|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2013 11:07:50 GMT
If he plays well then it is a good deal for us. So if Zaha, Wellbeck came available woul;d you not take them as there is no option to buy? Some crazy thinking on this board. If its true of course but... The club are telling us they are trying to be self sufficient. Where's the logic down that road when you're chucking a million euros at a player for 9 months? I'd rather we invest that money elsewhere. To buy this guy would be around €12,000,000 at a guess due to age and 10 caps for Portugal and recent interested from Man Utd, his loan will cost £2,000,000 in wages and loan fee. This is a good move by the club because.. 1. If loan goes well it will show other big european clubs we are a good place to send some younger players if we want them 2. It shows people and other potential sigings that we are going for a young attacking team which may encourage them into signing 3. He has to be better than SJW, Pennant, Shotton and gives us more options It is a no brainer for me. |
|
|
|
Post by lagwafis on Jul 24, 2013 11:11:58 GMT
If he plays well then it is a good deal for us. So if Zaha, Wellbeck came available woul;d you not take them as there is no option to buy? Some crazy thinking on this board. If its true of course but... The club are telling us they are trying to be self sufficient. Where's the logic down that road when you're chucking a million euros at a player for 9 months? I'd rather we invest that money elsewhere. I guess I'd be happy with a blend of both. Firstly players like Shawcross, Butland, Begovic, N'Zonzi etc. have been young, potentially worthwhile investments. If occasionally we decide to bring in the odd loan signing who's out of our reach permanently (a little like Bolton with Sturridge and WBA with Lakaku) but turns out strong and helps maintain our standing then fine. Certainly an improvement on the risks we've been taking with aging, injured pros (Owen, Woodgate, Gudjohnsen) anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Jul 24, 2013 11:12:37 GMT
Why are people getting so worked up about this no option to buy thing?
Did West Brom have an option to buy Lukaku?
What's the problem?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimm on Jul 24, 2013 11:15:01 GMT
Why are people getting so worked up about this no option to buy thing? Did West Brom have an option to buy Lukaku? What's the problem? Some people have to find a reason to moan over anything :) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2013 11:15:01 GMT
Why are people getting so worked up about this no option to buy thing? Did West Brom have an option to buy Lukaku? What's the problem? There isn't one as far as I'm concerned but people always like to have something to moan about!. |
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Jul 24, 2013 11:16:03 GMT
Why are people getting so worked up about this no option to buy thing? Did West Brom have an option to buy Lukaku? What's the problem? I'm not worried either, Dave. It's a low risk deal really, we may even end up being able to sign him afterwards anyway. It also buys Hughes some time in readiness for the following season with regards to forward targets. Don't forget he's not been in the job a sock change so there will have to be some elements of short term-ism. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2013 11:17:59 GMT
Why are people getting so worked up about this no option to buy thing? Did West Brom have an option to buy Lukaku? What's the problem? The problem is West Brom have lost a key member of a squad/team that they can't replace. He probably cost them a similar amount of money to Oliveira for a season and now they're being linked with bloody Kenwyne! Its dead money that leaves long term holes in your squad with short termism thinking. I'd rather we use the money to invest in the kids or add into another deal. |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Jul 24, 2013 11:19:45 GMT
Great stuff. A bit gutted about there being no clause but he's a fantastic talent and shits over the rest of our dour attacking force.
|
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Jul 24, 2013 11:20:08 GMT
Hooray!
|
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Jul 24, 2013 11:21:52 GMT
I'd prefer we signed him permanently, but I don't know why fans are moaning about the cost of a loan, it's not their money is it?
|
|
|
|
Post by crouchbot on Jul 24, 2013 11:26:48 GMT
Just saying, this isn't by any means official is it? Everyone's talking like he's signed but there has been absolutely nothing from Stoke at all about him, not even a stoke loud and proud sighting! Just not sure there is anything in this at all to be honest, mainly because Hughes etc are in the States and I doubt anything will happen until they are back. I'd love to be wrong but something's not right about this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jul 24, 2013 11:33:07 GMT
£1 million loan fee looks good business. Certainly it looks better than the £500k we paid for Shola Ameobi for half a season!
People saying that West Brom's loan of Lukaku was a bad thing because he now has to go back to Chelsea are forgetting that it may have been Lukaku who made the difference between comfortable mid table and a relagation battle for the baggies last season.
Given that Hughes is trying to implement a change of style, I'm not surprised that the club are going down the route of a few buys and a loan or two. That limits the up front financial risk. We may be able to buy him at the end of the season, if we want to but can't, then at least we'll have an idea of the sort of player we need to replace him. And if he turns out to be poorer than we hope? To be honest, I wish Palacios had been a one year loan and I bet the club do as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Foster on Jul 24, 2013 11:33:28 GMT
Why are people getting so worked up about this no option to buy thing? Did West Brom have an option to buy Lukaku? What's the problem? Some people have to find a reason to moan over anything  I hate posts like this. |
|
|
|
Post by bertiestan on Jul 24, 2013 11:34:02 GMT
Why would there be an option to buy? He's touted as a future star for Portugal and benfica and is comin here to play in a more physical league to gain experience. Obviously benfica rate him to not want to sell him. I'm happy for him to be loaned to us! Therefore we can watch him do well in the prem before his massive money move to real while we've had a year to eye up a replacement. Good deal for us this! Amoebi cost us 500k in loan fee so I aren't too fussed we're havin pay for Oliveira.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2013 11:38:21 GMT
£1 million loan fee looks good business. Certainly it looks better than the £500k we paid for Shola Ameobi for half a season! People saying that West Brom's loan of Lukaku was a bad thing because he now has to go back to Chelsea are forgetting that it may have been Lukaku who made the difference between comfortable mid table and a relagation battle for the baggies last season. Given that Hughes is trying to implement a change of style, I'm not surprised that the club are going down the route of a few buys and a loan or two. That limits the up front financial risk. We may be able to buy him at the end of the season, if we want to but can't, then at least we'll have an idea of the sort of player we need to replace him. And if he turns out to be poorer than we hope? To be honest, I wish Palacios had been a one year loan and I bet the club do as well. So if West Brom can't replace him and they go down, as you are hinting at what might have happened without him last season, then all is ok because they got a brilliant striker for comparative buttons for a season? It must be me because I don't get this logic one bit, especially when the owners of the club are preaching financial self sufficiency. I understand some of the pro's of a loan, especially in our unique situation this summer, but I think the cons far outweigh them in the overall picture of the club's new fiscal long term strategy, or so we're told! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2013 11:40:56 GMT
The "no option to buy" thing doesn't bother me either.
Yes, it'd be a bonus to have it in place, but it isn't the be all and end all for me. They obviously rate him highly enough to not want it included, which could be an indication we are getting a good player.
If he has a great Season and returns to Benfica then that's obviously a blow but we'll still have had a good player for the Season for a pittance on the financial side of things.
You obviously don't want the majority of your transfer deals to be of this kind but you can get away with the odd one here and there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Jul 24, 2013 11:42:36 GMT
The "no option to buy" thing doesn't bother me either. Yes, it'd be a bonus to have it in place, but it isn't the be all and end all for me. They obviously rate him highly enough to not want it included, which could be an indication we are getting a good player. If he has a great Season and returns to Benfica then that's obviously a blow but we'll still have had a good player for the Season for a pittance on the financial side of things. You obviously don't want the majority of your transfer deals to be of this kind but you can get away with the odd one here and there. <<Nods>> |
|
|
|
Post by Jimm on Jul 24, 2013 11:44:08 GMT
Some people have to find a reason to moan over anything :) I hate posts like this. Why whats up with you now? |
|
|
|
Post by Foster on Jul 24, 2013 11:45:11 GMT
Why whats up with you now? I just feel like moaning. |
|
|
|
Post by Fentonpotter on Jul 24, 2013 11:46:24 GMT
If his goals are the difference in finishing 10th or 17th then it's a million pound well spent given the extra reward for the higher placing
|
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jul 24, 2013 11:49:14 GMT
Surely the 'problem' is you could become utterly dependant on him and be £2M light in the process of replacing someone you were never going to get.
I thought we were a bit less small time than developing other people's players after five years in the Premier League.
More evidence of cost cutting at a time when our peers are spending like lottery winners.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmygscfc1234 on Jul 24, 2013 11:49:22 GMT
However, he won't be seen as our frontline striker will he, in the way that Lukaku was? If Diouf comes in it'll be him rather than Oliveira who all eyes will be on. If both are a success it makes it easier to know the sort of player who we'll need next time around and I don't doubt we'd splash the cash to replace him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Foster on Jul 24, 2013 11:51:06 GMT
I suppose loaning a good player for a season with no option to buy is better than not loaning one at all.
Concerns me slightly that the team may be built around / rely on a good player that can leave at the end of the season, leaving the club in the difficult position of finding an adequate replacement to placate fans expectations and reach the same standards in the following season.
|
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Jul 24, 2013 11:51:52 GMT
 Newcastle want NelsonStoke try to close the loan but the Magpies threaten |
|
|
|
Post by Foster on Jul 24, 2013 11:54:03 GMT
Newcastle want NelsonStoke try to close the loan but the Magpies threaten Isn't it 'Newcastle want gay Nelson'? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2013 11:54:33 GMT
Surely the 'problem' is you could become utterly dependant on him and be £2M light in the process of replacing someone you were never going to get. I thought we were a bit less small time than developing other people's players after five years in the Premier League. More evidence of cost cutting at a time when our peers are spending like lottery winners. Give Hughes and the Management a chance. For all you know we've got a £8m front-man lined up in addition to this deal? As has been previously mentioned, I'm sure West Brom fans are disappointed not to have Lukaku back but I bet they wouldn't change the deal they got and the return he produced. If Oliveira has a great Season and returns then it'll be a blow. It is the lesser of the two evils when compared to millions spunked up the wall on players that contribute nothing to the first team though. If only we had the option to return some of that dross. |
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Jul 24, 2013 11:56:18 GMT
And the alleged ITK on the Rennes messageboard is still maintaining he's off there. So I just got the new that very nearly messed up, benfica tried to send him to England at the last moment when the wishes of the player is to come. Basically this morning he always came home. |
|
|
|
Post by mrpickles on Jul 24, 2013 11:56:19 GMT
As I said in a previous post, oliveira having a good season here could do our reputation (or lack of one) the world of good. Swanseastokie highlighted that Barca have a list of clubs they see as good clubs to loan their top youngsters to. You'd imagine other top clubs are the same. It would be nice to get on a few of these lists, and 'developing' this lad would surely help towards that, as well as (hopefully) having a damn good player on our hands for a year. Also, the no buy thing could work out for the best. We've got a year's notice to find a replacement. No ifs, buts, and or maybes, if that's the deal, then him (and his salary) will be gone next summer. Plenty of time for Carto to work his way through that magical scouting list  |
|
|
|
Post by baltipiesmuggler on Jul 24, 2013 11:56:28 GMT
It'd be good business as far as I can see.
TP did a great job of playing the loanee market in our pre-promotion seasons, then seemed to drop the option all together. I think it makes a lot of sense given the current position.
|
|
|
|
Post by stokeramblers on Jul 24, 2013 11:56:58 GMT
Joe Kinnear has picked up the phone and had a word in the ear of Jorge Jesus no doubt.
Hello Whore Hai Jezuus, That Gelson Olivio is he available?
|
|
