West Ham fans would be perfectly happy for Kelechi Ihenacho to join the club with a 50 per cent buy back clause attached which could see Manchester City recall him at any time after the first season.
The complex transfer – which has stalled because of a legal tussle over who legally represents the player – will include such a clause if it happens.
And although some see the deal as a controversial departure into the realms of third party ownership, Hammers fans would be content to see the deal go through.
ClaretandHugh launched its latest poll on the issue and 1061 (56.41 pc) said they were quite happy with the clause.
However, a total of 686 voted against the deal (36.47) with another 7.2 pc (134) offering a don’t know response.
Not for me, if he has a brilliant season he’ll be gone. I’ll be heartbroken if he had a season like Payet then jumps ship.
It aint ideal but if you look at it positively then Citeh obviously still rate him if not they would just flog him.They wont want to buy him back next summer they will be after the big cheese strikers around the world if they need one.All they want to do is cover their asses so they dont look like mugs like Chelski will if the buy back Lukaku for about 50 or 60 mill more than they sold him for.
They don’t need to play him to want to buy him back. If someone offers them more money for him than we paid, they’ll buy him back just to turn the profit.
I can’t see how we lose on this one.
Bearing in mind the wealth that city has, I can’t see them exercising a buy-back clause unless he has a phenomenal season. This means that we will have done really well and achieved maybe 8th or above. So we have a great season (and we know that every place is worth about £1.6m) then city gives us a decent wedge of profit to buy someone else.
No brainer.
We are not the BIG club that some of our fans think we are – one season at a time is all we need to consider for the time being.
If you cannot see them exercising the buy back then you’re bound for some pretty severe disappointment. They’ll buy him back just to sell him to someone for more than we paid. Simple as. It doesn’t matter if they want to play him, it only matters if they can make more money off him. And if he bangs them in for us, they’ll be able to do that. Look at the situation with Morata/Juve/Real Madrid. Madrid bought him back simply because they knew they could sell him elsewhere for more.
Actually, it depends what the buy back clause says – which despite your firm opinion on the matter, is something you probably don’t know.
Buy back clauses come in two flavours – ‘on demand’ (OD) and ‘right of first refusal’ (ROFR). With OD, City could simply decide they want him back and we’d have to sell at the agreed fee. Usually OD clauses are limited to close season rather than any window, or they would be a loan with a fee rather than an ownership transfer. My belief (I’m not pretending to know for sure) is that these are rare, since they leave the buying club (in this case, West Ham) in an untenably weak position. As the ‘reporting’ so far has assumed, this isn’t what’s proposed in this case.
With ROFR, we would be obliged to offer City the option to buy back if they wanted, but only if we wanted to sell in the first place. In this case, City would be able to take a view on his market value, and offer us the option to keep/sell if we bought out their buy back sum plus whatever extra they thought he’d be worth in the market.
So with ROFR, firstly we would have to want to sell (which if he was any good, we probably wouldn’t), and the player would have want to leave (which he would have to express by a written transfer request). And if he does well and we show him a load of Cockney love, we would hope he wouldn’t. And yes, I’m aware how fragile that assertion is, given the recent behaviour of a certain Frenchman.
It’s all a bit up in the air with the Court case over his management squabbles anyway, but there’s a fair chance that you could be wrong, depending on the way the clause would be worded.
Well i happen to agree that the odds of them wanting him back are slim.All we need is for chelsea,man city or arsenal to do some striker business and we will know more how the land lays with the strikers from their clubs..
Agreed as well markro we are not a big club which makes the dont want another clubs rejects sentiments from some supporters nonsense.
The odds of them wanting him back are “100% if he isn’t a total flop”. Doesn’t matter if he’ll ever play for them again. If he does well they’ll buy him back so they can sell him for more than we paid. Simple as.
I’m sorry, I had to create an account just to dismiss the nonsense being posted in these comments. “City won’t want him back” and “City won’t need him” are complete rubbish arguments. They’ll absolutely buy him back the moment another club offers more than his buyback clause to buy him. Then they’ll make a fortune and we’ll have egg all over our face.
“No brainer” ? Keep dreaming. They’ll take him back if an offer comes in. Look at Real Madrid/Morata if you don’t believe me. They bought him back with no intention of paying him because they knew they could sell him for more than Juve paid initially.
It’s not about whether or not City will want to play him. It’s about whether or not City will want to make money off him. And if he does well for us, they will. Stop living in this dream world where clubs just let money walk away like that.
Well wernt we the lucky ones to have you create an account to be the all seeing all knowing asshole…
You are indeed lucky, as I’ve informed you of the folly of your rationale. It matters not one bit whether or not City intend to play him. Only whether or not they can make a profit off him.
You’re welcome, mate.
Well your arguement about Alvaro Morata is total bull as it is him who wants to leave to get regular first team action pre world cup year.Apparently even his family think he is wrong to leave Madrid and neither Zidane or Perez wants him to go.
So before you go telling people they are talking nonesense maybe you should check your facts out oh wise one.
So Real Madrid did not buy him back from Juventus and then hardly play him at all? News to me. They bought him back because they could make more money on him than Juve paid. Simple as. And they’re about to do just that.
City will do the same.
There is no point in discussing or arguing with people like westham10 in my experience.They are always right and will be totally dismissive of others comments..calling them nonsense or rubbish while ramming their opinion down your throat….i have read it all before….
As I see it, It would be best to buy him outright but that looks extremely unlikely, the buy back isn’t the best deal in the world but its better than a loan deal where we have to pay a loan fee and his wages and all we receive are his services (or not, as in most cases for the last couple of years). This way at least we should cover his wages and maybe make a small profit if he leaves. A player of his reputation and promise for free for 1 or 2 years doesn’t seem that bad compared to the dross we have took on loan in recent seasons
Relax everyone, if West Ham do this deal, it is possible that we can negotiate a sell on clause. This would cover Citeh’s own needs but reduce the chance of them buying back to sell on.
Haha! well that certainly got the blood flowing!
Good to know my honest opinions are both “rubbish” and “dream world”.
I am a West Ham fan – that means I’m a dreamer by defintion.
Seroiusly…………………..stop taking it all so seriously!
Lol Markro i wondered if you would notice you got put in your place last night.I had the joy of reading Westham10s words of wisdom over breakfast 😂😂