Transfer Tweets - 2021/22 | Check the OP for blacklisted sources before posting

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't think I'll ever understand these Loans with option to buy clauses.

If the player does shit, send him back (Former club wouldn't want him either)
If the player does well, they keep him (Former club may be willing to give another chance)

It always seems a win for the potential buyers.
Now a loan with an obligation to buy makes sense.

"Loan with obligation to buy" isn't a loan at all. It's a pretty obvious FFP dodge.

It's an "outright purchase with a deferred payment".
 
I don't think I'll ever understand these Loans with option to buy clauses.

If the player does shit, send him back (Former club wouldn't want him either)
If the player does well, they keep him (Former club may be willing to give another chance)

It always seems a win for the potential buyers.
Now a loan with an obligation to buy makes sense.

Well , if you cant sell the guy but want the wages off the books, its sometimes the only option to save some money for the selling club.
Its like when we loaned out Dalot and Pereira - couldnt find a buyer and werent sure of their future at the club so had to loan him out, and might not have gotten that if there wasnt an option to buy.

Because the club that gets him dont want to risk giving him lots of game time and not have the possibility of getting him permanent.

So yeah, its a win for the club recieving , but they have to also give a player thats not theirs playing time instead of potentially improving one of their own.
 
I don't think I'll ever understand these Loans with option to buy clauses.

If the player does shit, send him back (Former club wouldn't want him either)
If the player does well, they keep him (Former club may be willing to give another chance)

It always seems a win for the potential buyers.
Now a loan with an obligation to buy makes sense.
Gets a sizeable wage off their books for at least a season no matter the outcome, which is better for them than him barely playing and costing a packet for the privilege. Also shortens the remainder of his contract, which, even if they can't get a buyer, means that bit less a duration they're obligated to pay him. There's the chance for the player to put himself in the shop window, not only for the club he's going to, but everyone else, too.

What's bizarre is Saul going from a golden boy at Atletico to an unwanted and expensive loose end they want rid of. Last time I was following him/the club, he was a coveted player and now he's like an afterthought scramble for clubs who can't get their desired targets. Crazy turnaround!
 
I don't think I'll ever understand these Loans with option to buy clauses.

If the player does shit, send him back (Former club wouldn't want him either)
If the player does well, they keep him (Former club may be willing to give another chance)

It always seems a win for the potential buyers.
Now a loan with an obligation to buy makes sense.
Unwanted player on the final year of contract. Extend for 1 year and goes on loan, wages paid by other club. Buyout clause is a way for both parties to protect value by establishing a benchmark. If the player does really well and attracts interest from multiple clubs, it favours competition while at the same time guaranteeing precedence to the loan holder. If he doesn't, neither club loses anything from it
 
A sad club. Went on a huge vendetta after Barca tried to sign Verratti - no sympathies to Barca who acted with arrogance - now slagging off Bale to make a point about Madrid meeting their fee. What's Bale got to do with it? Seriously, stay classy FFS. Smacks of throwing their toys out the pram. Oh well, I guess we'll see another vendetta brew, this time against Madrid. Should be entertaining to watch.
Madrid will be crossing their fingers that PSG will go after bale or hazard as part of their vendetta
 
Well , if you cant sell the guy but want the wages off the books, its sometimes the only option to save some money for the selling club.
Its like when we loaned out Dalot and Pereira - couldnt find a buyer and werent sure of their future at the club so had to loan him out, and might not have gotten that if there wasnt an option to buy.

Because the club that gets him dont want to risk giving him lots of game time and not have the possibility of getting him permanent.

So yeah, its a win for the club recieving , but they have to also give a player thats not theirs playing time instead of potentially improving one of their own.
Yea but is there an obligation to sell for the club that's is loaning.
 
Norwich could sign Ronaldo and Mbappe. They're still going down in May.

Such is the natural order of things.
 
I don't think I'll ever understand these Loans with option to buy clauses.

If the player does shit, send him back (Former club wouldn't want him either)
If the player does well, they keep him (Former club may be willing to give another chance)

It always seems a win for the potential buyers.
Now a loan with an obligation to buy makes sense.

I thought so too, however I think the option itself probably has a cost attached (like in any other transaction) .
 
I don't think I'll ever understand these Loans with option to buy clauses.

If the player does shit, send him back (Former club wouldn't want him either)
If the player does well, they keep him (Former club may be willing to give another chance)

It always seems a win for the potential buyers.
Now a loan with an obligation to buy makes sense.
Makes a lot of sense for the loanee club. I'm not convinced by Saul but on a loan with buy option would be a neat deal for any club.

Where it makes sense for the loaning club is where you do not see a future for the player at all and feel regular football may be the best way to create demand.
 
If Ronaldo goes to City he can get fecked. He better have a grovelling apology for Fergie ready.
 
I don't think I'll ever understand these Loans with option to buy clauses.

If the player does shit, send him back (Former club wouldn't want him either)
If the player does well, they keep him (Former club may be willing to give another chance)

It always seems a win for the potential buyers.
Now a loan with an obligation to buy makes sense.
Well if the potential buyer exercises the option then the parent club can't really hold on to the player.
 
He's, like, a Chelsea reject, because they want another, more expensive defender.

Despite this transfer being rammed down our throats at every opportunity in this thread, there is not even a transfer thread on him. Nobody cares.

What do you mean it's being rammed down your throat? It's a transfer tweet in the transfer tweets thread.
 
He's, like, a Chelsea reject, because they want another, more expensive defender.

Despite this transfer being rammed down our throats at every opportunity in this thread, there is not even a transfer thread on him. Nobody cares.

Maybe because this particular transfer was off then on, then off then on again, then off and then finally on again. So there's gonna be loads of tweets about him
 
My all time favourite player signing for City would be.....unpleasant
 
Status
Not open for further replies.