Summer 2017 Transfer Speculation

grey_til_I_dye

I'd rather keep ;ac

I think if we had another main, fit first choice striker, it would ease the pressure on his old bones and muscles. There's no question that when fit he is still a very good player.

baracks_a_hammer

On balance, Grey, my preference would be to move AC on. I don't think he can fulfill the role of a back up because when needed there's every chance he'll be crocked. He just seems to get injured randomly and this isn't necessarily caused by a heavy workload. If Sakho also leaves, I would say we probably need two strikers

Jorderz_Moyes_will_be_Moyes

Iheanacho would be a great signing IMO as he scores all kinds of goals and has the perfect physique for the PL. Also, he's already done it here.

Whether he's available or not I have no idea. I would have thought Man City would want to keep him.

Fortuneseeker

grey, the problem with AC is on his day he can be unplayable but as baracks indicated his availability can only really be measured in days and not months.

mike

I would back that fortune IF we could sell our strikers. ;ok

Vorselaarhammer

I've just seen this round up of today's stories.....

A round up of Sunday's Transfer rumours - so take with a pinch of a Salt.

Snodgrass- Brighton are lining up an £8 million bid for the Scotsman. -

Ross Barkley - West Ham are prepared to match Barkleys £140k a week salary.

Pickford - Everton and West Ham have made Enquires.

Martial - West Ham and PSG are in talks with the Manchester United attacker with Man Utd wanting around £50 million for him.

Iheanacho - Rumoured Medical has been taken but still waiting on City to set a asking price for him.

Vorselaarhammer

I would think that Barkley will end up at Manu, Martial to PSG (WH compete financially with PSG ;lol)..

snodgrass ;hmm, can't see it after 6 months.

WHU_Champo_league_in_7_years

Think city will have a buy back clause in the contract but I think we shpuld go for it anyways the kid can be a huge asset

Can't just go forward with him though as he is only a young lad and there will be load software pressure on him

MarkNobleLocalHero

software pressure?

IronHerb

He'll be in bits...... ;run

grey_til_I_dye

I'm not going to byte...

thornburyiron

I can see the sense in a "first option" clause but can't see any club agreeing to buy a player where the selling club can say "we are buying him back now".

Expat_Hammer

I watched a program on that ....

alderz

Thorn

That's what happened with Morata at Juve. Real just took him back when they were ready

WHU_Champo_league_in_7_years

And carvahal

Barcelona but clauses into most of their young players they let go like Romeu and Deulofeu

United have a clause to get Depay back

Chelsea looking to get rid of traore with a buy back clause

Yeoldhammer

as long as the buyback clause is more than you paid for them it should be okay. if we got Inhenacho for 24m then put the buyback on it at 30m or 40m

alderz

The frustration would be if they took him back for £30m only to sell him on for £50m

Pearces_Left_Foot

Sky reporting we have put offer in on incheanho

baracks_a_hammer

This buyback thing has the hallmarks of being worse than a straight loan. All of the downsides of ownership and none of the upsides..

;hmm

Jorderz_Moyes_will_be_Moyes

It does guarantee you a decent- sized profit if the original club wants to buy him back. But agreed, mostly its a silly thing to agree to.

baracks_a_hammer

Jorderz,

If he scores, say 15 odd goals for us and we are forced to say give him up for around £28m, in the current market that would be a pretty poor outcome for us (except for the goals bit of course!)

Expat_Hammer

But what if he says, I don't want to go back there ???

baracks_a_hammer

Then if he happens to be worth £50m, Man City would trigger their right and we would have to pay the difference to keep him I would have thought.. ;hmm

epsom_bubbles

How is that different to third party ownership, Tevez style. We buy the player but don't really own him outright

grey_til_I_dye

epsom

I think the definition of 3rd party ownership is that someone other than the club (or in addition to the club) owns the registration right of the player.

I think buy back clauses are reasonably common on the continent, not that I think it would be a good thing.

MrsGrey

Expat_Hammer said:

But what if he says, I don't want to go back there ???

I'd imagine that the clause would be in his contract, and if he signs the contract, he can't renege at a later date. Unless HE buys himself out of it.

Adam

As people have said, it's pretty common for Real Madrid and for Barcelona. If the player plays well, then the buying side does get a good player for a season or two. It's still a positive.

Man City are in the driving seat and I'm sure there are a lot of interested clubs.

We should complete on the deal quickly and not drag negotiations on for too long.

grey_til_I_dye

Not quite the case (as we just found out on the Interwebby).

There is a 'first refusal' option, or a buy back option that can be inserted into cotnracts.

This seems to explain it quite well:

http://www.danielgeey.com/football-transfers-buy-back-clauses-explained/

Essentially, with the buy back clause, there is typically a minimum term (e.g. 2 years) after whcih for an agreed fee, the selling club have the contractual right to buy the player back. So, essentially, it is a kind of half-way house between a loan and a sale.

steve

;hmm still don't like it

grey_til_I_dye

steve

Me either, but it may be the only way clubs like ours can ever get promising players from 'top clubs'.