- Jan 5, 2013
- 11,765
- 61,763
It’s not nonsense in the least bit, though.Sorry, this line of saying, we funded Vlahovic move is such a nonsense.
i) We got Bentancur for 15m£ - which is incredible deal for someone who has 180caps for Juve. We can clearly see that he is a HUGE upgrade on every single CM we have. At 24, with just 45 PL min, I can say he will be a big hit for Spurs - so this seems well worth the money spent
ii) Kulusevski - again played nearly 100 games. BUT, this is only a loan move for 18months. We only pay, IF a) We get CL football b) He starts/palys certain number of games. So , its implicit that for any move to happen, he has to perform & team has to succeed. If he didnt do that, we dont buy him. Juve dont get this Vlahovic money across...
So, lets stop saying we funded his move. That narrative doesnt fit
There’s a reason why:
A) Aston Villa had a £20m+ bid rejected for Bentancur, and,
B) We’ve got him for cheaper than Villa’s bid and Kulusevski for a grossly inflated price (if made permanent, which will happen if finish within the top 4).
It’s because Boca Juniors have a 30% sell on fee for Bentancur. By lowering his fee and inflating Kulusevski’s, Paratici has just done his old club another favour.
The fee Juve paid to sign Vlahovic was ~£58m which is to be paid across the next three financial years. That’s around £19m for this season. We’ve paid £15m for Bentancur and a £3m loan fee for Kulusevski. To say it’s “nonsense” we’ve funded Juve’s move Vlahovic is, in itself, nonsense.