The Daily ITK Discussion Thread - 31st August 2020

[Erm33]

In no way would we loan with obligation we wouldn’t have any money to buy a player he will be here after the window if a club isn’t giving us the money

If it's the only way to get rid at the valuation we need as itk has stated is the goal then why not? No point keeping him here and on the wage bill if he's not gonna play. Frees up a non HG spot too and deals aren't just one lump sum these days.

 

[Rob]

We wouldn’t necessarily have the money even if we sold him now as a lot of deals involve x amount over the length of the contract.

Best case scenario is a loan fee and then a fixed amount to purchase him in 12-18 months time... a bit like our deal for Lo Celso.

As per ITK, we can’t accept less that £42m as per our agreement with Lyon. Therefore why are we entertaining offers albeit rejecting them for lower amounts? Surely if it’s £42m + then there’s no ‘buyer’, just an interested party (who’s taking the piss).

I don't think we want to get into finance ITK but that £42m has already had a fifth of it amoritised etc so his cost on the books is less already. Plus, you can't expect to break even on every bad deal. If we think we can get him gone now but take a £5 million hit on it, we probably recoup most of that in saved wages than letting it drag on until January.

I don't think it's as given as some assume that we won't take what looks like a loss on him to get him gone.

 

[Japhet]

Loan with option would be the worst possible scenario surely...

Having him sat around on his arse, butting heads with Mourinho and drawing 10m a year in wages would be worse.

 

[Johno1470]

When you can get De Beek for £40m then the likelihood of us getting £42m straight up for TND is slim.

 

[BringBack_leGin]

Most likely outcome for NDom is a loan with options.

Option/obligation

Re TN
I believe Trix means ‘Loan with irrevocable purchase’ at end of loan term. DL will NOT loan with open options. It would leave us financially exposed, and not good for our balance sheets.

Milan dreaming, but thus far nowhere near. Our valuations on their ‘aged’ players (with no future sell-ons’ not good for us. Lyon have us tied in on our agreement of purchase. We cannot sell at a lost! Difficult one.

I’m assuming that any loan would be loaded with a big loan free, probably a whole 20% of the price we’d want for a permanent given that he has 5 years on his deal. That way if somehow he returned to us in a year we’ve not made any kind of loss.

Cheers both for the ITK.

 

[Jamturk]

When you can get De Beek for £40m then the likelihood of us getting £42m straight up for TND is slim.

Slim yeah?

 

[DiVaio]

When you can get De Beek for £40m then the likelihood of us getting £42m straight up for TND is slim.

Hmm, chances for getting 2m more for better player with longer contract worth more for their seller are slim?

 

[mil1lion]

Eriksen back would be hilarious.

We'll have to do one more All or Nothing episode just to see his response

 

[spursfan77]

I’m assuming that any loan would be loaded with a big loan free, probably a whole 20% of the price we’d want for a permanent given that he has 5 years on his deal. That way if somehow he returned to us in a year we’ve not made any kind of loss.

Cheers both for the ITK.

I posted this morning about the level of loan fees we’ve got for our players, in the past, in his thread. It’s not inconsiderable.

It’s a disaster. We just have to trust the club and hope they can do the best. Like Rob says, I doubt we will mind taking a small loss on the transfer. It’s preferable to keeping him around.

 

[Jody]

I don't think we want to get into finance ITK but that £42m has already had a fifth of it amoritised etc so his cost on the books is less already. Plus, you can't expect to break even on every bad deal. If we think we can get him gone now but take a £5 million hit on it, we probably recoup most of that in saved wages than letting it drag on until January.

I don't think it's as given as some assume that we won't take what looks like a loss on him to get him gone.

Agree and it’s all relative to the market too. If prices overall have dropped then it has to be judged against that.

 

[TEESSIDE1]

I don't think we want to get into finance ITK but that £42m has already had a fifth of it amoritised etc so his cost on the books is less already. Plus, you can't expect to break even on every bad deal. If we think we can get him gone now but take a £5 million hit on it, we probably recoup most of that in saved wages than letting it drag on until January.

I don't think it's as given as some assume that we won't take what looks like a loss on him to get him gone.

I get that . I was querying what Hercs? said re we can’t accept less than £42m as per our purchase agreement with Lyon. I don’t fully understand what he meant eg are there penalties for accepting less than £42m?

 

[SpursSince1980]

I’m just hoping that our ability to sign a backup striker before the start of the season is not contingent on finding a new home for TN. As the striker is easily the most important position we need filled before we play 8 games in 19 days.
whereas the TN stuff looks like it could drag on until the end of the window.

 

[Hercules]

TN
Save the debate on lost against what we purchased him for. As far as DL is concerned, he wants his money back! We can argue until the cows come home. That is what he wants! So if anyone wants to sign him, we will only accept a ‘tie-in’ to purchase at end of loan!

 

[0-Tibsy-0]

TN
Save the debate on lost against what we purchased him for. As far as DL is concerned, he wants his money back! We can argue until the cows come home. That is what he wants! So if anyone wants to kind him, we will only accept a ‘tie-in’ to purchase at end of loan!

I still hope there is a way back for him under Mourinho.

 

[BPR_U16]

TN
Save the debate on lost against what we purchased him for. As far as DL is concerned, he wants his money back! We can argue until the cows come home. That is what he wants! So if anyone wants to kind him, we will only accept a ‘tie-in’ to purchase at end of loan!

Thanks Herc
Appears this together with Lyon info places us in a very difficult financial position if we want to get decent options no cash

 

[bjdspur]

My worry about D1's Eriksen potentially returning itk, is that I think playing for Poch possibly shortens a players career. I think the intensity that Poch demands from players is both so physically and mentally exhausting, that it will have an effect of longevity. Dembele, Rose and Eriksen, all seemed to drop off in the lat 20's or early 30's. Of course it could be total rubbish and individually you can come up with alternative explanations, such as Dembele's hip, Rose's depression and Eriksen needing a new challenge. But Verts rapidly declined also, Diers game fell apart and some would say Toby isn't the player he was. In Poch's last 6 months, we seemed like an old team.

Dragons post expressly said that the Eriksen bit wasn't itk:
"This part is just speculation on my part I just wonder if we take players to get to the number the defender or Eriksen back etc"

 

[IamSpurtacus]

I don't think we want to get into finance ITK but that £42m has already had a fifth of it amoritised etc so his cost on the books is less already. Plus, you can't expect to break even on every bad deal. If we think we can get him gone now but take a £5 million hit on it, we probably recoup most of that in saved wages than letting it drag on until January.

I don't think it's as given as some assume that we won't take what looks like a loss on him to get him gone.

I think the loss we take will in large part be driven by the loan covenants underpinning stadium financing. The club won't want to show a loss / impairment beyond a certain level as it may trigger penalties (especially when factoring in lost revenue from the fan lock out).

I'd imagine this a complicating factor in any negotiation for his price

 

[Trotter]

In no way would we loan with obligation we wouldn’t have any money to buy a player he will be here after the window if a club isn’t giving us the money

Why not.
With obligation, that is good as money in the bank, institutions would advance against it, subject to credit worthiness of buying party.

In fact, if we did that, you can send Levy my way, I can arrange the financing (do trade financing, but we do the odd factoring deal)

 

[arunspurs]

Loan, sell whatever it is he is a goner . There is no way Ndombele is staying past the window. If he stays , Jose won’t play him- DL will keep losing value on TN. I can’t see TN being a character to say goners be goners , I will give my all for the new season.

If DL can’t get the money back now he needs TN to play & build his value next season on a loan and to be then sold.

I cannot see ego of Eriksen allowing to come back within 6 months. Even if he is willing, I am not sure Jose will accept him back. But then who knows...both clubs might have unwanted players so there could be compromises done against egos

 

[ItsBoris]

There's clearly a deal to be done with Inter. If they buy Ndombele they'll have too many midfielders and already have too many defenders. Jose has a good relationship with Inter. I think Skriniar + Brozovic for Ndombele + some cash is definitely possible