SpartyBlue

1 minute ago, StevO said:

The point of the buy back clause gives the selling club, United in this case, the opportunity to agree a price now. So they could sell him to us now for £15m with a £20m buy back clause. Two years from now he could be worth £50m, but they have the price locked in.

Some buy back clauses are as simple as they have to be informed of any other bids for the player and can then choose to match it or not. 
 

But the player might choose another club anyway. 
 

It never guarantees them the player. 

I understand the premise economically. But if the player just says “Nah” it’s pretty toothless. My presumption was that if they buy back the player he is theirs and they have to reach personal terms or sell him elsewhere. 

9 minutes ago, StevO said:

Absolutely this. On Geri, im pretty sure we had just loaned him out to AC Milan anyway, not like they pulled him out of our starting line up. 
 

Garner though, nice!

If the player gets a choice I don’t see the point of a buy back clause. I can see that they have to reach terms with the player but I don’t see how they could choose to stay once the buy back is met. Perhaps I’m wrong though. 

13 minutes ago, Aidan said:

I assumed that's how it works, they set a price they can sign the player back for and then the player sings a new contract with them? That's the process I'd made up in my mind anyway.

My understanding was that it’s in the contract already that if they pay the buyout they get the player back. Perhaps it just depends on the situation but in Gerry D’s case  he wouldn’t have wanted to leave. Barcelona just turned around and sold him permanently I believe. Good deals to do for rich clubs. 

5 minutes ago, Aidan said:

He has to want to go back to United though, who are gradually losing their appeal (I know... Casimero, Ronaldo etc..)

Does he? I don’t think Gerry D had a choice.

1 minute ago, Fosse Captain said:

You’d hope it’s a decent fee on the buy back tho. Maybe £25-30 million? 
 

Might be wishful thinking but would also hope we’d be able to re-negotiate and ‘buy it out’ too if things go well. 
 

Utd seem to only want box office players, so unlikely they’d have him back even if he does do well here.

I could be talking utter bollox tho

Shows you what they think of him. We lost Gerry D to a buyback which I’m still bitter about.

11 minutes ago, dunlopp9987 said:

Swear to god if we bring in 3 midfielders and not one striker I'm going to lose my fucking mind

We already brought in a striker, man. He had an interview and everything. Prob hard to sell to someone we want you to come be our 3rd striker.

11 minutes ago, Bailey said:

Yeh I agree, I think that offers a lot of balance.

I think Onana would benefit from a similar instruction as well because you can see his power adding another dimension in attack, albeit again, needing to start from a deeper position.

Gueye should really help in this regard one would think. I’d have to imagine we play all 3 at once but I suppose we will see shortly.

10 minutes ago, Hafnia said:

Let’s get him in, we can then look to sell players…

allan, Gomes, doucoure, Davies are 4 that we could look to trim, Gomes and Allan definitely. Davies would be a very cheap backup who I would prefer not to need. 

I wouldn’t want to get rid of Doucoure. He’s not a superstar but a really solid box to box premier league starter for most clubs. The rest I agree with though I think Allan or Davies should stay for depth this season.

1 hour ago, Hoof_It_Nev said:

8m is hardly nominal

In this day it age it is. Our average starter is probably worth 3 times that and we are towards the bottom of the table.

14 hours ago, Romey 1878 said:

Even if they offered us £100m it would be absolute madness to do the deal this late.

Yeah it’s done for this window. If he keeps on as he has started all parties will have the same opportunity next summer. It’s also just better for Anthony to play regularly than get 10 min off Chelsea’s bench now and then.

Onana and Patterson are making errors but you can see they are going to be really quality players. Went with Gordon today for his energy, competitiveness and a well taken goal.

1 minute ago, Wiggytop said:

Putting all the Maupay stuff to one side, it’s frightening that our bench is so poor/ inexperienced after only 4 games in.

Hopefully grab something tonight and have a busy two days bring in and clearing some out.

Lot of injuries. Will eventually have DCL, Doucoure, Godfrey,Holgate, prob Davies 

1 minute ago, Romey 1878 said:

I could have sworn there was an article on the official site about him being available as well. I even went and checked today when the rumour came about and it wasn't there (if it had been at all).

It’s probably not a situation that comes up much so reasonable they would overlook it. 

Just now, Romey 1878 said:

Telling you to fuck off is not carrying on, it's ending it.

I made sure to choose my words very carefully just for you dim sum.

Well now you’re just being hurtful.
 

I mean we all make mistakes. Strange to me you can’t just say “Hey, that’s not what I meant”. Ah well.

3 minutes ago, Hafnia said:

Do we never got him registered cos it seems we didn’t get papers in on time.  

Bank holiday. Need a full business day. Stupid, archaic rule.

2 minutes ago, Romey 1878 said:

You can keep chatting shite telling me what I meant but I reckon I know better than you, seeing as I'm the one that thought and then typed it.

Now fuck off.

Define “gives him ammunition” since you insist on carrying on. If multiple people have understood you to mean something other than what you intended it stands to reason that you were not very clear. 

Just now, Romey 1878 said:

Let this be a lesson to you not to assume then .

I mean, I think it’s a pretty clear reading of what you said. What other interpretation of “gives him ammunition” is there? If you meant something different than let this be a lesson to choose your words more carefully, lest you be misunderstood.

Hopefully our verbal sparring is a sign of a spirited Everton performance.

Just now, Aidan said:

Almost definitely not a back 3. Wonder if we'd have set up this way with Holgate fit, if so, Keane is really falling out of favour.

That being said I think I'd rather see Keane start in the 3 over Davies.

I would have thought the plan was to sell Mina or Keane before the injuries. Given how they were used so far Keane might have been the one slated to leave.

4 minutes ago, RuffRob said:

must be the case - All very frustrating, as getting the deal done 8 hours soon would he could have been be registered and been available for 2 more games. which is not insignificant when you have not real striker and struggling to get points. 

I don’t know how much we would have wanted to throw him in with literally no familiarity with the team at all on Saturday.  Would have been nice for today though. 

3 minutes ago, Romey 1878 said:

I don't believe I asked him to.

When you say it “gives him ammunition” the implication is he needs a reason. You even gave the reason, a lack of success with 4 at the back. If Frank feels like he has to justify his formations to the media or to the supporters then I’d be concerned.

Just now, Romey 1878 said:

With no striker though I don't expect it to be a success and then it gives Lampard the ammunition to go back to a 3.

He’s the manager though. He doesn’t need to justify his choices to anyone.

27 minutes ago, Shukes said:

Free on modest wages would make sense. But I’m the same, I don’t think it would be right for the club and supporters.

I think it’s a good move for plenty of clubs, just not ours. Even the unrealized potential that has been his whole career is good enough to come off the bench and make an impact 

This would be like the Rafa signing. In a vacuum it makes sense. He likely can still do a pretty good job, low cost etc.. But the supporters would hate it and as such give him very little margin for error. That negativity wouldn’t help him or the club. And for that reason..I’m out 

8 minutes ago, StevO said:

No, I find it absurd that some of their fans think they have outgrown him. 

Ah. Gotcha. I mean he’s a particular type of striker. I can see not wanting him to be the main main but seems like a good option to have for most teams in the league. The Naismith comparison I’ve seen isn’t a bad one.

1 hour ago, Shukes said:

Your guess is as good as mine mate. I’m hoping that was a benchmark for him.

Several managers have mentioned it when speaking about him now I’m hoping Frank will be the one to make it sink in.

I’m hoping the inconsistency is just him being a young player who was physically slight and so couldn’t always provide that energy for 90 minutes. I’m hoping that is changing as he matures.