Vinicius Souza

Not like that. Seen it before where a club loaned a player for a high fee, with an obligation to buy and the selling club had an obligation to sell, player terms all agreed. Just a different way to split payments, as I think the loan portion was taxed differently to the sale of the asset. All very complex but I’ll leave it there as to not derail the thread.

* it, let’s stick our £7m on the table.

 

Ah, sorry I get you mate

I’m sure tax avoidance (sorry, I mean being sensible with tax… ) is something that the City Group will be more than able to advise in…

I agree with you though, just get the money on the table and get him in permanently.

 

The bit I thought was interesting, you saying Souza favours a permanent move. Big positive development for us

 

Actual technical ability on the ball translates in any league.

It’s not easier to play a perfect pass in Belgium cos it’s a * league.

 

I'd say £7million with add-ons to bump it up to around £9million would be amazing business to just get this done as a permanent signing straight away.

None of the messing about with loans.

 

Let's hope so

 

You’d also be exaggerating Jack Hendry’s qualities if you said that. He considers himself a ball playing CB but he’s dross on the ball. And you failed to mention his defensive ability - which is also dross.

Their league is poor but so is ours. Without looking it up, I’d hazard a guess that clubs like Brugge and Genk have done more than us in Europe the last few years so we have no right to slate them.

And in terms of Souza, it’s pretty obvious why people are getting excited about him. The graph highlighting his underlying numbers i.e. defensive actions etc are unbelievably good. Regardless of the level.

Plus the fact he’s being scouted by Ajax and PSV. And he’s part of the City group. Absolutely everything points towards him being a fantastic player.

A powerful CDM who is good on the ball is exactly the player we’ve lacked since Wanyama left.

 

Show me a football team anywhere in the world who do this. It’s beyond stupid to even suggest it.

Why would you change goalkeeper every game or every other game?

 

There’s a difference between obligation and option to buy.

Obligation is what we had with Maeda where it is all agreed beforehand and automatically turns permanent. Option is Jota/CCV where we have a set fee but player can reject it.

I’m pretty sure the rules changed a couple of years back that obligation fees, and maybe options if triggered, now count the same as permanent transfer fees because clubs tried to get round payments by paying higher loan fees with smaller transfer fees at the end of it.

 

It changed a couple of years ago? That would explain a bit, said example I was thinking of happened about 4 years ago. Wasn’t aware it changed.

 

Not 100% but there was definitely talk of it and I’m sure it happened.

With everything like this there’ll be ways around it anyway but pretty sure it all counts as a permanent transfer fee now.

 

The fee would have to be significantly higher on the buy back for me. And that could only come into affect after his second season. Or you could end up with a situation like Real Madrid. They’ve done it with Morata at Juventus and Casemiro at Porto.

The Morata one was bad though. Pretty sure Madrid had a buy back clause for like €30m and he had an absolute stormer of a season, scored in the champions league final against Barca and they bought him back for €30m knowing he would sell for more. They kept him for a year and sold him to Chelsea for €68m the following summer. Pretty sure PSG missed out on a €45m deal for him the window he went back to Madrid too.

However, if we bought him for say £7m and put a buy back clause in his contract at £15m, that could only be activated after his second summer, so July 2024, we would get a significant return on our investment and City could probably make another £10m out of him. Good deal all round that.

Plus we would get the player for a significant spell.

 

If he's wanted by city, well then the option to buy back would have to be at least 20/25mill!! City dont play players they spent 100mill on so i can only see them wanting him back to flip him for additional profit. If he went so well at us that city would consider him for first team his market value would surely be well north of 25/30 mill

Sent from my GM1903 using Tapatalk

 

Everything you said in their is correct except the £15m. Buyback should only be in there if they want him as a City player. They don’t pay peanuts for players, so we should be inserting a minimum of £30m along with penalties for flipping the player. I would prefer there is no buyback clause.

 

That Anthony Joseph knows * all, he’s a terrible journalist.

 

They wouldn't just take up a buy back option to have him in their squad, they would also do it if his market value has increased significantly above the buy back clause value and they would then sell him on themselves. Which is the more likely of the scenarios.

 

Stating the obvious, Stating the obvious, Guessing

 

Difficult as in City Group/ Man City ownership.