| muric to sassuolo 12:22 - Jun 1 with 3076 views | positivity |
and presumably, soon to be sold on to a bigger club for a quick profit?
not sure we were "very, very well covered" on this one! |  |
| |  |
| muric to sassuolo on 14:50 - Jun 1 with 773 views | burnbudgiesburn |
| muric to sassuolo on 14:45 - Jun 1 by Zx1988 |
You're not wrong.
Initially reported by multiple sources as €10m when the loan first went through last year.
https://www.eadt.co.uk/sport/2 |
EADT can't even make up their minds.
Alex Jones reporting the £7m euro fee but to be fair does quote Fabrizio, whereas in their video piece Stu Watson is still saying £8.7m
The difference is likely to be one includes all fees from the year loan etc - as mentioned earlier in lots of cases each club reports something to their local media to massage opinion a lot of the time | | | |
| muric to sassuolo on 15:03 - Jun 1 with 739 views | Rsj13 |
I'm finding the response to this one a bit surprising.
The world and their dog knows that he won't play for Ipswich again. Therefore it's a buyers market for him.
We've (roughly) broken even on what was ultimately a poor buy for us. At Ipswich he's a bit of a "car that's sitting on the driveway but not being used", so therefore anything we get for him is ultimately positive. To me, this feels like nice cover. Sassuolo took a risk by bringing him in and got what is hopefully a decent price for him, but I don't think we should be too mad if they skim us for a couple of million quid for essentially rehabilitating our player, and then paying to have him. Cast our minds back to last summer: did any of us really expect we'd get anything close to breaking even on Muric? | | | |
| muric to sassuolo on 15:17 - Jun 1 with 691 views | Zx1988 |
| muric to sassuolo on 15:03 - Jun 1 by Rsj13 |
I'm finding the response to this one a bit surprising.
The world and their dog knows that he won't play for Ipswich again. Therefore it's a buyers market for him.
We've (roughly) broken even on what was ultimately a poor buy for us. At Ipswich he's a bit of a "car that's sitting on the driveway but not being used", so therefore anything we get for him is ultimately positive. To me, this feels like nice cover. Sassuolo took a risk by bringing him in and got what is hopefully a decent price for him, but I don't think we should be too mad if they skim us for a couple of million quid for essentially rehabilitating our player, and then paying to have him. Cast our minds back to last summer: did any of us really expect we'd get anything close to breaking even on Muric? |
I think the situation you're describing is if they keep hold of him for next season?
If, as seems to be the general belief, they're about to flog him on for a decent profit, I'd be rather miffed that we've ended up being forced to sell an asset for less than market value. | |
| |
| muric to sassuolo on 15:23 - Jun 1 with 665 views | nodge_blue |
The eadt guys are saying that the fee is 10 mil euros or 8.7 mil pounds. |  |
| |
| muric to sassuolo on 15:29 - Jun 1 with 650 views | Rsj13 |
| muric to sassuolo on 15:17 - Jun 1 by Zx1988 |
I think the situation you're describing is if they keep hold of him for next season?
If, as seems to be the general belief, they're about to flog him on for a decent profit, I'd be rather miffed that we've ended up being forced to sell an asset for less than market value. |
That's a fair point. The only thing I would say is that they're the ones that took the risk on him, and therefore will get a "cut". Because I suspect the alternative (if that option wasn't included, and Sassuolo therefore said no on the original loan) was probably that he sat collecting dust at Town and his value accelerate towards nothing. | | | |
| muric to sassuolo on 16:20 - Jun 1 with 591 views | Jasper |
| muric to sassuolo on 15:29 - Jun 1 by Rsj13 |
That's a fair point. The only thing I would say is that they're the ones that took the risk on him, and therefore will get a "cut". Because I suspect the alternative (if that option wasn't included, and Sassuolo therefore said no on the original loan) was probably that he sat collecting dust at Town and his value accelerate towards nothing. |
Also, we may have negotiated a sell-on, so we could still get a bit more from the deal if they sell for a profit. Saying that, we may owe Burnley a sell-on fee. | | | |
| muric to sassuolo on 16:26 - Jun 1 with 585 views | positivity |
| muric to sassuolo on 15:29 - Jun 1 by Rsj13 |
That's a fair point. The only thing I would say is that they're the ones that took the risk on him, and therefore will get a "cut". Because I suspect the alternative (if that option wasn't included, and Sassuolo therefore said no on the original loan) was probably that he sat collecting dust at Town and his value accelerate towards nothing. |
if it was an obligation, that would have been a risk on their part, but an option makes it more of a risk on our part; if the loan had gone poorly, his value would have been even less. | |
| |
| muric to sassuolo on 16:30 - Jun 1 with 575 views | burnbudgiesburn |
| muric to sassuolo on 16:20 - Jun 1 by Jasper |
Also, we may have negotiated a sell-on, so we could still get a bit more from the deal if they sell for a profit. Saying that, we may owe Burnley a sell-on fee. |
A sell on fee for Burnley would only be on profit. I don't think we need to worry about that tbh. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| muric to sassuolo on 16:46 - Jun 1 with 562 views | Jasper |
| muric to sassuolo on 16:30 - Jun 1 by burnbudgiesburn |
A sell on fee for Burnley would only be on profit. I don't think we need to worry about that tbh. |
Good point! | | | |
| muric to sassuolo on 18:16 - Jun 1 with 500 views | Rsj13 |
| muric to sassuolo on 16:26 - Jun 1 by positivity |
if it was an obligation, that would have been a risk on their part, but an option makes it more of a risk on our part; if the loan had gone poorly, his value would have been even less. |
Interesting point. My thinking is that would his value would have been less than it would have been as a third choice goalkeeper in the Championship who probably wouldn't have played a minute or football in a year? I don't really think so to be honest.
They took a risk on him in the same way we took a risk on someone like Kalvin Phillips... It was a spot on their squad that they took on a "on paper good player but It hasn't worked out for recently". It panned out well, and we've got a poor signing off our books early in the window with minimal effort without having to release him or sell him for peanuts (and before other free agents are announced). | | | |
| muric to sassuolo on 18:19 - Jun 1 with 496 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| muric to sassuolo on 15:17 - Jun 1 by Zx1988 |
I think the situation you're describing is if they keep hold of him for next season?
If, as seems to be the general belief, they're about to flog him on for a decent profit, I'd be rather miffed that we've ended up being forced to sell an asset for less than market value. |
We agreed the fee with them last summer based on his value then.
A loan, with an obligation is to all intents and purposes is a full transfer. |  |
| |
| muric to sassuolo on 18:21 - Jun 1 with 489 views | positivity |
| muric to sassuolo on 18:16 - Jun 1 by Rsj13 |
Interesting point. My thinking is that would his value would have been less than it would have been as a third choice goalkeeper in the Championship who probably wouldn't have played a minute or football in a year? I don't really think so to be honest.
They took a risk on him in the same way we took a risk on someone like Kalvin Phillips... It was a spot on their squad that they took on a "on paper good player but It hasn't worked out for recently". It panned out well, and we've got a poor signing off our books early in the window with minimal effort without having to release him or sell him for peanuts (and before other free agents are announced). |
players often seem to be perceived as better in their absence!
just feel that an option is only ever good for the buying club, whereas an obligation is more of a balanced thing (as we've seen with kipre (good for us/bad for reims) and akpom (good for ajax/bad for us) | |
| |
| muric to sassuolo on 18:24 - Jun 1 with 480 views | NeedhamMarketKop |
And presumably a future pre-season friendly between the two clubs was negotiated into the deal as well ? | | | |
| muric to sassuolo on 18:27 - Jun 1 with 469 views | positivity |
| muric to sassuolo on 18:24 - Jun 1 by NeedhamMarketKop |
And presumably a future pre-season friendly between the two clubs was negotiated into the deal as well ? |
hope so, though i'd prefer we signed azon and promised a pre-season friendly with como
 | |
| |
| muric to sassuolo on 18:39 - Jun 1 with 463 views | braveblue |
Many said we would lose £10m. We got £6m plus piss Liam fee and they would pay his wages. Not a bad deal for a ‘useless’ keeper. | | | |
| muric to sassuolo on 22:46 - Jun 1 with 365 views | Wakh |
It suggests a possible player inbound from sasssulo to me. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
