• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Dejan Kulusevski

Lilbaz said:
How would that work for the player leaving though? If a player leaves that has amortisation left that is subtracted from the price to show whether it is a loss or profit. Wouldn't a player trade just replace the amortisation figure, just adjusted to the new players contract?
Click to expand...
It would lots of creative accounting around transfer fee and how the contract is structured in terms of defined costs potential costs, such as performance bonus payments, commercial commits, imaging rights etc.
 
Whether we sign him this summer or not has nothing to do with the players ability (that's been proven), as long as there is no risk in losing him to another club, our decision will purely be based on our finances in the summer of 2022 compared to 2023.
We owe £170m in transfer fees, so depending on whon we owe and when, combined with the summer 2022 shopping list, these issues will solely dictate if we kick the buy option down the road. It's good to have that flexibility though.
(The 5m difference is largely irrelevant)
 
Last edited:
ricky2tricky4city said:
Whether we sign him this summer or not has nothing to do with the players ability (that's been proven), as long as there is no risk in losing him to another club, our decision will purely be based on our finances in the summer of 2022 compared to 2023.
We owe £170m in transfer fees, so depending on whon we owe and when, combined with the summer 2022 shopping list, these issues will solely dictate if we kick the buy option down the road. It's good to have that flexibility though.
(The 5m difference is largely irrelevant)
Click to expand...

Solid point, 5m isn't irrelevant, but perhaps less important than giving us more room to maneuver this summer.

From what I know we don't have a contract with him beyond his loan. I think that would mean that the option for him would do us no good if another team has a bid accepted next summer and he wants to move there instead.

Unless there's something in this deal not yet reported, relevant to next summer, there will be a risk of us losing him if we wait. There being a mandatory buy clause if certain requirements are met may change things, but not sure. Generally, player X wants a particular move, club is willing to pay for it, that move will happen even if other clubs have other arrangements I think.

In addition to the outright risk of not being able to sign him there's also the issue of money already spent on the loan fee. That becomes part of the total fee however it's structured. Would be partially "lost" if he moved elsewhere.

Also I don't think we know what the structure of payments would be if we trigger the clause this summer. If it's over three years for example the impact on our other summe business won't be massive.

I think this summer is by far the most likely.
 
Another very good game from him. Looked useful in the first half when we struggled to break them down. When space opened up though he was much better (along with the rest of the team).

Still think there's quite a bit of room for improvement, which is in itself exciting. But already a very good player and makes so much direct impact on the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back