Nico Gonzalez

Porque

Senior Member
Yeah that clause should never have existed.

6m for 60% of rights is nothing. And should have been all considering Nico had LaLiga interest.

Question is how the F can Porkchop turn a 6m Barcelona player into 60m within 2 seasons.

Had we loaned him to Porto ourselves and he performed the same, we would have been luckily to do this deal for 30, and would have snapped City arm off for 25m
 
Last edited:

jamrock

Senior Member
If Barca was selling him and he was good as he is now, we would only get around 20-25, basically what we ended up with.

We are ass at selling players is what it is.

If he's end up being world class, we all know he's coming back home eventually.
 

JamDav1982

Senior Member
Bit of an idea of why Pep is signing the players he is and the comments Pep has made before signing likes of Nico.

They are saying he has realised football needs now needs more physicality in middle of park and pace up top more so than compared to recent years.

 

FCBarca

Mike the Knife
I think people forget the desperate situation we were in at the time the club was left with little option but to move Nico due to so many early budget & FFP issues. As I mentioned early on, Nico is a casualty of Bartomeu’s calamitous reign - he sunk the club and left us with few palatable choices to stay afloat/competitive until solutions were found to rebuild

Ideally, he’d be here flourishing with the rest of the cantera kids who dream of thriving in the senior team. Nico was good enough but crappy timing, we were fortunate to get what we got out of his eventual transfer. Reality is the club didn’t have the leverage to maximize when the whole world was privy to the ongoing mismanagement crisis

Equally amusing how many here even panned any poster lamenting his exit at the time because they discounted his potential - we still see it now with many in the current squad. That myopia prevents balanced assessments
 

JamDav1982

Senior Member
Absolute nonsense.

You cant give likes of Kessie 10m a season and Gundogan 18m a season and still paying him even now then claim Barca 'had to sell Nico for 8m'.

They paid 30m raising to 60m for Roque that same season and also signed Romeu.

They literally added over 35m into the books for Romeu, Gundogan and Roque.. spare this moronic idea they had to sell Nico for that.

Usual garbage trying to fit some narrative.

Bartomeu made a ton of errors.. leaving the likes of Nico in La Masia was not one of them and club were never 'forced' to sell him and if were it was due to their own poor allocation of FFP as Kessie, Gundogan and Roque etc prove.
 

Porque

Senior Member
In the end it is good money overall and it probably works out all well.

Signing Oriol and letting Nico go is all kinds of wrong though.

Nico ain't at his best at the single pivot, but would have been better than Oriol considering what he showed.
 

ajnotkeith

Senior Member
Yeah that clause should never have existed.

6m for 60% of rights is nothing. And should have been all considering Nico had LaLiga interest.

Question is how the F can Porkchop turn a 6m Barcelona player into 60m within 2 seasons.

Had we loaned him to Porto ourselves and he performed the same, we would have been luckily to do this deal for 30, and would have snapped City arm off for 25m
I say this so many times but giving players a chance to shine in developmental leagues is the best thing you can do for their value. Putting them straight into a top5 league at young ages will tank their value if they are seen to fail.

Clubs still believe in statistics and performances in leagues like Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands etc and buy from there frequently. What is the point of loaning such players to top5 leagues immediately or even the Prem as we did with Fati? Loaning to a step down league is almost zero risk.
 

Messi983

Senior Member
I say this so many times but giving players a chance to shine in developmental leagues is the best thing you can do for their value. Putting them straight into a top5 league at young ages will tank their value if they are seen to fail.

Clubs still believe in statistics and performances in leagues like Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands etc and buy from there frequently. What is the point of loaning such players to top5 leagues immediately or even the Prem as we did with Fati? Loaning to a step down league is almost zero risk.

Agree with your point but Fati is a bad example. We loaned him to a club willing to cover most of his wages. In other words thinking short term to create cap space (so we could sign both Portuguese bums on loans) rather than try to increase his value long term while covering bigger part of his wages for a season. Probably wouldn't matter much and he would still refuse to leave anyway though.

But surely with players like Nico and Torre who are on low wages loaning or selling with big % of future sale to one of the big 3 Portugal clubs is the way to go if we can't sell them directly to EPL.

BL is a good destination for attacking players too. Almost every player stats are inflated there.
 

Joan

Well-known member
I say this so many times but giving players a chance to shine in developmental leagues is the best thing you can do for their value. Putting them straight into a top5 league at young ages will tank their value if they are seen to fail.

Clubs still believe in statistics and performances in leagues like Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands etc and buy from there frequently. What is the point of loaning such players to top5 leagues immediately or even the Prem as we did with Fati? Loaning to a step down league is almost zero risk.
Good post.

I was talking about it just yesterday. Might make sense loaning to Primera in case you counted on players in the future and wanted to prioritize development. Clubs like Betis might be a good option in such cases. But if you’re aiming to raise value and sell, Portugal is the best place.

Roque might be a better example than Fati.
 

Home of Barca Fans

Top