Confirmed Signing Moise Kean

toffeejack · July 10, 2019

Argentina Racing said:
Good source

Bid £30m and 1p simples.

suey_11 · July 10, 2019

Argentina Racing said:
Good source

By someone very close could that be his agent?

Brisan123 · July 10, 2019

catcherintherye said:
In the transfer thread mate. Happy to dig up the post if you wish?

It always seemed the sort of deal that would make sense. It's a good move for us, and him.

he is just looking to index you lol

neil999 · July 10, 2019

suey_11 said:
By someone very close could that be his agent?

his cat dave

Brisan123 · July 10, 2019

catcherintherye said:
Thanks buddy, although that was about a loan by the looks of things which isn't really what this deal is.

I remember writing something a little longer where I'm sure I said the deal just makes a lot of sense. It did from the moment I saw the rumour. Make no mistake I was certainly not saying we'd sign him, just that the deal makes sense. It would be a good buy in my view.

I remember writing something a little longer

We all do to be fair lol

BirkenheadBlue · July 10, 2019

JimmyK said:
When did the upside stop being the player being good and start being making a profit though? Obviously in an ideal world you have the possibility of doing both, but surely it’s just plain wrong to say there’s very limited upside to having a good player for a couple of years? I’d say there was an upside to having Zouma last year, and we just paid £5m to borrow him for a bit. This deal is effectively borrowing someone too, only they’re paying us to do it rather than the other way round. Mark me down as confused as to why that would be worse.

Because they’re NOT paying for us to borrow him. They’re paying us to borrow him IF he’s good and they want him back. Meanwhile we’re paying them £30m if he flops.

I wouldn’t mind the deal as much if it was GUARANTEED that he’ll be good for us. Then it really would be a loan because there’s be little to no risk for us.

Brisan123 · July 10, 2019

Prevenger17 said:
One of our best

The reds hate him with a passion so that's a massive point in his favour as well

Brisan123 · July 10, 2019

catcherintherye said:
Yes it does seem feasible, I have a memory of a response to Bri/Eggs about it. Can't seem to locate it currently, is there any way you can search for posts where you quote a user?

it was me but I cant find the quote either

Lelouch · July 10, 2019

The buyback clause would have to be 60+ for it to be worth doing, Seriously 40m is absolutely nothing if this kid turns out to be the business

Brisan123 · July 10, 2019

Pabbers said:
Be a hell of a signing this one, he has the lot.

I just always wonder about Italian players, they rarely seem to settle outside of Italy.

Zola Ravenelli to name just 2.
Until recently a lot of Italian players would not move abroad as it hugely restricted their chances of playing for the national team

JimmyK · July 10, 2019

BirkenheadBlue said:
Because they’re NOT paying for us to borrow him. They’re paying us to borrow him IF he’s good and they want him back. Meanwhile we’re paying them £30m if he flops.

I wouldn’t mind the deal as much if it was GUARANTEED that he’ll be good for us. Then it really would be a loan because there’s be little to no risk for us.

Hahaha. You 'wouldn't mind as much' if he was guaranteed to score us 20 goals a season? Well how open minded of you to be willing to grudgingly accept a completely risk free deal with guaranteed results. If only such things existed, you could spend your life being almost happy.

The point is, if he costs £30m and flops, we're stuck with him anyway aren't we? It doesn't matter whether there's a buyback or not, what i'm pretty sure there won't be, is an opt out clause where we get our money back if he's not very good. So the only difference in the deal you're talking about as opposed to any other deal is that there isn't the possibility of making mega money out of it. There doesn't always have to be though, in my opinion. And there's a big gap between being a flop and doubling in value. A £30m player who plays like a £30m player is fine, not everybody has to improve tenfold. The lad could come in, score ten goals a season for 2 years, look dangerous but a bit rough round the edges, and Juve could decide that he's not really worth paying £40m for because he's still only worth £30m. That won't mean he's not a good asset for us though.

I've said before, the deal as outlined wouldn't be anything like how I would choose to do things, I just don't see it as the absolute nightmare scenario that some evidently do. It would still have plenty of potential upsides, like him being dead good, scoring goals and winning us trophies for example. But maybe i'm an old fashioned fan who prefers what's on the pitch to what's on a spreadsheet.

The binman chronicles · July 10, 2019

jazzy said:
Absolutely spot on. Any buy back should be at least double what is paid for the player and only exercisable 2 years after the sale.
Obviously if the player does not want to re-sign he cannot be forced to do so - modern slavery has been outlawed.

Double is a bit much and Juve wouldn't accept that, they are in the driving seat here and I'm sure there will be a few clubs that would be happy to have a decent player for basically what you pay him in wages. 45 million buyback available at the end of a fixed two year period sounds a bit more realistic. If he is good and they buy him back we get a 15 million profit + he would have done well here, hopefully helping us get a decent replacement. If he wasn't great we should be able to offload for 15 million seeing 30M is the new 10M.