Is it really? He is much more of a creator and dribbler in my opinion. His finishing is... not very good. He's a more flairful Neal Maupay.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] Deniz Undav **Gone To Stuttgart 09/08/24**
- Thread starter Juan Albion
- Start date
Nobby Cybergoat
Well-known member
- Jul 19, 2021
- 8,223
Still a young man, was in and out with injury last season and was played out wide out of necessity a lot.
Still contributed well with goals
There is no comparison to Maupay
I don’t really see the point of the buy-back clause. It means the 20 million buy-out clause is pretty much meaningless. What am I missing?
Flounce
Well-known member
- Nov 15, 2006
- 3,453
Tony Bloom’s business acumen?
JetsetJimbo
Well-known member
- Jun 13, 2011
- 1,094
Meaning no disrespect to the Bundesliga, I feel like it's a more "striker-friendly" league than the Premier League. Look at how many Harry Kane scored last season -- he scored a lot in the Premier League, but he's found goals even easier to come by in the Bundesliga. When you consider that alongside how many Undav has scored there, I feel that we shouldn't assume that a lot of goals in the Bundesliga will translate to a lot of goals in the Premier League. I reckon Welbeck would be a 20-goal-a-season striker in the Bundesliga.
I like Undav a lot, but selling him for the kinds of sums being bandied about sounds like good business to me.
I like Undav a lot, but selling him for the kinds of sums being bandied about sounds like good business to me.
I get I’m missing something….but what? There’s a bunch of scenarios which can play out but none have a guarantee. What’s the benefit of a 20m purchase price that the Albion don’t have to honour if they don’t want to? In fact they have to pay a million if they don’t want to honour it? What’s the benefit over having no clauses in the agreement and just negotiating at the end if Stuttgart want him?Tony Bloom’s business acumen?
Can anyone explain what I’m missing?
Last edited:
I don't think so. Said early I don't think there's any buy-back clause, because it makes no sense. At all.
I'm struggling to see the great business acumen if there's a buy-back clause. If we sell him for £20m and buy him back for £20.1m, we've lost money (agent fees, solidarity payments to Undavs youth clubs etc.).Tony Bloom’s business acumen?
Any buy-back clause is also dependent on the player accepting to get bought back. If he doesn't approve the new contract we have to give him when bought back, he could just stay with Stuttgart. We can't force players to sign with us.
All in all its just too retarded to be true imho but maybe someone can convince me of the opposite.
I think it is more protecting our original investment, the scenario I come to is if Undav exceeded all expectations and became massively hot property (much more than the 20m agreed price) we could buy back at a reasonable loss and then sell on to a highest bidder thus maximising our (Tony B’s ) profit. Clever, if not a little devious eh !
Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo
I believe in Joe Hendry
- Oct 4, 2003
- 11,818
The fact that Stuttgart haven’t just exercised their option and relied on the fact that Undav doesn’t want to re-sign with us if we exercised the buy back clause is a bit confusing.
It must mean there is something more nuanced in the clause or the deal would have happened already.
The reason it’s genius from TB is it protects us in this very situation where a player has a season on loan that blows all expectations out of the water. We are now in a position to hold out for more than the buy out option because we know other clubs will be looking at him now.
deletebeepbeepbeep
Well-known member
- May 12, 2009
- 21,632
Protecting us from Undav suddenly becoming Bergkamp (not that one) Mk 2 and being worth £100m.
According to the same German sources that revealed (or misunderstood?) the buy-back clause, Brighton can't both buy and sell Undav in the same window. I'm not 100% (or even 50%) sure this is correct either, but that would in that case mean that the hypothetical buy-back clause would result in Undav playing for us at the start of next season.
I would imagine both clauses, existing or not, are a bit irrelevant now though. The Stuttgart buyout option ended on June 15. And the loan deal presumably ended on June 30, so I would imagine we're basically back to square one where he's contracted to us but wanting to go elsewhere.
Flounce
Well-known member
- Nov 15, 2006
- 3,453
I think you have suggested a scenario to answer the confused, myself included, on here succinctly
if the loan to buy clause has expired we could just be holding out for more though, as I doubt the buy back clause is still in play now as Stuttgart did not act on it in time? Just a straight deal or no deal now?
Last edited:
Ozymandias86
Active member
I think there may have been a cashflow element, a la the Zirkzee deal that ManYoo are negotiating at the moment. He has a release clause but it’s €40m in one hit, so Ashworth and co are considering paying e.g. €50m to be able to stagger payments over a few windows. Maybe Stuttgart’s option was a ‘pay all in one hit’ and they couldn’t afford to do that. Doesn’t explain our buy-back (unless that was on staggered payment terms) but think it possibly explains why Stuttgart didn’t exercise their option (and makes ours a bit of a moot point, as you say!).
Marshy
Well-known member
I tend to agree with this, I don't think Pedro's finishing is not very good though, just that he takes too long to get his shots off.
I do still see Pedro as a 10 more than a 9 currently.
The only genuine 9s we have is Ferguson and Welbeck.
Pedro is awesome and can play all of those positions incredibly well.
I see Pedro playing behind Ferguson if everyone was fit and firing much like Julio who I also see in this position.
So so so many option with the quality players we have
As previously noted we believe the option to buy at performance related £x had expired so it may all be straightforward (cough) now.
My best attempt at understanding is that the buyback option was structured so that if the perceived market value of undav was significantly higher than £x we would be effectively compensating Stuttgart for blocking that option.
Whatever it is I'm sure Stuttgart's lawyers will be looking more closely at the ramifications of any future loan agreements.
But why not dispense with the buy and buy-back clause and just negotiate at the end of the deal......and save yourself 1m quid? Outcome is exactly the same.
Johnny RoastBeef
These aren't the players you're looking for.
- Jan 11, 2016
- 3,449
Undav's agent will have a big say in these matters, he and Deniz will pick up 2 lots of transfer commission.
It suits us because we mitigate against selling a player undervalue, it suits Deniz because he will earn a couple of million quid extra from the buy back commission, the only ones it doesn't help is Stuttgart, but without it they may not have been able to loan him in the first place.
Baldseagull
Well-known member
As it has worked out, it has made the buy option redundant. But if he had been average last season, it might have been a cheap buy option fee, and no interest from us in buying back straight away. The buy back is a hedge against this situation, where he has been on fire, and is more valuable than the option price, and also against him moving for a low option fee, and then having a dramatic impact the next season and rocketing in value.
Yeah as I saw the Joao Pedro signing, he was a replacement for Alexis Mac Allister, who had occupied the 10 role when Potter moved and De Zerbi swapped the positions of Gross and Mac. Bit different style of play, but Pedro likes to be more involved than a 9 often is, and given that he's hardly a killer in the penalty box I think he should be more involved in other phases of play than just putting the ball in the net.
I’m not sure I agree. If there was no clauses at all, you mitigate against selling a player undervalue by not selling him undervalue.