[Albion] Cole Palmer on loan?

[Whitechapel]

I see your point, but I ask you also consider this.

The buy back clause being inserted also makes the initial fee for us cheaper. Using your example fees. £15m may allow us to get Palmer permanently with a buy back clause because we give City that insurance policy.

However, remove the buy back clause we’re probably looking £25m to be ours outright. Now let’s say he doesn’t do well and gets one goal and one assist all season. With the buy back clause we don’t stand to lose much by the time we maybe salvage £5m by selling him.

However the £25m with no buy back clause and a bad season and we’re in trouble.

The way I see it, it’s an insurance policy for both sides, especially with a young, relatively unproven, player.

We could probably get players to sign for less money a week if we inserted buy-out clauses in to our contract.

Entirely kneecapping our position if/when we have to sell to skimp on money now will never seem like a good idea to me, especially with the way transfer fees are going constantly

I think with buy backs, they can be negotiated to be a good deal for the buying club, but there's a huge variation in the T's and C's. If it was, we're buying him for £10m and there's a buy back for £60m, that's probably a good deal.

I'd say most Saints fans would say they are happy they've taken on Livramento despite the reported existence of the buy back clause. It all totally depends on the details of the deal negotiated.

If the buyback was £60m then the only reason City would activate it is because he’s worth £60m or more. It’s still not a good deal for us, imo.

 

[Heart and Soul]

We could probably get players to sign for less money a week if we inserted buy-out clauses in to our contract.

Entirely kneecapping our position if/when we have to sell to skimp on money now will never seem like a good idea to me, especially with the way transfer fees are going constantly



If the buyback was £60m then the only reason City would activate it is because he’s worth £60m or more. It’s still not a good deal for us, imo.

If we have a player performing at a level Manchester City think would be good enough for them, I'd take that for a season or two regardless if he would then be sold a bit cheaper than in a world with no buy back-clause.

 

[BevBHA]

We could probably get players to sign for less money a week if we inserted buy-out clauses in to our contract.

Entirely kneecapping our position if/when we have to sell to skimp on money now will never seem like a good idea to me, especially with the way transfer fees are going constantly



If the buyback was £60m then the only reason City would activate it is because he’s worth £60m or more. It’s still not a good deal for us, imo.

I see and appreciate your point fully and where you are coming from. It’s a good debate we will have to agree to disagree, as personally for me if the buy back was 60m and city paid it I’d still be happy with the profit

 

[warmleyseagull]

But if offered the choice everyone would rather take another Colwill than an Izzy Brown.

I would take Kemy Agustien instead of Izzy Brown.

 

[dwayne]

How fcking typical. Scores a banger in the charity shield.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Thread closed

 

[Stat Brother]

Thread closed

Give the boy a couple of weeks training with Welbeck and he'll not do that again.

 

[A1X]

At least it should silence that ridiculous Mitoma stuff

 

[Icy Gull]

Not worth a new thread but Trossard scores a deflected equaliser in the 100th minute against City to take it to penalties in the Charity shield.

Looking like an Arsenal win now…and it is

 

[WhingForPresident]

Arsenal celebrating fluking the Community Shield as if it was the Champions League. Twats.

 

[The Fits]

Was never going to happen.
Trossard looking like he could go on to be one of the players of the season after last year and his pre-season.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

Arsenal celebrating fluking the Community Shield as if it was the Champions League. Twats.

As would we. I found it hilarious! I love being a neutral in these games

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Was never going to happen.
Trossard looking like he could go on to be one of the substitutes of the season after last year and his pre-season.

Slight edit....

 

[Deadly Danson]

This sounds more promising.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Arsenal celebrating fluking the Community Shield as if it was the Champions League. Twats.

It was quite funny, given they're a club with a decent history of winning proper trophies. I couldn't even remember who won the last one, until one of the sports writers said it was Liverpool.

I daresay if we won it (again), we'd celebrate, but that's more relative to our status within the game, isn't it?

I can't work out whether Arsenal are going to be decent or not this season. In some ways, last season felt like a bit of a fluke: a season where several of the clubs who had been contenders, or at least very good, over the previous few years all fluffed it, rather like when Leicester won the league.

 

[Bakero]

Lots of talk of a loan to West Ham now

 

[dwayne]

Lots of talk of a loan to West Ham now

Bit strange .... But maybe they can guarantee more playing time.

Are we more interested in mcatee?

Reading the article it sounds more like west ham want him but I suspect man city will politely decline ..

 

[Bakero]

Bit strange .... But maybe they can guarantee more playing time.

Are we more interested in mcatee?

If we got Kudus, would we still be interested? I wouldn't have thought so.

Also, City want Paqueta so maybe Palmer will be a bargaining chip in that deal.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Scored in the super cup.

Don't want him

 

[indy3050]

He’s just scored again! Great header back across the goal. KDB out for months too.