Crouching Peeky wrote:It's better than a loan as the clause will only be activated if he performs very well, in which case we'll be compensated with making a profit on the transfer as well as benefitting from those performances.
I think it's worse than a loan. A loan doesn't tie up half of your transfer funds. And you know where you stand with a loan - you know the player returns to his club at the end of the season, so you can continue searching for a long-term solution.
Here's another scenario... could the buyback deal be triggered on transfer deadline day (next summer)? Let's say Aguero breaks his leg and Man City need to get someone in very quickly.
Colours never run wrote:But for that to happen, Ihaenahcho would have had to prove himself for a team to justify paying £10m+ more than we initially paid out for him.
Not necessarily, he only needs to have performed well enough to convince someone he has the potential to justify paying 10m+ more. And by next season, or the one after, that might be the going rate for a decent striker anyway.
If he scores 15 in a season for us, at age 20, what is the liklihood someone would be willing to pay 35 to 40m for him?
I think we're worrying ourselves too much over this huge buy back clause for us.
I would like to see him here. But I understand why the board want to get more favourable deal.
There are other options too. I think some people are just desperate to see a striker signed as soon as possible.