10mill
smart business from jeff that clause.
apprently not doing well, and they would have sent him back otherwise
If the news is true, it would be a shameful deal. Pay 10M for 50% of the pass, for a player who showed to be at the moment mt away from that value, when we had the chance not to do so (at least that was what was communicated)...
I can't believe this is true. If it is, I would like to listen to the explanations, for it seems to me inexplicably
The purchase comes because of mandatory loan agreement, because for a long time that Vinagre has ceased to be an option. It is a mistake to invest money in a player who when he played rarely proved to be a quality option.
It could have gone well but the boy died completely after the Ajax game. Incomprehensible... A professional player with past youth selections and with supposed quality ... Very weak mentally and now we will be forced to take the risk we take.
10 million per half of this player's pass is totally ruinous. A player who despite having some quality, is so weak mentalmentr that since ajax that looks like an initiate who can only play against teams from league II and the league of Portugal.
A deal too bad to be true. With 10 million we would seek a large left back and yet another quality player
I want to believe it's news to sell newspapers since the deal is too ridiculous to be true
It's almost like someone, somewhere knows how to run a football club.Signed for under 2m, out for 10m. Incredible business. Shame he didn’t kick on either here or there, so to get that much back is a hell of a result.
Me too.Good deal for us. A real shame, I was convinced Vinagre was going to be a star at LWB.
I am convinced you could turn him into an attacking midfielder which is something we need, I was disappointed he went to Sporting but 10 Million is a good deal for usI think Vinagre's issue is he hasnt really nailed down where his best position is. I think he always looked like he could play a lot further forward than he did here.
Great deal but How can we still own 50% of him and not breach FIFA rules on 3rd party ownership?I
It is a shame, I liked him in spite of his exaggerated step overs. (Or maybe because of).Signed for under 2m, out for 10m. Incredible business. Shame he didn’t kick on either here or there, so to get that much back is a hell of a result.
I've just about had enough of small time Jeff now and this is just the latest example of his smalltimedness.
10mill
smart business from jeff that clause.
apprently not doing well, and they would have sent him back otherwise
It's time we all saw that £35M for what it probably was. An injection of cash to keep the Mendes machine chugging along.Yep balances part of the 35 mill for Silva fee out, I hope he can find some form and have a decent career as he looked good when he first arrived here
Possibly but nothing wrong there if if we continue to improve and make profitsIt's time we all saw that £35M for what it probably was. An injection of cash to keep the Mendes machine chugging along.
Not a picture I wanted in my headPants down, Sporting. Big Jeff is coming over.
There are no excuses for spending 35 million on fabio and then having to penny pinch the following two seasons.It's almost like someone, somewhere knows how to run a football club.
Perhaps we been watching villa doing bits, and took a few things onboard
If you read down the comments on the original twitter post it gets a mention. Basically we don't 'own' 50% of him, we have a 50% sell on clause, it's just lost in translation.Great deal but How can we still own 50% of him and not breach FIFA rules on 3rd party ownership?
So let's just accept, for a moment, it was a poor decision. That doesn't mean we can't acknowledge the many good decisions they are making. If we spent a tenth of the time applauding the good decisions that we spend criticising this poor one the Mix would be almost non stop cheer-leading for FOSUN - which would be a bit too much, even for me!There are no excuses for spending 35 million on fabio and then having to penny pinch the following two seasons.
Don't angers have a similar deal with ran 50% of any sell on feeIf you read down the comments on the original twitter post it gets a mention. Basically we don't 'own' 50% of him, we have a 50% sell on clause, it's just lost in translation.