What's new

Mateo Musacchio

SteveH

BSoDL candidate for SW London
Jul 21, 2003
8,642
9,313
Here's a thing that winds me up a little: we seem to have acquired a habit of picking the most difficult targets: the three-dimensional third-party bastards, the one player the fire-sale-of-the-century club don't want to sell...

Another thing that winds me up a touch: we seem to think that an ITK saying a deal is close is similar in some way to a deal being close.

Huh.

And I'm an optimist who has confidence in Levy and his staff. I feel for you guys who are inclined to a different outlook.

Deep breaths LZ - Targets by the nature are difficult to hit.
 

WiganSpur

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
16,060
32,852
Here's a thing that winds me up a little: we seem to have acquired a habit of picking the most difficult targets: the three-dimensional third-party bastards, the one player the fire-sale-of-the-century club don't want to sell...

Another thing that winds me up a touch: we seem to think that an ITK saying a deal is close is similar in some way to a deal being close.

Huh.

And I'm an optimist who has confidence in Levy and his staff. I feel for you guys who are inclined to a different outlook.
That's also a sign that we are trying to bring in top players though.

Judging by the latest updates I think we'll get MM and MS but at the expense of some potentially hefty outgoings such as Vlad and Sandro. There's more chance of me flipping a tiddlywink on the moon than us having a net spend of £20m+. Just the way we operate unfortunately.
 

Spurslove

Well-Known Member
Jul 6, 2012
6,627
9,281
Lyall Thomas‏@LyallThomas 4m
#Tottenham aware of Musacchio's third-party ownership and, at the moment, are unconcerned by it; hopeful of completing deal this week #THFC

In my little world of plain common sense, these third party ownerships of players would be made illegal. Sadly, they are one of the evils which poison the world's transfer markets and invite all sorts of dodgy people to get involved.
 

Kendall

Well-Known Member
Feb 8, 2007
38,502
11,933
In my little world of plain common sense, these third party ownerships of players would be made illegal. Sadly, they are one of the evils which poison the world's transfer markets and invite all sorts of dodgy people to get involved.

Whilst I agree with you, the Prem seems to be the anomaly. If we allowed it, we could just buy Villareal's share and River/Bankers could keep their interest, knowing full well that he's going to a top league that gains maximum exposure.
 

Hoopspur

You have insufficient privileges to reply here!
Jun 28, 2012
6,334
9,703

SamR

Well-Known Member
Jan 31, 2006
1,214
2,440
I think a lot of people are getting itchy for no real reason here! We sometimes hear whispers of deals as soon as Danny boy has got off the phone with an initial enquiry!

Unfortunately a transfer like this isn't like a simple debit card purchase - these things are searching for signal, pending and give and error reading a few times before it goes through!

Im confident MM and MS are our top targets and that Daniel is doing all he can to get that purchase receipt! Exciting times ahead.
 

dagraham

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2005
19,156
46,154
Looks like that's torpedoed that submarine then. Deal sunk without trace!

In reality though 35% of something is a whole lot better than 35% of nothing and it is probably blustering and bluffing. Spurs will just say we are going to walk away and more sense will prevail in my (very uneducated) opinion.

I guess it all depends on Villerreal's financial position. Do they need to sell?
 

faulks

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2010
1,121
799
I guess it all depends on Villerreal's financial position. Do they need to sell?

I imagine they are fairly stable, but it comes down if the player wants to leave or not.

We've never 'had' to sell a player in recent years unless they've wanted out.
 

dagraham

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2005
19,156
46,154
I imagine they are fairly stable, but it comes down if the player wants to leave or not.

We've never 'had' to sell a player in recent years unless they've wanted out.

But we've always extracted big fees from the buying clubs for this very reason. Even if he wants out, they will want plenty of money and the only way I can see us doing a deal is if he kicks up a stink or they need the money.

Hence I would be very surprised if we sign him.
 

The Scarecrow

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2013
5,603
12,225
Whilst I agree with you, the Prem seems to be the anomaly. If we allowed it, we could just buy Villareal's share and River/Bankers could keep their interest, knowing full well that he's going to a top league that gains maximum exposure.
Yeah, but then we would be the ones to owe 1/3 of a player. I don't think Levy would like that.
 

LexingtonSpurs

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2013
13,456
39,042
I know what I would do on FM right about now - fire up a friendly match with River = problem solved.

(In an ironic twist, my jest actually makes a little sense here, if the club wanted to put together a South American Tour next summer...)
 

faulks

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2010
1,121
799
But we've always extracted big fees from the buying clubs for this very reason. Even if he wants out, they will want plenty of money and the only way I can see us doing a deal is if he kicks up a stink or they need the money.

Hence I would be very surprised if we sign him.

£17 million constitutes a big fee, especially for a defender. It's just the fact they only get 1/3 of it due to his ownership. I'm pretty sure he'd be ours by now otherwise.
 

Sandro30

Well-Known Member
Jul 7, 2011
2,855
12,322
I know what I would do on FM right about now - fire up a friendly match with River = problem solved.

(In an ironic twist, my jest actually makes a little sense here, if the club wanted to put together a South American Tour next summer...)
We would get some pretty big crowds in Argentina I think. No money there though so no point going.
 

Kendall

Well-Known Member
Feb 8, 2007
38,502
11,933
Yeah, but then we would be the ones to owe 1/3 of a player. I don't think Levy would like that.

It wouldn't really matter too much since the other stake doesn't control the registration of the player. Even if, say Banker A sold his stake to Banker B, it wouldn't really concern Spurs, since we still hold the stake that controls player registration.
 

Ossie85

Rio de la Plata
Aug 2, 2008
3,935
13,276
The problem here are not the third parties, but Villarreal. They were cheap enough to only buy 35% of him. They should now expect 35% of what he's worth.
They practically stole the player from River and now they have the nerve to want them to reduce their cut
 

danielneeds

Kick-Ass
May 5, 2004
24,183
48,814
The problem here are not the third parties, but Villarreal. They were cheap enough to only buy 35% of him. They should now expect 35% of what he's worth.
They practically stole the player from River and now they have the nerve to want them to reduce their cut
Yeah, they really seem to be acting like arseholes, I always thought they were such a well run club that did things the right way. They're pissed because they tried to hoover up half of River's youth team for peanuts, and none of them came good - tough shit guys. Those are the risks of investing in footballers.
 

TottenhamMattSpur

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
10,925
16,007
The problem here are not the third parties, but Villarreal. They were cheap enough to only buy 35% of him. They should now expect 35% of what he's worth.
They practically stole the player from River and now they have the nerve to want them to reduce their cut
I'm amazed we're the only ones that seem to think along these lines.
Although there's always the chance that river plate and his agent could foresee him being an appreciating asset and therefore not selling 100% of his rights to Villereal.
 
Top