Loan to Purchase

[sage]

As we will be skint this summer and possibly under a soft embargo I wonder if we could try to make a couple of loan-to-buy deals where we loan a player for a year with an obligation to buy at the end of the season.

 

[Ram-a-lama fa fa fa]

always thought this sort of loan was a win win. and i dont know why we dont do it more often

both teams agree a fee before the loan starts. 

if the club the players at like him they buy him for said price, regardless of performances. 

like what happened when we signed tom ince. im hoping we may get get clarke back next season on a loan to buy option. 

surely this makes more sense then what ive just read about leeds loaning harrison for a 3rd season in a row? i know city dont need the money, but why dont they just sell him?

[nottingram]

Who does he play for?

[Jimbo Ram]

12 minutes ago, nottingram said:

Who does he play for?

You beat me to it?

[Sparkle]

8 hours ago, sage said:

As we will be skint this summer and possibly under a soft embargo I wonder if we could try to make a couple of loan-to-buy deals where we loan a player for a year with an obligation to buy at the end of the season.

 

I would much prefer an option to buy for an agreed price rather than an obligation to buy 

[sage]

5 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

I would much prefer an option to buy for an agreed price rather than an obligation to buy 

So would I but this way may get us a better standard of player..

[Sparkle]

2 minutes ago, sage said:

So would I but this way may get us a better standard of player..

It could also saddle us with long term deals we do not want 

[nottingram]

31 minutes ago, Jimbo Ram said:

You beat me to it?

Gag sadly ruined by the mods moving the thread 

[Ambitious]

The reason these types of deals aren't common are because it doesn't benefit a selling side. If you were to pay an extreme premium on the initial loan then perhaps you would get some of these over the line. 

I believe Leeds, West Brom and Fulham did similar deals, albeit I think these were with an obligation to buy. Leeds did it with Helder Costa, West Brom with Matheus Pereira and Fulham with Ivan Cavaleiro. 

Leeds and Fulham got stung on those deals: Costa cost £16m and Cavaleiro cost £15m. I doubt either would've made the deal had they had a choice now. Costa, at least, ended the season in the team more often than out of it. Cavaleiro started just three games in the run in and scored just two league goals since October. 

[Sparkle]

3 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

The reason these types of deals aren't common are because it doesn't benefit a selling side. If you were to pay an extreme premium on the initial loan then perhaps you would get some of these over the line. 

I believe Leeds, West Brom and Fulham did similar deals, albeit I think these were with an obligation to buy. Leeds did it with Helder Costa, West Brom with Matheus Pereira and Fulham with Ivan Cavaleiro. 

Leeds and Fulham got stung on those deals: Costa cost £16m and Cavaleiro cost £15m. I doubt either would've made the deal had they had a choice now. Costa, at least, ended the season in the team more often than out of it. Cavaleiro started just three games in the run in and scored just two league goals since October. 

I think Leeds another very expensive one in January who they never played and they have been trying to worm their way out of the deal and obviously the selling club are not having any of it and currently I can’t remember his name

[RamNut]

I’ve never really understood the purpose of such deals other than to move the spend into another financial year. 
our problem is we have no transfer strategy. Blowing a huge chunk of our budget on one player last summer was hard to fathom.

[Millenniumram]

To be honest I couldn’t really care less how we get deals done, provided we don’t get ripped off/ break ffp. If this is the only way to bring in the quality we desperately need while staying within the regulations, then so be it.

[sage]

22 minutes ago, RamNut said:

I’ve never really understood the purpose of such deals other than to move the spend into another financial year. 
our problem is we have no transfer strategy. Blowing a huge chunk of our budget on one player last summer was hard to fathom.

This

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, RamNut said:

I’ve never really understood the purpose of such deals other than to move the spend into another financial year. 
our problem is we have no transfer strategy. Blowing a huge chunk of our budget on one player last summer was hard to fathom.

Better to spend all the money on one player to make a big improvement to the team than spread it out over 7 signings and not really improve the quality much at all.

[Shipley Ram]

3 hours ago, Sparkle said:

I think Leeds another very expensive one in January who they never played and they have been trying to worm their way out of the deal and obviously the selling club are not having any of it and currently I can’t remember his name

https://www.footballinsider247.com/revealed-leeds-united-in-line-for-multi-million-augustin-penalty-payment/

[cannable]

4 hours ago, Ambitious said:

The reason these types of deals aren't common are because it doesn't benefit a selling side. If you were to pay an extreme premium on the initial loan then perhaps you would get some of these over the line. 

I believe Leeds, West Brom and Fulham did similar deals, albeit I think these were with an obligation to buy. Leeds did it with Helder Costa, West Brom with Matheus Pereira and Fulham with Ivan Cavaleiro. 

Leeds and Fulham got stung on those deals: Costa cost £16m and Cavaleiro cost £15m. I doubt either would've made the deal had they had a choice now. Costa, at least, ended the season in the team more often than out of it. Cavaleiro started just three games in the run in and scored just two league goals since October. 

Martin was an obligation to buy as well, they paid £3,000,000 for the loan alone. 

Then we gave him a ten grand pay rise and two parties didn’t want the deal to go through hahahahaha 

So was Nathan Ellington, come to think of it. We paid £1,500,000 for the year and we were to pay another £1,500,000 a year later. Clough didn’t fancy him though and he didn’t want to stay.

So they aren’t a given.

[cannable]

2 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Better to spend all the money on one player to make a big improvement to the team than spread it out over 7 signings and not really improve the quality much at all.

But we now have Shinnie, Holmes, Bird, Evans and Rooney on top of Bielik 

[Rab a dab doo]

and that's one big bloke to have on top

[Ghost of Clough]

22 minutes ago, cannable said:

But we now have Shinnie, Holmes, Bird, Evans and Rooney on top of Bielik 

And at the time of the signing he was a big improvement on what we had available at DM

[RamNut]

3 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Better to spend all the money on one player to make a big improvement to the team than spread it out over 7 signings and not really improve the quality much at all.

Maybe not 7 signings but perhaps 3 including a goalkeeper.there were quite a few decent players available last summer yet we bought bielik who plays the same position as our other signing - shinnie.