BFTG - Blackburn

246 posts
NewCorkSeth
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 4721
Joined: 05 Jul 2013 00:17
Location: Defending John Swift from Philistines.

Re: BFTG - Blackburn

by NewCorkSeth » 14 Feb 2019 12:45

Old Man Andrews wrote:
Hendo wrote:
Old Man Andrews wrote:
Would 100% get one if he moves into the number 2 slot, he will currently be on peanuts. Don't forget Arsenal haven't got any money, think their priorities will be on spending what they have in the outfield positions. Time will tell.



LOL. They are one of, if not the, most cash rich clubs in the country.

It all depends if Arsenal get another 'keeper in, if they do then hopefully our old mate Sal can convince him to make the short journey down the M4.


Which is why no money was made available in January for Emery then.......... They are rich but do not provide significant transfer funds for their managers, haven't since they left Highbury. Keep up. Try not to take things literally either, pretty sure we all know they are a well off club that wasn't the point as you well know. You went for a cheap points score and failed.

They run a model that only spends what they make in turnover. If they sell someone this summer for big money they have money to spend.

User avatar
Hendo
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 3878
Joined: 25 Mar 2012 20:53

Re: BFTG - Blackburn

by Hendo » 14 Feb 2019 12:46

Old Man Andrews wrote:
Hendo wrote:
Old Man Andrews wrote:
Would 100% get one if he moves into the number 2 slot, he will currently be on peanuts. Don't forget Arsenal haven't got any money, think their priorities will be on spending what they have in the outfield positions. Time will tell.



LOL. They are one of, if not the, most cash rich clubs in the country.

It all depends if Arsenal get another 'keeper in, if they do then hopefully our old mate Sal can convince him to make the short journey down the M4.


Which is why no money was made available in January for Emery then.......... They are rich but do not provide significant transfer funds for their managers, haven't since they left Highbury. Keep up. Try not to take things literally either, pretty sure we all know they are a well off club that wasn't the point as you well know. You went for a cheap points score and failed.


:| No point scoring here. You said they have no money, just simply isn't true.

They spent £50m on Lacazette 18 months ago and £50m on Aubameyang 6 months later and then spent £70m in the summer.

Pretty sure they aren't shy about giving managers money to spend.
Last edited by Hendo on 14 Feb 2019 12:47, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Old Man Andrews
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 7522
Joined: 02 Oct 2017 13:06
Location: The South of England

Re: BFTG - Blackburn

by Old Man Andrews » 14 Feb 2019 12:46

Vision wrote:
Old Man Andrews wrote:
Hendo wrote:

LOL. They are one of, if not the, most cash rich clubs in the country.

It all depends if Arsenal get another 'keeper in, if they do then hopefully our old mate Sal can convince him to make the short journey down the M4.


Which is why no money was made available in January for Emery then.......... They are rich but do not provide significant transfer funds for their managers, haven't since they left Highbury. Keep up. Try not to take things literally either, pretty sure we all know they are a well off club that wasn't the point as you well know. You went for a cheap points score and failed.


Lacazette and Aubameyang cost £100m between them so I'm not entirely sure that, as prudent as they undoubtedly are, there won't be money in the pot for a replacement for Cech .

As well as Cech , they'll be freeing up Ramsey's not unsubstantial wages and I suspect it's highly unlikely Ozil will be wearing an Arsenal shirt next season.

Certainly not beyond the realms of possibility that Martinez will still be considered 3rd choice. Of course no guarantee we will get him should he prove his worth but I think his future lies away from Arsenal tbh.


I think either way Martinez can clearly do better than us and will probably want to move into one of the top European leagues. I have seen nothing to suggest he couldn't play at the top level, seems to be a fairly complete goalkeeper.

Hound
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 8741
Joined: 27 Sep 2016 22:16
Location: Simpleton

Re: BFTG - Blackburn

by Hound » 14 Feb 2019 12:49

However he has only played 60 odd games at what 25/26. He'll want to play every week

I reckon he'll end up first choice for an ambitious Champ club. That may or may not be us, but reckon it will be a Leeds/Boro/Stoke type team

User avatar
Old Man Andrews
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 7522
Joined: 02 Oct 2017 13:06
Location: The South of England

Re: BFTG - Blackburn

by Old Man Andrews » 14 Feb 2019 12:50

Hendo wrote:
Old Man Andrews wrote:
Hendo wrote:

LOL. They are one of, if not the, most cash rich clubs in the country.

It all depends if Arsenal get another 'keeper in, if they do then hopefully our old mate Sal can convince him to make the short journey down the M4.


Which is why no money was made available in January for Emery then.......... They are rich but do not provide significant transfer funds for their managers, haven't since they left Highbury. Keep up. Try not to take things literally either, pretty sure we all know they are a well off club that wasn't the point as you well know. You went for a cheap points score and failed.


:| No point scoring here. You said they have no money, just simply isn't true.

They spend £50m on Lacazette 18 months ago and £50m on Aubameyang 6 months later and then spent £70m in the summer.

Pretty sure they aren't shy about giving managers money to spend.


They are now though thats the point, as you well know. What did they spend in January? They either haven't got the free cash to do it or as was pointed out previously, close to the FFP threshold. They are getting no money in for Ramsey and another of their sellable assets it Ozil is having a terrible season and is also getting on. They also probably won't get Champions League football either which is a huge blow for them.


User avatar
Vision
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 6104
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 20:53

Re: BFTG - Blackburn

by Vision » 14 Feb 2019 12:57

Old Man Andrews wrote:
Vision wrote:
Old Man Andrews wrote:
Which is why no money was made available in January for Emery then.......... They are rich but do not provide significant transfer funds for their managers, haven't since they left Highbury. Keep up. Try not to take things literally either, pretty sure we all know they are a well off club that wasn't the point as you well know. You went for a cheap points score and failed.


Lacazette and Aubameyang cost £100m between them so I'm not entirely sure that, as prudent as they undoubtedly are, there won't be money in the pot for a replacement for Cech .

As well as Cech , they'll be freeing up Ramsey's not unsubstantial wages and I suspect it's highly unlikely Ozil will be wearing an Arsenal shirt next season.

Certainly not beyond the realms of possibility that Martinez will still be considered 3rd choice. Of course no guarantee we will get him should he prove his worth but I think his future lies away from Arsenal tbh.


I think either way Martinez can clearly do better than us and will probably want to move into one of the top European leagues. I have seen nothing to suggest he couldn't play at the top level, seems to be a fairly complete goalkeeper.


Well he hasn't managed to even remotely break into the 1st team reckoning at Arsenal, he couldn't establish himself as a regular first choice during loan spells at Wolves and Getafe so I'm not sure it's a complete given that he's out of our reach.

I mean I agree with you , from what I've seen so far he certainly appears more than good enough to play higher than us but it may count in our favour that we're the first place he finally feels like the genuine Number 1 . He may not want to risk another spell on the bench (if he even makes it that far).

Whether we can afford the wages he'd want is another matter of course.

Nameless
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5423
Joined: 23 Aug 2013 12:25

Re: BFTG - Blackburn

by Nameless » 14 Feb 2019 13:07

NewCorkSeth wrote:
Nameless wrote:
NewCorkSeth wrote:The money that we save by having a guaranteed bid means we can up our contract offer. Just because another club can offer a higher transfer fee to Norwich doesn't mean Oliveira will go there. If he likes it here he will come here.


First of all our ‘guaranteed’ bid doesn’t guarantee we save anything.
Someone else could under bid us and use the money they save to offer the player more. If they offer more, he’ll go there.
It’s just such a loose and woolly exercise.
I think we see this differently, I’m happy to accept our differences and perhaps move on.....

Ok this is going around in circles.

The "option" we have on the loan is most likely a fixed price agreement. Norwich have negotiated with us a fair price that, upon completion of his loan, we (if we want to) can offer. This price is agreed. Norwich have to accept it as technically they have already accepted the bid on completion of the loan. All that this agreement guarantees is an accepted transfer bid.

Other clubs can come in and offer less, more or the same amount for Oliveira. That does not affect our bid. Our bid remains the same. They cannot refuse it in favour of another bid as, as I mentioned above, they have already accepted our bid.

Oliveira is not obligated to come here. Much like the Murray situation if he doesn't want to more to Reading he can say no.

These options are becoming more common in loans. More commonly clubs are demanding that the transfer goes ahead after the loan (apparently the reason Perisic to Arsenal fell apart, as Arsenal didn't want to have to buy him)

In the summer we have a bid already accepted for Oliveira. We would still have to negotiate a contract with him and he can still talk to any other clubs who has a bid accepted for him.


As I said, we disagree.
As you describe it there seems no benefit to the buying club. The selling club have a done deal at (probably) an inflated price but can easily get out of it if a better offer comes in.
I can understand the variant that Stranded mentioned of a loan deal that automatically kicks into a permenant deal at the end which isn’t an ‘option’ for anyone just a two part deal.
You seem to describe some flaky hybrid of everyone possibly doing something and someone else still getting involved all falling apart because it would be com0letely unenforceable.

biff
Member
Posts: 531
Joined: 07 Mar 2008 23:33

Re: BFTG - Blackburn

by biff » 14 Feb 2019 13:18

Old Man Andrews, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.
Display this post.

Bliss.

Top Flight
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 4008
Joined: 02 Jun 2006 22:46

Re: BFTG - Blackburn

by Top Flight » 14 Feb 2019 13:36

Martinez and Miazga were absolutely outstanding once again last night. Just as they dominated the box against Sheffield Wednesday, they did so again last night.

What was so telling for me about last night was when the final whistle blew, the reaction of joy and accomplishment from Martinez and Miazga was great to see. They were the happiest players on the pitch at full time. These guys are true winners.

The joy shown by Oliveira as well when he smashed in the winning goal was also tremendous to see. These boys are real winners and have such great character and spirit. They are just the influence we need for the final run in. Hopefully they can rub off on all their team mates and it looks like they already are.

Ejaria put in another good shift and Swift was once again top quality.

The situation looks more positive. But i think our biggest problem is luck has not been on our side. Whenever the club finds the solutions to our problems, the solution always gets injured. It happened with Elphick last season. Ezatolahi, Oliveira getting stamped on the face. Let's hope these boys can stay fit and Lady Luck comes on to our side for once. Only Oliveira could have won us the game last night with a top drawer finish at the end. He made the difference between one point and three. That is what great players are all about.


NewCorkSeth
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 4721
Joined: 05 Jul 2013 00:17
Location: Defending John Swift from Philistines.

Re: BFTG - Blackburn

by NewCorkSeth » 14 Feb 2019 13:40

Nameless wrote:
NewCorkSeth wrote:
Nameless wrote:
First of all our ‘guaranteed’ bid doesn’t guarantee we save anything.
Someone else could under bid us and use the money they save to offer the player more. If they offer more, he’ll go there.
It’s just such a loose and woolly exercise.
I think we see this differently, I’m happy to accept our differences and perhaps move on.....

Ok this is going around in circles.

The "option" we have on the loan is most likely a fixed price agreement. Norwich have negotiated with us a fair price that, upon completion of his loan, we (if we want to) can offer. This price is agreed. Norwich have to accept it as technically they have already accepted the bid on completion of the loan. All that this agreement guarantees is an accepted transfer bid.

Other clubs can come in and offer less, more or the same amount for Oliveira. That does not affect our bid. Our bid remains the same. They cannot refuse it in favour of another bid as, as I mentioned above, they have already accepted our bid.

Oliveira is not obligated to come here. Much like the Murray situation if he doesn't want to more to Reading he can say no.

These options are becoming more common in loans. More commonly clubs are demanding that the transfer goes ahead after the loan (apparently the reason Perisic to Arsenal fell apart, as Arsenal didn't want to have to buy him)

In the summer we have a bid already accepted for Oliveira. We would still have to negotiate a contract with him and he can still talk to any other clubs who has a bid accepted for him.


As I said, we disagree.
As you describe it there seems no benefit to the buying club. The selling club have a done deal at (probably) an inflated price but can easily get out of it if a better offer comes in.
I can understand the variant that Stranded mentioned of a loan deal that automatically kicks into a permenant deal at the end which isn’t an ‘option’ for anyone just a two part deal.
You seem to describe some flaky hybrid of everyone possibly doing something and someone else still getting involved all falling apart because it would be com0letely unenforceable.

What? We don't disagree. There's nothing to disagree about. I'm telling you what the "option" means on the loan agreement. Are you saying I'm wrong?

2 world wars, 1 world cup
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5158
Joined: 16 Jul 2004 18:36
Location: A country made up of 51.9% f**king thick uneducated xenophobic jingoistic mongtards.

Re: BFTG - Blackburn

by 2 world wars, 1 world cup » 14 Feb 2019 13:49

biff wrote:Old Man Andrews, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.
Display this post.

Bliss.


So I'm not the only one to see that message.

:)

User avatar
Old Man Andrews
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 7522
Joined: 02 Oct 2017 13:06
Location: The South of England

Re: BFTG - Blackburn

by Old Man Andrews » 14 Feb 2019 13:51

2 world wars, 1 world cup wrote:
biff wrote:Old Man Andrews, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.
Display this post.

Bliss.


So I'm not the only one to see that message.

:)


Grow up a bit lads, people have other opinions to yours. Childish behaviour.

2 world wars, 1 world cup
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5158
Joined: 16 Jul 2004 18:36
Location: A country made up of 51.9% f**king thick uneducated xenophobic jingoistic mongtards.

Re: BFTG - Blackburn

by 2 world wars, 1 world cup » 14 Feb 2019 13:55

NewCorkSeth wrote:
Nameless wrote:
NewCorkSeth wrote:Ok this is going around in circles.

The "option" we have on the loan is most likely a fixed price agreement. Norwich have negotiated with us a fair price that, upon completion of his loan, we (if we want to) can offer. This price is agreed. Norwich have to accept it as technically they have already accepted the bid on completion of the loan. All that this agreement guarantees is an accepted transfer bid.

Other clubs can come in and offer less, more or the same amount for Oliveira. That does not affect our bid. Our bid remains the same. They cannot refuse it in favour of another bid as, as I mentioned above, they have already accepted our bid.

Oliveira is not obligated to come here. Much like the Murray situation if he doesn't want to more to Reading he can say no.

These options are becoming more common in loans. More commonly clubs are demanding that the transfer goes ahead after the loan (apparently the reason Perisic to Arsenal fell apart, as Arsenal didn't want to have to buy him)

In the summer we have a bid already accepted for Oliveira. We would still have to negotiate a contract with him and he can still talk to any other clubs who has a bid accepted for him.


As I said, we disagree.
As you describe it there seems no benefit to the buying club. The selling club have a done deal at (probably) an inflated price but can easily get out of it if a better offer comes in.
I can understand the variant that Stranded mentioned of a loan deal that automatically kicks into a permenant deal at the end which isn’t an ‘option’ for anyone just a two part deal.
You seem to describe some flaky hybrid of everyone possibly doing something and someone else still getting involved all falling apart because it would be com0letely unenforceable.

What? We don't disagree. There's nothing to disagree about. I'm telling you what the "option" means on the loan agreement. Are you saying I'm wrong?


Sorry to interject this, but am I right in understanding that basically there is a guarantee that if *we* want to buy him a deal is agreed and the selling club can't say no, so then it's down to the player to accept our contract offer or not. So the option is a good one. It means our bid has already been accepted. The selling club can't say no to our bid if ten other clubs come in and offer twice the transfer fee, and they can't stop the player signing for us. It's a bummer for them but they've already agreed it *with us*. Of course the player may decide to go elsewhere but he's not getting the transfer fee so he shouldn't care what his selling club gets: chances are a player doing well with us will want to stay here and continue his good form. I hope. I'm much happier having agreed bids at the outset!
Last edited by 2 world wars, 1 world cup on 14 Feb 2019 13:57, edited 1 time in total.


NewCorkSeth
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 4721
Joined: 05 Jul 2013 00:17
Location: Defending John Swift from Philistines.

Re: BFTG - Blackburn

by NewCorkSeth » 14 Feb 2019 13:57

2 world wars, 1 world cup wrote:
NewCorkSeth wrote:
Nameless wrote:
As I said, we disagree.
As you describe it there seems no benefit to the buying club. The selling club have a done deal at (probably) an inflated price but can easily get out of it if a better offer comes in.
I can understand the variant that Stranded mentioned of a loan deal that automatically kicks into a permenant deal at the end which isn’t an ‘option’ for anyone just a two part deal.
You seem to describe some flaky hybrid of everyone possibly doing something and someone else still getting involved all falling apart because it would be com0letely unenforceable.

What? We don't disagree. There's nothing to disagree about. I'm telling you what the "option" means on the loan agreement. Are you saying I'm wrong?


Sorry to interject this, but am I right in understanding that basically there is a guarantee that if *we* want to buy him a deal is agreed and the selling club can't say no, so then it's down to the player to accept our contract offer or not. So the option is a good one. It means our bid has already been accepted. The selling club can't say no to our bid if ten other clubs come in and offer twice the transfer fee, and they can't stop the player signing for us. It's a bummer for them but they've already agreed it *with us*. Chances are a player doing well with us will want to stay here and continue his good form. I hope. I'm much happier having agreed bids at the outset!

That is correct sir. As has been pointed out we had the same agreement with Murray but he turned us down so Oliveira still might not join. The rest is true.

Nameless
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5423
Joined: 23 Aug 2013 12:25

Re: BFTG - Blackburn

by Nameless » 14 Feb 2019 13:58

NewCorkSeth wrote:
Nameless wrote:
NewCorkSeth wrote:Ok this is going around in circles.

The "option" we have on the loan is most likely a fixed price agreement. Norwich have negotiated with us a fair price that, upon completion of his loan, we (if we want to) can offer. This price is agreed. Norwich have to accept it as technically they have already accepted the bid on completion of the loan. All that this agreement guarantees is an accepted transfer bid.

Other clubs can come in and offer less, more or the same amount for Oliveira. That does not affect our bid. Our bid remains the same. They cannot refuse it in favour of another bid as, as I mentioned above, they have already accepted our bid.

Oliveira is not obligated to come here. Much like the Murray situation if he doesn't want to more to Reading he can say no.

These options are becoming more common in loans. More commonly clubs are demanding that the transfer goes ahead after the loan (apparently the reason Perisic to Arsenal fell apart, as Arsenal didn't want to have to buy him)

In the summer we have a bid already accepted for Oliveira. We would still have to negotiate a contract with him and he can still talk to any other clubs who has a bid accepted for him.


As I said, we disagree.
As you describe it there seems no benefit to the buying club. The selling club have a done deal at (probably) an inflated price but can easily get out of it if a better offer comes in.
I can understand the variant that Stranded mentioned of a loan deal that automatically kicks into a permenant deal at the end which isn’t an ‘option’ for anyone just a two part deal.
You seem to describe some flaky hybrid of everyone possibly doing something and someone else still getting involved all falling apart because it would be com0letely unenforceable.

What? We don't disagree. There's nothing to disagree about. I'm telling you what the "option" means on the loan agreement. Are you saying I'm wrong?


Well you think it’s a ‘smart’ system, so we probably disagree there !
I don’t know if you are right or wrong and unless we get sight of the contracts I guess we can’t be sure.
I think the system you have explained is somewhat pointless and you’ve not really highlighted any benefits for the potential buying club.
As I said while ago , not sure where else this debate goes. I’m sure we both hope the loan players are successful and any we think can do a long term job decide they want to stay, whether or not we have an ‘option’ on them.

User avatar
Stranded
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 11657
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 12:42
Location: Propping up the bar in the Nags

Re: BFTG - Blackburn

by Stranded » 14 Feb 2019 13:58

Nameless wrote:
NewCorkSeth wrote:
Nameless wrote:
First of all our ‘guaranteed’ bid doesn’t guarantee we save anything.
Someone else could under bid us and use the money they save to offer the player more. If they offer more, he’ll go there.
It’s just such a loose and woolly exercise.
I think we see this differently, I’m happy to accept our differences and perhaps move on.....

Ok this is going around in circles.

The "option" we have on the loan is most likely a fixed price agreement. Norwich have negotiated with us a fair price that, upon completion of his loan, we (if we want to) can offer. This price is agreed. Norwich have to accept it as technically they have already accepted the bid on completion of the loan. All that this agreement guarantees is an accepted transfer bid.

Other clubs can come in and offer less, more or the same amount for Oliveira. That does not affect our bid. Our bid remains the same. They cannot refuse it in favour of another bid as, as I mentioned above, they have already accepted our bid.

Oliveira is not obligated to come here. Much like the Murray situation if he doesn't want to more to Reading he can say no.

These options are becoming more common in loans. More commonly clubs are demanding that the transfer goes ahead after the loan (apparently the reason Perisic to Arsenal fell apart, as Arsenal didn't want to have to buy him)

In the summer we have a bid already accepted for Oliveira. We would still have to negotiate a contract with him and he can still talk to any other clubs who has a bid accepted for him.


As I said, we disagree.
As you describe it there seems no benefit to the buying club. The selling club have a done deal at (probably) an inflated price but can easily get out of it if a better offer comes in.
I can understand the variant that Stranded mentioned of a loan deal that automatically kicks into a permenant deal at the end which isn’t an ‘option’ for anyone just a two part deal.
You seem to describe some flaky hybrid of everyone possibly doing something and someone else still getting involved all falling apart because it would be com0letely unenforceable.


My version is a standard "Loan to Buy" deal like the raft of deals seen in the summer that happened between the perm and loan windows closing. If it is just an option, then Seth's post is an accurate description of where things stand. We have said, we will pay you 3 million in the summer and Norwich have accepted that bid and I would expect it be detailed contractually. If, say, Stoke come in and offer 4 million - it doesn't matter as our bid has to be accepted and it will be up to the player to choose us or Stoke.

The only way we can guarantee Oliveria being a Reading player next years is a) staying up and b) already having agreed terms with him and he essentially having already signed a deal pending a) being acheived.

User avatar
RoyalBlue
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 11468
Joined: 13 Apr 2004 22:39
Location: Sorry Jaap, even I now think you have lost the plot.

Re: BFTG - Blackburn

by RoyalBlue » 14 Feb 2019 14:03

Ranty McRantface wrote:
Ratings below


Swift 6 - Apart from the goal and assist he was pretty average.




A goal and an assist in a 2-1 win? I'll happily accept that 'pretty average' performance from Swift every game for the rest of the season!

NewCorkSeth
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 4721
Joined: 05 Jul 2013 00:17
Location: Defending John Swift from Philistines.

Re: BFTG - Blackburn

by NewCorkSeth » 14 Feb 2019 14:05

Nameless wrote:
NewCorkSeth wrote:
Nameless wrote:
As I said, we disagree.
As you describe it there seems no benefit to the buying club. The selling club have a done deal at (probably) an inflated price but can easily get out of it if a better offer comes in.
I can understand the variant that Stranded mentioned of a loan deal that automatically kicks into a permenant deal at the end which isn’t an ‘option’ for anyone just a two part deal.
You seem to describe some flaky hybrid of everyone possibly doing something and someone else still getting involved all falling apart because it would be com0letely unenforceable.

What? We don't disagree. There's nothing to disagree about. I'm telling you what the "option" means on the loan agreement. Are you saying I'm wrong?


Well you think it’s a ‘smart’ system, so we probably disagree there !
I don’t know if you are right or wrong and unless we get sight of the contracts I guess we can’t be sure.
I think the system you have explained is somewhat pointless and you’ve not really highlighted any benefits for the potential buying club.
As I said while ago , not sure where else this debate goes. I’m sure we both hope the loan players are successful and any we think can do a long term job decide they want to stay, whether or not we have an ‘option’ on them.

I think there is some huge benefits. We have a major positional target secured and have a few months to get him to agree to terms and ready to sign so essentially we have a 5 month head start on any other suitors for him.

We can't be made to pay over the odds on him if he performs superbly in his time here. If the agreement was not in place Norwich could ask for double. Then it would be back to the scouting centre.

NewCorkSeth
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 4721
Joined: 05 Jul 2013 00:17
Location: Defending John Swift from Philistines.

Re: BFTG - Blackburn

by NewCorkSeth » 14 Feb 2019 14:07

Stranded wrote:
Nameless wrote:
NewCorkSeth wrote:Ok this is going around in circles.

The "option" we have on the loan is most likely a fixed price agreement. Norwich have negotiated with us a fair price that, upon completion of his loan, we (if we want to) can offer. This price is agreed. Norwich have to accept it as technically they have already accepted the bid on completion of the loan. All that this agreement guarantees is an accepted transfer bid.

Other clubs can come in and offer less, more or the same amount for Oliveira. That does not affect our bid. Our bid remains the same. They cannot refuse it in favour of another bid as, as I mentioned above, they have already accepted our bid.

Oliveira is not obligated to come here. Much like the Murray situation if he doesn't want to more to Reading he can say no.

These options are becoming more common in loans. More commonly clubs are demanding that the transfer goes ahead after the loan (apparently the reason Perisic to Arsenal fell apart, as Arsenal didn't want to have to buy him)

In the summer we have a bid already accepted for Oliveira. We would still have to negotiate a contract with him and he can still talk to any other clubs who has a bid accepted for him.


As I said, we disagree.
As you describe it there seems no benefit to the buying club. The selling club have a done deal at (probably) an inflated price but can easily get out of it if a better offer comes in.
I can understand the variant that Stranded mentioned of a loan deal that automatically kicks into a permenant deal at the end which isn’t an ‘option’ for anyone just a two part deal.
You seem to describe some flaky hybrid of everyone possibly doing something and someone else still getting involved all falling apart because it would be com0letely unenforceable.


My version is a standard "Loan to Buy" deal like the raft of deals seen in the summer that happened between the perm and loan windows closing. If it is just an option, then Seth's post is an accurate description of where things stand. We have said, we will pay you 3 million in the summer and Norwich have accepted that bid and I would expect it be detailed contractually. If, say, Stoke come in and offer 4 million - it doesn't matter as our bid has to be accepted and it will be up to the player to choose us or Stoke.

The only way we can guarantee Oliveria being a Reading player next years is a) staying up and b) already having agreed terms with him and he essentially having already signed a deal pending a) being acheived.

The reason I suspect it is not a loan to buy agreement is that we are in a relegation battle and would not (I hope) agree to shell out major money with a potential season in league 1 coming up and a squad with quite a few high earners we would struggle to shift.

2 world wars, 1 world cup
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5158
Joined: 16 Jul 2004 18:36
Location: A country made up of 51.9% f**king thick uneducated xenophobic jingoistic mongtards.

Re: BFTG - Blackburn

by 2 world wars, 1 world cup » 14 Feb 2019 14:09

Nameless wrote:
NewCorkSeth wrote:
Nameless wrote:
As I said, we disagree.
As you describe it there seems no benefit to the buying club. The selling club have a done deal at (probably) an inflated price but can easily get out of it if a better offer comes in.
I can understand the variant that Stranded mentioned of a loan deal that automatically kicks into a permenant deal at the end which isn’t an ‘option’ for anyone just a two part deal.
You seem to describe some flaky hybrid of everyone possibly doing something and someone else still getting involved all falling apart because it would be com0letely unenforceable.

What? We don't disagree. There's nothing to disagree about. I'm telling you what the "option" means on the loan agreement. Are you saying I'm wrong?


Well you think it’s a ‘smart’ system, so we probably disagree there !
I don’t know if you are right or wrong and unless we get sight of the contracts I guess we can’t be sure.
I think the system you have explained is somewhat pointless and you’ve not really highlighted any benefits for the potential buying club.
As I said while ago , not sure where else this debate goes. I’m sure we both hope the loan players are successful and any we think can do a long term job decide they want to stay, whether or not we have an ‘option’ on them.


How can there be no benefits for the buying club? I'm confused. To exaggerate the point to demonstrate: isn't it obvious that if Oliveira scores 50 goals his price would rocket and even if we wanted him at the end of the season we wouldn't afford his £30million price tag. But as a price for, let's say £5mill, has already been agreed we're laughing! How can that not be a beneficial to us!? Of course others may come in and offer the £30million and he may end up going elsewhere, but there's a chance he may prefer our contract so we may then get him. If he ends up being shit anyway like Vydra we won't want him anyway so it doesn't matter. Like everything in business it's a punt. A bit like a fixed rate vs a variable mortgage. It's such an obvious potential benefit to a buying club I wonder if I'm missing something....

246 posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests

It is currently 21 Feb 2019 09:46