@21Gooner - I've heard that we agreed a 40% sell-on fee for Tavares so we will actually do ok out of any sell-on
who's the striker you're talking about?
Printable View
@21Gooner - I've heard that we agreed a 40% sell-on fee for Tavares so we will actually do ok out of any sell-on
who's the striker you're talking about?
Gosh how dare people have the temerity to disagree with youQuote:
Originally Posted by 21_GOONER_SALUTE
A) I pointed out that the 25 million United received is compensation for the fact they are lumbered with a player they can’t get rid of (if he can’t agree personal terms with Chelsea, what chance anywhere else)
B) A lot of these loan deals come with pre-existing obligations to buy, so as Tavares agreed terms with Lazio we don’t get the compensation in the hope that the Saudis suddenly come sniffing
I saw 35% earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac76
I don't get why we needed to give up the remaining % when it was obvious that he went out on loan and did far above expectations and logically we should have expected bids like this coming up this summer for a full Portuguese international.
Oh, and the striker is Mika Biereth, who again some of us warned against selling last summer (though I must say, in my wildest dreams I never imagined we wouldn't buy a striker at all last season).
You realise of course that this kind of thing happens with clubs all the time, it’s not something that’s limited to us
Look at Chelsea and De Bruyne because Mourinho didn’t rate him
Didn’t Man United have to pay over ten times the amount they’d originally sold Pogba to Juventus for
It’s a bit like the stock exchange, you weigh things up and make bets and sometimes you get it right, sometimes you don’t.
I'll ignore the first line.Quote:
Originally Posted by HCZ_Reborn
a) I'm failing to connect the dots here....did I argue about the transfer fee they agreed? All I pointed out was that Chelsea refused to be taken for mugs and probably used the failure to agree terms as a loophole to backout.
I then suggested there must be some sort of clause we could exploit to ensure we get out of having to sell at a price that made absolutely no sense....and hadn't made sense since the first few months of his loan spell (so we had adequate time to consider contingencies) where at beginning of Serie A he was leading in assists, and obviously still playing only as a defender!
b). I'm not going to argue the nitty gritty of contracts with you because the last time we did something like this I wasted my time seeing as you just wanted to fall back on the safety of "we cannot know, we weren't there"..... so basically a pointless discussion.
I've complained about our transfer dealing for ages, it didn't start last year. I point out simple things that we can all understand, like the trend of how much we pay for players and more importantly, how much we have sold talent compared to our rivals in the last 30 or so years.
It's really simple, we don't get value with our contracts or the transfer market (especially when compared to our rivals) due to the way we approach both, and we really need to be thankful that our academy and scouts (especially in the early years of AW) bailed us out for so long.
You are kind of shifting the goal posts with those examples, I mean when it comes to the particular case we are discussing ATM.Quote:
Originally Posted by HCZ_Reborn
De Bruyne and Salah were sold by Mourinho after having no standout performances while being at the club (though TBH Mourinho never gave them a chance). Man U brought Pogba back at what was pretty much the going price after a spectacular season with Juventus (so it kind of buttresses my point).
Both Mika and Tavares were sold after having standout performances. Mika's case was worse as he at least had 2 successful short term loan spells and there was no obligation to buy.
Tavares was slightly different as he only had one successful loan spell and the obligation to buy was baked in earlier. But like Chelsea proved, there are ways to get out of these things if you try hard enough....and we had a longer time than Chelsea to figure it out.
Also it seems we are about committing the same mistake with Viera as it seems we want to sell him back for peanuts to Porto after another hugely successful loan spell.
It's clear we are giving ourselves a reputation, and it's obviously not a good type.
I have previously stated that one of the reasons we should do our business early and quickly is that is stops other clubs sniffing around and starting a bidding war or snatching our targets (like Mudryk for example).Quote:
Originally Posted by HCZ_Reborn
But yes, I would much rather we buy a proven product for 80m + instead of 'potential'
Why not snap up Osimhen for instance.
Here's what Wrighty thought of Mika.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac76
https://www.goal.com/en-ng/lists/ian...89f3a6a547da71
https://www.arsenalinsider.com/news/...m-for-just-4m/
Quote:
Originally Posted by 21_GOONER_SALUTE
So now you’re arguing Chelsea were the shrewd ones by paying 25 million to get out of a compulsory purchase clause that arguably they were silly to get into in the first place. You would be panning us if we’d failed to agree personal terms with a player we had on loan and ended up sending him back to the parent club with a cheque for 25 million.
It’s an arrangement that suits neither club really.
I also think you cherry pick when it suits you, I think the fact that we got over 70 million for Nketiah and Balogun given one is next to useless and one is at best average is exceptionally good business. You also dismiss that for clubs, the benefit with player sales is removing that player from the wage bill.
You’ve also complain that we try and low ball clubs when it comes to making purchases. The fact is as a club we aren’t perfect but in terms of finances (which I assume is what concerns you when you come on moaning about these things) are far better than most premier league clubs that aren’t either bending or outright breaking the rules.
We wanted Tavares off our books when we sent him on loan to Lazio, your argument is what…that we renege on that agreement to get more money from Lazio who in turn could take us to court for breach of contract. Or that we should have set the bar higher for his purchase to begin with? Again we wanted him off our books and Lazio probably wouldn’t have agreed to take him in the first place if we’d set it much higher (Italian clubs aren’t exactly minted). His stock has never been that high (he’s made one appearance for the national side) because although he’s good at getting forward, he can’t defend for shit and that’s why Marseille nor Forest took up a permanent option with him.
As much as it pains me to agree with him, Mac also made the point that we do have quite a generous sell on clause, I don’t think Lazio will sell him this summer….but I think should they decide to do so next summer and he’s still highly rated by Saudi clubs, we get a fair chunk of money back.
I apologise if I’ve got you wrong, but it feels to me like there’s a distinct Anti Arsenal Agenda with many of your posts that you think we as a club can’t do anything right. You know how I feel about Arteta, and I’m not exactly that kindly disposed towards KSE either. But I don’t think as a club we are as disastrously run as you portray us, and I think we would be if we tried to run the club more along the lines of Chelsea.
That's exactly what we will be getting with Sesko.Quote:
Originally Posted by McNamara That Ghost...
A drop in drop out player that gets swapped with Havertz. Another Arteta 'like for like' sub.
His Plan B is Plan A.