player for 7 or 8 million doesn’t fit our model? When has the club come out and said we will only pay up to a certain amount for a player? If we think somebody has massive potential and could have a huge sell on fee from 7 or 8 million then I’d imagine we’d go for it.
Interestingly it seems Rusyn and Aravena are both wingers/second strikers.
Surely it's going to be one of those and a more traditional "9" player?
Surely it's going to be one of those and a more traditional "9" player?
There are two types of transfer deal being conflated here.
1) Co-ownership
2) Sell on clause
With a sell on clause - let’s say they get 40% of transfer feel and somebody comes along and wants to pay us £10m - we then give them £4m
With Co-ownership - let’s say we bought 60% of the player and they keep 40%. On the face of it, it seems the same. But actually it’s not. The future buying club would then have to negotiate with both us and the previous club for our respective parts. So if we wanted the price to be £10m - we’d agree to a £6m sale of our 60%. But the other club could say “no - he’s £20m”; and hold out for £8m for their 40%. At which part the buying club can either just buy our 60% or walk away.
My point being the language used seems to be directly talking about buying a percentage of the player, rather than a sell on. And that would reflect a deal that is fairly common in Spain and Italy (or at least used to be). And it’s illegal here.
Coupled with the fact the offer is in euros, it just feels like we are making some convenient assumptions in thinking it’s us.
I will add that he’s tweeted that the article says we have made that bid, when it doesn’t. It says somebody has, and that we are interested.
It may all turn out to be right, I just don’t want our fans misled based on assumptions on a translation, with key indicators that it’s not us are being ignored
S
Sour Patch
Guest
- Status