- Status
KingMessi
SiempreBlaugrana
Is this because of the Suarez and Deulo deals backfiring?
KingMessi
SiempreBlaugrana
Samper should stay either way. He's been at the club since he was like 5-6 years old.
xXKonan
Senior Member
They did and that's why we turned down a 2.5M+incentives Bid for Adriano from themLet's hope Roma weren't watching today's game..
Luftstalag14
Culé de Celestial Empire
I wonder which option makes more economic sense. Do we get more money and save on salary cost when we do permanent deals with buy-back option?
Also, I wonder perhaps permanent deals will entice the other team to give the player more playing time?
Bran the Greenseer
Member
I think its the latter reason. On a loan especially to a semi-decent team, coaches want to build so they can improve their chances at europe or title glory, so there's no reason to play a brat from barca who doesnt even want to be there and is jumping ship ASAP.
Last edited:
Luftstalag14
Culé de Celestial Empire
You mean players on loan will actually get more playing time? I am not so sure. The other team pretty much is grooming a player for us, they really have no incentives to play the player that much, unless of course the said player is very talented and is adding a lot of value to that team.
Nevertheless, with buy-out fees setting at such a low level, teams can just pay the buy-out and grab our players for good, regardless of our plan for the said player. This is the most-worrying part.
Bran the Greenseer
Member
Nah i mean the opposite, permenant deals = more playing time I just forgot to type the rest of my point
Luftstalag14
Culé de Celestial Empire
Nah i mean the opposite, permenant deals = more playing time I just forgot to type the rest of my point
So we agreed
khaled_a_d
Senior Member
The thing I don't get ,does player has control to say no if the club decided to buy him back?or with agreeing the deal from the start he already decided ?AFAIK it is the 1st
That makes it risky ,if a player felt the club was ungrateful to him and proved himself elsewhere we basically just sold him for low price
Otherwise .it is better than loaning
Edit:there will be also the problem of choosing team who offer the higher price than the team who is best for our prospect development too
That makes it risky ,if a player felt the club was ungrateful to him and proved himself elsewhere we basically just sold him for low price
Otherwise .it is better than loaning
Edit:there will be also the problem of choosing team who offer the higher price than the team who is best for our prospect development too
Luftstalag14
Culé de Celestial Empire
I could be wrong, but I think the player doesn't have a say in the club buying him back or not, otherwise like you said, it is a big loss for the club that sold the player, since the fee for deals with buy-back option is usually significantly lower.
On your last point, absolutely. Halilovic for example reportedly wanted to go to West Ham instead of Everton. Which one is better for his development, I don't know, but I think the club will respect the player's wish.
DonAK
President of FC Barcelona
Nope. It's because they're incompetent and don't know what to do.
I'd rather loan and help the player find the right team and right manager and even pay his salary if necessary instead of shipping him off with a buyback which could backfire big time.
Atleast with a loan, that player is still technically a part of FC Barcelona. If we sell a player who goes on to do great, but then rejects to move back because of uncertainty of his role here or playing time or because the club sent a message they didn't believe in him in the first place then we're in a really embarrasing situation.
Luftstalag14
Culé de Celestial Empire
Don, is this part for sure? If so, that is the player actually has a say in whether he wants to be bought back or not, then yes, it is extremely risky for the club.
- Status
Home of Barca Fans
