August 20, 2018, 02:36:12 PM

Author Topic: [News]Sandro linked with move back to Malaga  (Read 9356 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

January 31, 2018, 03:50:12 PM
Reply #105
Offline

Ross


If we can wash our hands of him without having to pay him any money owed on his contract as well as inserting  a sell on fee well have done a decent deal given how its worked out and his desire to return home.

There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch.


January 31, 2018, 03:57:26 PM
Reply #106
Offline

velimski


Why is making a 50% profit on a player who doesn't even get on the bench such a bad deal?

Am I missing something?

January 31, 2018, 03:59:52 PM
Reply #107
Offline

Jamokachi


Why is making a 50% profit on a player who doesn't even get on the bench such a bad deal?

Am I missing something?

'Cos everyone is worth 40m now innit.


January 31, 2018, 04:04:20 PM
Reply #108
Offline

KoemansNumberTens


Why is making a 50% profit on a player who doesn't even get on the bench such a bad deal?

Am I missing something?

We wouldn't get a league 1 striker with the money. Also they get to have a look at him for half a season before deciding if he's worth the pittance

January 31, 2018, 04:07:29 PM
Reply #109
Offline

Jamokachi


We wouldn't get a league 1 striker with the money. Also they get to have a look at him for half a season before deciding if he's worth the pittance

League one strikers aren't on north of 100k per week.

January 31, 2018, 04:09:15 PM
Reply #110
Online

Lxxx


We'll have to subsidise the transfer if it goes through anyway. Sevilla can't maintain his wages at the same level so we'd have to either pay him off or give them a discount on the fee. Either way we're not making any money on this transfer.


January 31, 2018, 04:16:46 PM
Reply #111
Offline

velimski


Let's continue to pay 120k per week for another 4 years for a player who doesn't even get on the bench.

That makes much more sense.

January 31, 2018, 04:41:02 PM
Reply #112
Online

Mick 1995

NSNO Subscriber
Let's continue to pay 120k per week for another 4 years for a player who doesn't even get on the bench.

That makes much more sense.

There's a very good chance we will be paying that for the majority of the 4 years anyway.
We still have a contract with him and if he hasn't handed in a formal transfer request then them contractual payments are still valid.

We could play a game of chicken and refuse to sell him unless he waives them like.
Gotta hope there is someone in the club with an iota of sense/any memory of what happend to Leeds whatsoever.

January 31, 2018, 05:02:43 PM
Reply #113
Online

Lxxx


There's a very good chance we will be paying that for the majority of the 4 years anyway.
We still have a contract with him and if he hasn't handed in a formal transfer request then them contractual payments are still valid.

We could play a game of chicken and refuse to sell him unless he waives them like.
Gotta hope there is someone in the club with an iota of sense/any memory of what happend to Leeds whatsoever.

As daft as Moshiri appears to be he is an accountant by trade and it was his own money he put in. Whereas the idiots at Leeds were spending everyone else's money but their own.

Granted we're in a bit of a pickle but we're not looking down the barrel of League One.

January 31, 2018, 06:03:44 PM
Reply #114
Offline

KoemansNumberTens


Let's continue to pay 120k per week for another 4 years for a player who doesn't even get on the bench.

That makes much more sense.

No send him on loan without the 9m fee agreed. If he's brilliant we get more. If he's only worth 9m we get the 9m and if he's worth less we get him back as we would anyway

I'm not sure why we'd agree to loan our players out with the agreed fee so low. There's no upside in that minimum fee for us

January 31, 2018, 06:07:49 PM
Reply #115
Offline

Waltzer


Really disappointed to see that Swansea thought they had Sandro in the bag, if we had any intentions of sticking with him for the long run that had to be a better move?

January 31, 2018, 06:08:51 PM
Reply #116
Online

Lxxx


No send him on loan without the 9m fee agreed. If he's brilliant we get more. If he's only worth 9m we get the 9m and if he's worth less we get him back as we would anyway

I'm not sure why we'd agree to loan our players out with the agreed fee so low. There's no upside in that minimum fee for us

Unless Sevilla genuinely see it as just a loan deal as they've no real intention of buying him long term, which isn't at all out of the question seeing as they've waited until the end of the window and explored and missed out on a load of other targets before settling on Sandro. In which case the fee is immaterial.

January 31, 2018, 06:16:28 PM
Reply #117
Offline

KoemansNumberTens


Unless Sevilla genuinely see it as just a loan deal as they've no real intention of buying him long term, which isn't at all out of the question seeing as they've waited until the end of the window and explored and missed out on a load of other targets before settling on Sandro. In which case the fee is immaterial.

It is until he proves he's worth 15m and they sign him if only to move him on.

Surely 9 million is a number we should be asking for now as a minimum. Not try him for 6 months first and that's the maximum.

He doesn't have to do very much there to be an absolute bargain.

January 31, 2018, 06:47:29 PM
Reply #118
Offline

blargins

NSNO Subscriber
Why is making a 50% profit on a player who doesn't even get on the bench such a bad deal?

Am I missing something?

Because his wages to date have cost us the extra 50% profit.
"I wouldn't be up here if I hadn't failed a million times." Nick Foles

January 31, 2018, 06:49:29 PM
Reply #119
Online

TheRam

NSNO Subscriber
Kinell lads. Some of you really dont know how football works

What are people expecting us to sell him for then?