Sean’s view on that buy back affair
Beggers can’t be choosers goes the saying and in a seller’s market for Premier League strikers they can dictate the terms.
Personally, I see no problem in buying Iheanacho for £20m with a £30m buy back clause for City. We are not a top six club and therefore we are forced to negotiate accordingly especially with the all powerful top four when it comes to transfers.
City do not want to find themselves in the same position as Chelsea when they sold Lukaku for £28m and look on the verge of buying him back in excess of £85m.
Yes, it is a glorified loan but so what! We paid a multi-million loan fee for Jonathan Calleri last season with no buy clause so what is the difference?
At the end of the day if he goes on to score twenty plus goals for us in a season and is bought back for £30m who cares!? We would know what we were getting ourselves into and celebrate his one good season for us.
Yes we would be taking the risk but if it didn’t work out what is £20m nowadays? At his age and talent I am sure we could recover the majority of the transfer fee anyway. We should take a gamble and not let a buy back clause prevent us from buying him.
Even if we only have him for 1 season and they buy him back we make 10 mill. Whats not to like?
I think we should go for it before Leicester get their hands on him…coyi
I agree with all your logic Sean, but the thing I don’t like is that, this is new to English football, and we are a test case in which all the rich clubs will thereafter abuse the rest of us in the same way, continuously.
We in particular will never again be able to sign a decent player from a rich club, without this circus every time. They have it all their own way already it’s time we stood up to them.
On the other hand if we stand up to them others won’t and we could be shooting ourselves in the foot.
Yes it looks like we’re going this way but not without my protest. So there!
And the buy-back clause would have to include for the factor that Nacho might not want to return to their bench, especially if they sign another big-name striker for him to shadow. The only way we could ‘lose’ would be if he turned out to be a 40 goal a season machine, in which case he might want to go elsewhere anyway.
Lol we can only dream of a 40 goal per season striker and I would take that for one season 😉
I honestly dont see them wanting him back ,they can afford to buy the best & that’s what they will do next summer if the need to.
Like Demon says the only way they will want him back is if he turns in to a scoring machine & the chances of the happening with us are naff all 😀
Well said Rads.Now over to bubbles? bubbles???
Bubbles only does Noble articles Roman 😂
The other potential problems with the buy-back would be how it related to either a sell-on fee (so we buy for £20m, sell for £50 but City get, say, half of the £30m profit, so we end up effectively paying £35m) or a right of first refusal, where any offer we receive has to be offered to City first.
Truth is, we need a decent reliable goal scorer so desperately that whatever City want, so long as we get one or two good seasons out of the deal, I’d take it. If he’s pony, he simply fits in with everyone else we have up front. If he’s brilliant, we get the immediate benefit. I’m not sure there’s a reason why I wouldn’t just go for it….. but it’s not my money!
This buy back buisness is new to us . But I reckon it will become common place very soon so let’s settle the issue and go for it . All smaller clubs like ourselves will have to bend to it eventually . Best get over the pain barrier now and accept it . Anyway if we make 10million or maybe more , or maybe City won’t buy back . Who knows . The only certainty is that we need Goals . Next season will be massive for us and consolidation in the Premiership is the most important thing . As for the Arsenal stuff , well , I am not as supportive of it as some of you but , it wouldn’t be a backward step , more like a sideways step before going forward .
Just want something positive to happen .
I dont know how true it is because it was only in the rags but they said Traores transfer to lyon has a buy back clause as well.But in future maybe it will benefit us if we sell a youngster who flourishes at his new club.
Its not something new abroad and we will soon get used to it i reckon.
I dont think signing giroud is a side way step Kevin.Not on last season anyway.Giroud instead of calleri or zaza.Walcott instead of feghouli or snods.Neither seem side ways steps to me.Having said that neither will happen in all likelihood anyway lol
I agree with Sean’s logic, also don’t think that City would buy him back and that the player should have the right to refuse the transfer back to them. To be honest I think that the football authorities should act to ban buyback clauses, if you buy a house the seller doesn’t say I reserve the right to buy it back if it increases in value, that would be ridiculous, the club is treating the player like a slave (no offence mean’t by that to anyone) retaining ownership even after they have sold the player which is dangerous and you could argue an infringement of the players civil liberties because they might be sold back against their wishes through a forced transfer by the original owner.