Odsonne Edouard

[Steero113]

6 minutes ago, messi11 said:

Some guy called Jake DM'd me on twitter and said its a done deal

The player himself messaged me to tell you to stop poking around in his affairs please...

[DaveAV1]

3 hours ago, Steero113 said:

 

It's spelt oeuf in French mate

Don’t egg him on. 

[deeps]

3 hours ago, MachoFantastico said:

Rather take Watkins over Edouard. 

I’d rather both. Even just getting one isn’t enough in my eyes. 

[thabucks]

As Celtic owe 40% to PSG (sell on of profit?) surely offering them a pick of Engels, Elmo, Any surplus GK x3. Lansbury, Jota, Hourihane, Samatta, is as a tempting swop alternative. 
 
We could also do what Fulham/Nice reportedly were accursed of doing with Jean Michael-Seri & Maxime Le Marchand and manipulate the fees. So on paper, we pay over odds for Ajer and under on Edouard to avoid them paying as much £££ to PSG whilst still achieving what they wanted financially & screwing PSG over a lil.

[paul514]

57 minutes ago, thabucks said:

As Celtic owe 40% to PSG (sell on of profit?) surely offering them a pick of Engels, Elmo, Any surplus GK x3. Lansbury, Jota, Hourihane, Samatta, is as a tempting swop alternative. 
 
We could also do what Fulham/Nice reportedly were accursed of doing with Jean Michael-Seri & Maxime Le Marchand and manipulate the fees. So on paper, we pay over odds for Ajer and under on Edouard to avoid them paying as much £££ to PSG whilst still achieving what they wanted financially & screwing PSG over a lil.

Assuming they want some of the players yea

[Morkery]

8 hours ago, Lichfield Dean said:

Have I woken up in 1998?

I wish, good times.

[KenjiOgiwara]

6 hours ago, thabucks said:

As Celtic owe 40% to PSG (sell on of profit?) surely offering them a pick of Engels, Elmo, Any surplus GK x3. Lansbury, Jota, Hourihane, Samatta, is as a tempting swop alternative. 
 
We could also do what Fulham/Nice reportedly were accursed of doing with Jean Michael-Seri & Maxime Le Marchand and manipulate the fees. So on paper, we pay over odds for Ajer and under on Edouard to avoid them paying as much £££ to PSG whilst still achieving what they wanted financially & screwing PSG over a lil.

I'm slightly puzzled as to why a club like Celtic would spend £ 10 million on a striker (which is a LOT of money in that league), and while doing so accepting a 40% sell on. Seems like a very high risk deal. 

Even if it's actually a 40% sell on profit I'd say it's a high risk move. 

[BG_Villa_Fan]

2 minutes ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

I'm slightly puzzled as to why a club like Celtic would spend £ 10 million on a striker (which is a LOT of money in that league), and while doing so accepting a 40% sell on. Seems like a very high risk deal. 

Even if it's actually a 40% sell on profit I'd say it's a high risk move. 

Same reason why we agreed a buyback clause for Luiz - we wouldn't have got him otherwise. Someone else would have. 

Edited August 31, 2020 by BG_Villa_Fan

[KenjiOgiwara]

10 minutes ago, BG_Villa_Fan said:

Same reason why we agreed a buyback clause for Luiz - we wouldn't have got him otherwise. Someone else would have. 

I see your point, but the Luiz deal is just less of a risk compared, unless my maths are way off. 

[DaveAV1]

3 minutes ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

I see your point, but the Luiz deal is just less of a risk compared, unless my maths are way off. 

The Luiz deal is good for City in that they guaranteed that they can get him back if they want him over the agreed 2 year period. It’s good for us because it guarantees us a set fee for him if  City want him back. They can’t low ball us as his contract runs down towards the end of the 2 years. 

As @BG_Villa_Fan says though we agreed it for the same reason Celtic made their agreement with PSG, we had no choice if we wanted the player. 

[KenjiOgiwara]

Like I said it's easy enough to dee his point, but it's financially two very different deals. 

[TrentVilla]

Hypothetical.... say Celtic approaches PSG for him and they said we want £20m and Celtic said we’ve only got £10m. So PSG said we will accept that but if you make a profit on him we want 40%.

Lots of people saying it’s crazy for Celtic to agree to it but what if the above is accurate? Or what if they had to agree to it to get a player that they really wanted like we did with Luiz. Buying players isn’t as simple as we often think.

Besides, the only likely way Celtic were going to make a profit on the player was selling him to the PL and a inflated fee. So it’s a no lose for Celtic, get a player they want and if they have to sell they still make a tidy profit just not as much as they would have got without the clause but still more than they would have had if they hadn’t agreed and not signed the player.

I don’t get the issue with it, sound business in my view.

[Zatman]

Celtic 2 biggest incomes are through attendance and the Champions League and both have been taken away. They will accept a reasonable bid but crucially they probably wouldnt be able to afford any of our players in exchange

[TrentVilla]

Just now, Zatman said:

Celtic 2 biggest incomes are through attendance and the Champions League and both have been taken away. They will accept a reasonable bid but crucially they probably wouldnt be able to afford any of our players in exchange

Agreed they will certainly be more open to selling than had they progressed.

Part ex is interesting, depends if the deal includes provision for that but offering say Samatta as a male weight could work even if we have to part fund wages. Part ex’s used to be a way around sell on’s but I’d imagine that this loop hole is now covered in the agreements.

 

[Silent_Bob]

4 hours ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

I'm slightly puzzled as to why a club like Celtic would spend £ 10 million on a striker (which is a LOT of money in that league), and while doing so accepting a 40% sell on. Seems like a very high risk deal. 

Even if it's actually a 40% sell on profit I'd say it's a high risk move. 

It's more risk for the player. He would have to stay unless someone offered silly money.

We should just offer £1 for the player and £29 999 999 for a Celtic raincoat or something.

But it's not high risk move for Celtic. They get their money back and 60% of any profit. If they didn't accept that clause to begin with they would probably have had to pay more than £10m for him.

For Celtic it's actually a good deal. Low initial cost, but profit sharing. For the player it's not a good deal. Why would Celtic accept an offer that reflects his actual value?

[HeyAnty]

30m will get Edouard.  Celtic wont take anything less, any other season they probably would have. 

They are going for 10 in a row which in any of their fans eyes is the biggest season since 1967 when they won the European cup.

[Sulberto21]

Davis , Hogan, Lansbury plus 29m should get him.

[newhavenhibby]

3 minutes ago, HeyAnty said:

30m will get Edouard.  Celtic wont take anything less, any other season they probably would have. 

They are going for 10 in a row which in any of their fans eyes is the biggest season since 1967 when they won the European cup.

Maybe in young celts eyes but I feel for the majority of the support '67 will never be beaten.

The vast majority of the 9 in a row were achieved either with sevco not in the league or in the process of rebuilding into the SPL.

[jim]

1 hour ago, TrentVilla said:

Agreed they will certainly be more open to selling than had they progressed.

Part ex is interesting, depends if the deal includes provision for that but offering say Samatta as a male weight could work even if we have to part fund wages. Part ex’s used to be a way around sell on’s but I’d imagine that this loop hole is now covered in the agreements.

 

[Keener window-cleaner]

1 hour ago, TrentVilla said:

Agreed they will certainly be more open to selling than had they progressed.

Part ex is interesting, depends if the deal includes provision for that but offering say Samatta as a male weight could work even if we have to part fund wages. Part ex’s used to be a way around sell on’s but I’d imagine that this loop hole is now covered in the agreements.

 

I think that makes a lot of sense, I would be surprised if PSG haven't covered the situation with player exchange in the agreement, or other way's around like loan with loan fee and obligation to buy etc. Bad lawyers otherwise.

I'm also sure there will be a lot of lawyers around arguing and interpreting agreements wildly causing uncertainty, not at least the current situation with Messi's contract is an example of that. I hope we act professionally with as clean deals as possible. I got the impression that we under Xia/Wyness were more in the gray zone or even worse with our dealings. The current regime seems professional, hope it's to our advantage in the negotiations.