Jump to content

The Entirely Reasonable Potential Transfers Thread

Ayatollah Hermione

By Ayatollah Hermione,
in Newcastle Forum

 Share

Recommended Posts

MrLogic

MrLogic 16

Posted
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, wykikitoon said:

Just going off the article he would seek a loan deal. Did you even read it bro? 

I did read it, I asked why? Why would Manchester United let Lingard go out on loan (losing a valuable squad player) just to let him leave for free at the end of the season? Why wouldn't a club who wanted him just pay a "small" fee in January to secure his services for the next 3/4/5 years? 

Edited by Clarko
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Howmanheyman
Howmanheyman
Diego21
Diego21

Well imagine me.

Diego21
Diego21

You know, when I was there, I really didn't know how near was St James Park and when we walk just 4-5 minutes and we saw the Stadium was... OH.    When I went to the city and to see the game

Posted Images

tinofbeans

tinofbeans 91

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, TheGingerQuiff said:

The club that wants him might want him to get them out of a relegation scrap but he might be too shite beyond that?

thats where i was going. bit like that thick mug at chelsea, Ross Barkley. good for half a season then gets figured out. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Howay

Howay 12496

Posted
Posted

Why would Manchester United try and get a loan fee for a player that’s leaving for nowt in the summer (therefore getting some money in as well as not paying his wages), for a player that’s made a whopping 5 sub appearances for them this season in the league? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Howay

Howay 12496

Posted
Posted
Just now, ewerk said:

Because they know they can. There will be plenty of clubs after him and a club such as ourselves will be very happy to pay money to have him for the second half of the season.

Should have put a wink, I was being a sarcastic cunt because of the lad with the Shelvey fan club badge going on about it making no sense earlier. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrLogic

MrLogic 16

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, TheGingerQuiff said:

The club that wants him might want him to get them out of a relegation scrap but he might be too shite beyond that?

 

2 hours ago, ewerk said:

Because they know they can. There will be plenty of clubs after him and a club such as ourselves will be very happy to pay money to have him for the second half of the season.

 

2 hours ago, Howay said:

Why would Manchester United try and get a loan fee for a player that’s leaving for nowt in the summer (therefore getting some money in as well as not paying his wages), for a player that’s made a whopping 5 sub appearances for them this season in the league? 

 

8 hours ago, Alex said:

The deal potentially suits all parties involved as well :lol: 

 

8 hours ago, Ayatollah Hermione said:

Loan him for a nominal fee in January and if he’s decent, get him for fuck all in the summer. The fact this needs explained is beyond belief.

Again, why would Manchester United settle for a 'nominal' loan fee in January , when they can sell him for significantly more in January... Manchester United clearly want to keep him which is why they rejected offers in the summer and why they've tried to offer a new contract...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Howay

Howay 12496

Posted
Posted

They wanted a big fee, no one (mainly West Ham) would pay as he was going into the last year of his deal mainly. He’s since weakened their hand by refusing to sign a new deal (which they wanted him to simply to strengthen their hand in a possible sale). If there is no other option to sell why wouldn’t they loan him out? If someone come in for him then yes that would be their preferred option but they might only have the option to loan him out meaning they get something for him as well as not having to pay his wages, they don’t play him much so it’s not like they’re clamoring to keep him for that reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Monkeys Fist

Monkeys Fist 42241

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Howay said:

They wanted a big fee, no one (mainly West Ham) would pay as he was going into the last year of his deal mainly. He’s since weakened their hand by refusing to sign a new deal (which they wanted him to simply to strengthen their hand in a possible sale). If there is no other option to sell why wouldn’t they loan him out? If someone come in for him then yes that would be their preferred option but they might only have the option to loan him out meaning they get something for him as well as not having to pay his wages, they don’t play him much so it’s not like they’re clamoring to keep him for that reason. 
numbers-crunching.gif

Your post had an embarrassing lack of numbers, and a surfeit of words. 
I have corrected this rookie oversight. 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrLogic

MrLogic 16

Posted
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Howay said:

They wanted a big fee, no one (mainly West Ham) would pay as he was going into the last year of his deal mainly. He’s since weakened their hand by refusing to sign a new deal (which they wanted him to simply to strengthen their hand in a possible sale). If there is no other option to sell why wouldn’t they loan him out? If someone come in for him then yes that would be their preferred option but they might only have the option to loan him out meaning they get something for him as well as not having to pay his wages, they don’t play him much so it’s not like they’re clamoring to keep him for that reason. 

But there will be options to sell right? The only way a loan happens is if Lingard rejects any permanent offer that lands on the table and the clubs that want him are willing to pay a loan fee to get him for 6 months, even though Lingard himself may have rejected permanent approaches from those same clubs and on top of that Manchester United would have to agree to letting Lingard go on loan, despite him rejecting permanent moves, leaving themselves short and potentially having to go into the transfer market to get a replacement, all to accommodate Lingard...  Not saying it can't or won't happen, the reports state he wants a loan move, but that is a lot of moving pieces and wasted money.

Edited by Clarko
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Howay

Howay 12496

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Clarko said:

But there will be options to sell right? The only way a loan happens is if Lingard rejects any permanent offer that lands on the table and the clubs that want him are willing to pay a loan fee to get him for 6 months, even though Lingard himself may have rejected permanent approaches from those same clubs and on top of that Manchester United would have to agree to letting Lingard go on loan, despite him rejecting permanent moves, leaving themselves short and potentially having to go into the transfer market to get a replacement, all to accommodate Lingard...  Not saying it can't or won't happen, the reports state he wants a loan move first, but that is a lot of moving pieces and wasted money.

You’re guessing though. What happens if there’s not? Why pay Manchester United a transfer fee if you could get him for a smaller loan fee and potentially sign him to a contract in the summer? It also makes more sense for Lingard himself to move on loan, that way he’d likely get a larger wage and/or larger signing bonus as is typical for players that move on a free. 
 

He’s played 5 sub appearances for them, they barely need him and likely wouldn’t need to replace him. It’s better for them to get something for him if possible whether that’s a loan or a permanent transfer, holding out for more is exactly what landed them in this current situation.  
 

I’d rather we permanently signed him, I think he’s a good player and would improve our side by a good amount. It also means we could bring others in on loan if needed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrLogic

MrLogic 16

Posted
Posted
Just now, Howay said:

You’re guessing though. What happens if there’s not? Why pay Manchester United a transfer fee if you could get him for a smaller loan fee and potentially sign him to a contract in the summer? It also makes more sense for Lingard himself to move on loan, that way he’d likely get a larger wage and/or larger signing bonus as is typical for players that move on a free. 
 

He’s played 5 sub appearances for them, they barely need him and likely wouldn’t need to replace him. It’s better for them to get something for him if possible whether that’s a loan or a permanent transfer, holding out for more is exactly what landed them in this current situation.  
 

I’d rather we permanently signed him, I think he’s a good player and would improve our side by a good amount. It also means we could bring others in on loan if needed. 

You're guessing by saying that there won't be permanent options available in January right? The question is what is more likely? Based on the reports and the information we have, he'll have permanent options available.

 

The reason to pay a transfer fee, is to guarantee the transfer right? You make a note of being able to pay a small fee now, only to sign him for free in the summer, but when the summer comes you'll have to pay, as you mention, a larger wage and a larger signing bonus, that and you'd assume you would have significantly more competition from other clubs trying to sign him.

 

Manchester United rejected permanent offers in the previous summer window for Lingard, they did that because they need the squad depth, Lingard in total has made 8 appearances for them this season, someone would need to fill that void however small you believe it to be.

 

I'm sure Lingard would love to go out on loan, put himself in the shop window and then take the all the spoils in the summer, but that screws over every other club involved. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Howay

Howay 12496

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Clarko said:

You're guessing by saying that there won't be permanent options available in January right? The question is what is more likely? Based on the reports and the information we have, he'll have permanent options available.

 

The reason to pay a transfer fee, is to guarantee the transfer right? You make a note of being able to pay a small fee now, only to sign him for free in the summer, but when the summer comes you'll have to pay, as you mention, a larger wage and a larger signing bonus, that and you'd assume you would have significantly more competition from other clubs trying to sign him.

 

Manchester United rejected permanent offers in the previous summer window for Lingard, they did that because they need the squad depth, Lingard in total has made 8 appearances for them this season, someone would need to fill that void however small you believe it to be.

 

I'm sure Lingard would love to go out on loan, put himself in the shop window and then take the all the spoils in the summer, but that screws over every other club involved. 

Your initial point was why would you loan a player who had 6 months on their contract, you then further made a point of why would Manchester United do that. I was responding to that, of course I’m guessing that there might not be any permanent offers but I never made a point that he wouldn’t move permanently or that moving permanently didn’t make sense whereas you made those points in reference to moving on loan. 
 

None of your second paragraph takes away from my point, it might be Lingards preference to go out on loan since he can get more money it may not be an option to sign permanently meaning a loan is the option of signing him. Again you were the one dismissing a loan option so don’t try and twist things. You’re also missing the positive for a loaning club that if he comes and the move turns out to not work they can walk away from the deal. 
 

You’re again guessing they rejected bids because of squad depth, iirc they were rumoured to have offered him to West Ham for a fee West Ham didn’t want to pay. I disagree someone else needs to fill those very sparse sub appearances (5 in the PL, the rest in competitions they may or may not be involved in much longer) in many instances they have other players who could have come on already, or even a youth player, they’re also going to have to fill that role in the summer now regardless. Maybe they will reject everything simply to cover this tiny role and lose him for nowt, but again you were the one dismissing the loan possibility off hand here I’ve never said he will move simply offered reasons for why a loan might happen. 
 

Also in reference to the open market point iirc he can agree a pre contract with another club any time after having less than 6 months on his deal. Making it highly likely he’d sign with the club he’s on loan with, again not a certainty but again he might not be giving clubs the option you’re making out like Manchester United and buying clubs hold all the power when you frame it like that. 

Edited by Howay
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Tom locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

  I accept