[Albion] Tino Livramento

[Badger Boy]

Ultimately, this thread is a good reminder why we're posters on a forum and the people employed by the club to oversee transfer activity are in their jobs.

 

[dwayne]

Maybe - but then you'd regret it in 12-24 months

I won't go on and this is my final word.

if we were given the opportunity to put Messi in our team for one season before he was a superstar and we were offered 20m to do this. Do you really think we would be looking back in anger later on when he gets transferred for 200 million !!

I very much doubt it

Sent from my SM-G986B using Tapatalk

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Someones still going to have to explain the downside of this to me ?!?!

If Chelsea were to buy back it means the guy has performed amazingly for us and we would get a massive profit back as well. Win/win.

It just seems an ego move not to accept a deal like that and as previously stated would anyone honestly say they would rather have NOT signed lamptey if he had a 25m buyback clause.

Sent from my SM-G986B using Tapatalk

If we were top of the league at Christmas, because he is so amazing he has won every game for us.
Chelsea decide to buy him back for £25m and take the whole window to agree increased wages for him.

Sure we're £20m up, but we have no opportunity or enough funds to buy a comparable replacement.

Tony isn't interested in not having autonomy on what he does with the players he's bought.
It should always be his decision what happens next.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Tony doesn't do release clauses at all so I doubt he'd do a buyback

 

[Greg Bobkin]

A lot of outrage on this thread based on not much substance...

You can't miss what you never had

 

[Wardy's twin]

The downside is that this is little more than a loan. If he has a good season we could find ourselves having to hand back our player, admittedly for a big profit but less than the market value. It's an excellent deal for Chelsea but it's not brilliant for Southampton. Ultimately, they've chosen to do the deal so they're happy with the risk but I'm not entirely surprised that it's not a deal we've done.

It's a loan we could have made £20 million on which would have been 40% of all the transfer fees ever received prior to BW sale an even then it would have been 20% and our second highest fee received. Crazy not to have done the deal IF he was the player we wanted.

It would have also added more to the debate that we are a great club to move young players on and thus attract more .

Really don't understand the anti loan debate - if you build it into your strategy it doesn't have to be a big hit when player moves on and in reality players and their agents can force moves if they want , so being loan or being on a contract (especially with one year left) are not black and white situations.

 

[Stat Brother]

A lot of outrage on this thread based on not much substance...

You can't miss what you never had

Yep still mithering on about a player most hadn't heard of, last week, not signing for us this week.

Doesn't make much sense esp as NOBODY has any idea on what deals were put in front of young Tino.

 

[GT49er]

The problem with any buyback clause is that they can sign him back (as long as the player is willing) during any window.
It isn't the club that owns his contract's choice.

Still spending £5M and getting £25M back is a good deal - even if they want him back half way through the season, or two or three years down the line it's still £20M clear profit.
Strange that anyone could think that in itself was a problem.

 

[GT49er]

Lamptey if he can get fit is worth more than £25M though.... so bad deal

Totally irrelevant to the Livramento situation.

 

[Springal]

Totally irrelevant to the Livramento situation.

Why?

 

[GT49er]

OK lets flip it - why did we do the Lamptey deal, but not this one? I don't think you can accuse the Albion on missing out on shrewd deals in the last 2 years

You really can't see the difference between the two deals? Not that the alleged buy back clause would be likely to be a deal breaker in itself.

 

[Springal]

You really can't see the difference between the two deals? Not that the alleged buy back clause would be likely to be a deal breaker in itself.

I think you’ve missed what I was replying to when I compared the deals

 

[GT49er]

Why?

Because the Lamptey deal is done and dusted. We bought him; he's ours. If we'd made a deal for Livramento we'd have had to send him back if Chelsea wanted him back - but still with a huge profit for us. For whatever reason (and almost certainly not that alone) the deal wasn't made and he's gone to Southampton.

 

[Springal]

Because the Lamptey deal is done and dusted. We bought him; he's ours. If we'd made a deal for Livramento we'd have had to send him back if Chelsea wanted him back - but still with a huge profit for us. For whatever reason (and almost certainly not that alone) the deal wasn't made and he's gone to Southampton.

I think you’ve completely missed my point / what I was replying to

 

[Whitechapel]

Still spending £5M and getting £25M back is a good deal - even if they want him back half way through the season, or two or three years down the line it's still £20M clear profit.
Strange that anyone could think that in itself was a problem.

I can’t believe anyone who has thought about it for more than 5 femtoseconds still thinks they’re good deals.


Imagine the absolute pant wetting on here if we’d signed Livramento, he’d had an incredible season where he breaks in to the England team, gets 5 goals & 10 assists from RB and Man City/United/Liverpool were all circling for him for £50m before Chelsea resigned him for £25m before potentially selling him straight away and pocketing £25,000,000 for themselves. Or if they missed out on a transfer target and used Livramento as a back-up option just before the window closed meaning we didn’t have time to replace him.

Any club agreeing to buy-back clauses are desperate or short sighted and I hope we never accept one for a player we’re buying.

 

[Jim in the West]

You need to readjust your thinking then. For arguments sake it's an imaginary 20m + 5m real money deal if he's playing well which is probably market value. If he's crap you lose 5m (no worries there) .....a very risk free sensible transfer policy with little risk.

Sent from my SM-G986B using Tapatalk

Except there's a sell-on clause as well. Obviously we don't know what it is but - if it's 20%, say - and the guy is sold for £20m, there's another £3m back to Chelsea. If we WERE ever interested in Livramento then someone will have a detailed spreadsheet with all the likely outcomes. And someone much cleverer than most of us will have looked at that in conjunction with a whole load of other metrics, and compared it to a huge database of thousands of players that we're no doubt tracking (closely or otherwise). I know he's had rave reviews, but £5m and a 5 year contract is a big commitment for someone who hasn't played a game in a professional league.

 

[GT49er]

I can’t believe anyone who has thought about it for more than 5 femtoseconds still thinks they’re good deals.


Imagine the absolute pant wetting on here if we’d signed Livramento, he’d had an incredible season where he breaks in to the England team, gets 5 goals & 10 assists from RB and Man City/United/Liverpool were all circling for him for £50m before Chelsea resigned him for £25m before potentially selling him straight away and pocketing £25,000,000 for themselves. Or if they missed out on a transfer target and used Livramento as a back-up option just before the window closed meaning we didn’t have time to replace him.

Any club agreeing to buy-back clauses are desperate or short sighted and I hope we never accept one for a player we’re buying.

Anybody wetting their pants over that wuld be a very silly person - as well as incontinent. If we knew at the outset we were getting a player for £5M, but that if he turned out to be good the selling club would have a right to buy him back for £25M we should just look at it calmly and realise that the other club have effectively lent us a player who for whatever length of time he was with us has helped us move forward.
Now normally you would pay a loan fee for a player coming in on loan - but in this case you are being paid a cool £20M just for letting him improve your team for a season or two. It is what is known as a no-brainer. As others have already rightly said, none of us know why he went to Southampton, not us; a penny to a pound though, it wouldn't have been just because of a sell back clause; other factors will have been involved.
Anyway, I'm done with this now - life's to short to try explain to people that £25M for an expenditure of £5M is a healthy profit!

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Still spending £5M and getting £25M back is a good deal - even if they want him back half way through the season, or two or three years down the line it's still £20M clear profit.
Strange that anyone could think that in itself was a problem.

If Tony just cared about turning us into a profit making business, then yeah it's a good deal.
But he is being asked to relinquish control on what his plans are for that player.

Tony won't do that.
There's loads of other ways he can make £20m without being told what to do by a third party.

 

[GT49er]

If Tony just cared about turning us into a profit making business, then yeah it's a good deal.
But he is being asked to relinquish control on what his plans are for that player.

Tony won't do that.
There's loads of other ways he can make £20m without being told what to do by a third party.

Control? OK, you convince yourself it's all about willy waving. I won't.

 

[vagabond]

We have no idea of the specifics of the deal, so seems foolhardy to second guess the clubs decision based on factors unknown to us. Chelsea have likely wised up and will make damn sure they benefit from future exits of their young talent.

A buyback could be one factor. Could be sell ons, multiple conditions; pay a certain amount to Chelsea after x number of first team games, after an international call up, after a season.

And the big factor I think some are missing is opportunity cost. Which is hard to calculate but I bet someone like Tony would factor in. Ie. We’d be giving game time through a season that we could be giving to one of our young players already here, who could then develop and blossom.

Basically it all comes down to… do you trust the club to make the right decision in our interests.