Signing confirmed

See link
https://www.uptheclarets.com/defender-h ... ns-on-loan

The official announcement from the club says it includes an option to buy, not an obligation.

Guessing this isn’t the last article today!

Yep one in three out i would guess

Best video yet

“Burnley is a club with huge ambitions, the owners know what they’re doing, and they really want to push the club on as much as possible.”

That will upset a few

Sounds like a decent signing.

A warm welcome to Burnley for someone who I'm assuming is the first Bashir to play for us.

Best keep the milk under lock and key
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EOeL18BFc0o

Not happy about this, there are far too many ways to butcher his name - and most them have already been done on the transfer window thread.

Reckoner wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 21, 2024 10:08 am

The official announcement from the club says it includes an option to buy, not an obligation.

Better of the two, as long as the player is happy.

This is possibly the biggest and harshest lesson our hierarchy has had to learn

Tall Paul wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 21, 2024 10:16 am

Not happy about this, there are far too many ways to butcher his name - and most them have already been done on the transfer window thread.

I’m sure he’ll just be known as ‘Bash’. Not even Burnley fans can get that wrong!

Reckoner wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 21, 2024 10:08 am

The official announcement from the club says it includes an option to buy, not an obligation.

I was surprised the official announcement went as far as saying there was an option to be honest, but reportedly from reliable sources it is an obligation.

RVclaret wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 21, 2024 10:13 am

“Burnley is a club with huge ambitions, the owners know what they’re doing, and they really want to push the club on as much as possible.”

That will upset a few

Sounds like a decent signing.

He's possibly comparing Burnley's owners with Chelsea's owners.

I'm wearing a Chelsea kit as I type. Heading out shortly to play walking football for Chelsea's 70s team. I'll ask what the Chelsea guys think of him.

UTC

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 21, 2024 10:32 am

I was surprised the official announcement went as far as saying there was an option to be honest, but reportedly from reliable sources it is an obligation.

Maybe the option is:

Buy him at the end of the loan
Or
Chelsea take us to court for breach of contract

I might be wrong but wasn’t it initially reported by Burnley that Esteve was an option to buy, but it became apparent it was an obligation? (Which, if the case, worked better for us).

Al Dakhil’s replacement then. Don’t know anything about him but best of luck to him. Hope he’s turns out to be a good un.

Read a few comments rom his time at Swansea-not particularly impressed and if its an obligation to buy then have we learnt nothing from the Tresor deal?

why does it follow this will be anything like the Tresor deal? And what is the learning there exactly? A signing is a signing. Some work some don't. The aim is to get the % working as high as possible.

Some good business so far this summer.

mdd2 wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 21, 2024 10:43 am

Read a few comments rom his time at Swansea-not particularly impressed and if its an obligation to buy then have we learnt nothing from the Tresor deal?

I’ll be honest. I feel some criticism, maybe with communication more than anything, is warranted.

However personally think the business side and playing trading by the current set up, leaves me relatively confident. I do realise the motivations of the ownership are going to be financial more than anything… but ultimately that is now football. I also have a lot of time for the individual who is managing the negotiations. He’s an astute character and knows the game well.

Reckoner wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 21, 2024 10:08 am

The official announcement from the club says it includes an option to buy, not an obligation.

While an 'option' is always preferable, in all honesty we shouldn't be signing him at all if we don't think he's good enough to be worth buying (a loan to help cash flow/FFP?) and in all likelihood - it would if I were negotiating - the agreed price would be higher for an option rather than an obligation.
On the up-side, there does appear to be a purchase fee agreed at the outset, I got the impression that some of our loans during the summer of 2022 didn't, so that when those players (Tella, Maatsen, THB spring to mind) had raised their profile and value as part of our Championship winning team, we could no longer afford to buy them.

Could be that it's me coming back off my hols and an overnight flight..... but who is Rambo that he refers to?

Jakubs Tash wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 21, 2024 10:30 am

I’m sure he’ll just be known as ‘Bash’. Not even Burnley fans can get that wrong!

Some are still struggling with Chris Wood/Woods.
So i wouldn't bank on Bash being any simpler for 'em....

Jakubs Tash wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 21, 2024 10:30 am

I’m sure he’ll just be known as ‘Bash’. Not even Burnley fans can get that wrong!

There's only one Bash

If the figures mooted are correct and it is indeed an obligation to buy, I'd be shocked because on the face of it, it looks to be incredibly bad business.

£12m + an extra £2.7m in addons then an undisclosed sell on fee for a player that struggled to get into Swansea's side at the end of last season despite being fit. Reading a few of their fans comments and they can't believe how much we've paid (or will pay for him).

I can only hope that the obligation depends on other clauses such as having played a certain amount of games and we do only go on to sign him if he has been a success this season.

mdd2 wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 21, 2024 10:43 am

Read a few comments rom his time at Swansea-not particularly impressed and if its an obligation to buy then have we learnt nothing from the Tresor deal?

Firstly Tresor retains a value and any loss on that deal is dwarfed by the profit on Odobert alone. Plus he may return and come good (unlikely though it feels).

Secondly the success so far this summer is standing us in good stead. The “profit” alone on players sold could end up being over £50m and that really does cushion the relegation well, not every player will work out. The trading part of the strategy is working well. The bits I think need tweaking are the need to have players for a few years to build a fan rapport, and the need to have enough experience to help us stay up if we go up.

Indecisive wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 21, 2024 10:56 am

However personally think the business side and playing trading by the current set up, leaves me relatively confident. I do realise the motivations of the ownership are going to be financial more than anything… but ultimately that is now football. I also have a lot of time for the individual who is managing the negotiations. He’s an astute character and knows the game well.

In reality, it's like any equation where if you have 2 out of the 3 variables right, the third/answer is always correct! Therefore, if your business aspiration is to buy and sell for more (your business) and the player performs well (the performance side), then the answer is always correct. Failing in either gives the wrong answer, you sell for less, so far, I'd say that they are performing much better than anyone else for a few decades, because it's not an exact science like maths!

Jakubs Tash wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 21, 2024 10:30 am

I’m sure he’ll just be known as ‘Bash’. Not even Burnley fans can get that wrong!

I can see the headlines now when we play Portsmouth and he completely dominates their striker, Colby Bishop.

"BASHING THE BISHOP."

ksrclaret wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 21, 2024 10:13 am

A warm welcome to Burnley for someone who I'm assuming is the first Bashir to play for us.

We have had a few Bashers!

Paul Waine wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 21, 2024 10:35 am

He's possibly comparing Burnley's owners with Chelsea's owners.

I'm wearing a Chelsea kit as I type. Heading out shortly to play walking football for Chelsea's 70s team. I'll ask what the Chelsea guys think of him.

UTC

Don't get a rash!

Obviously wish him well but I’m surprised we agreed to an obligation to buy, especially at £12m and rising.

"I'm Free" when wanting the ball passed to him ...

clarethomer wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 21, 2024 11:02 am

Could be that it's me coming back off my hols and an overnight flight..... but who is Rambo that he refers to?

Aaron Ramsey perhaps?

Having watched Mission To Burnley part 1and 2
I think Matt Williams appears to be the chief negotiator with in comings and out goings. And I have to say he came across as being a very hard working diligent chat.

I suspect there's two types of obligation to buys. The first one which is a loan, and buy them at the end of the season regardless. This can help with PSR rules. Negligible loan fee, but you don't actually start buying them until the season after, and even then they spread the cost over the length of the contract.

Or there's the conditional obligation where a a criteria needs to be met. For Humphrey, that may be promotion dependent.

The main issue with the first is how bad it looks when a player doesn't work out, and then it's announced you've signed them for silly money. Which is all that seems to have happened with Tresor. The alternative would have been lumping a few million pound extra into last seasons accounts. It's the signing that so far appears to have been a mistake, not the way the deal was constructed.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 21, 2024 10:32 am

I was surprised the official announcement went as far as saying there was an option to be honest, but reportedly from reliable sources it is an obligation.

Thats interesting. Was quite surprised when I saw Fabrizio had positioned it as a purchase and then the club said option.

My bet, if I were having one, is that we’ve potentially covered ourselves for the risk of not getting promoted but that it’s much more an obligation than an option.

Pleased we’re securing players before signing them
on ‘loan’ this time. I imagine Maatsen could probably have been secured for a similar fee before his good season with us.

beddie wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 21, 2024 12:14 pm

Obviously wish him well but I’m surprised we agreed to an obligation to buy, especially at £12m and rising.

You’d likely have been surprised at those figures for Maatsen and Tella last time we were in the Championship and I think we’d have secured both for similar fees.

By the following summer we were allegedly looking at £31.5m and €23m respectively!

Smart business and shows were learning. Well done club. I don’t want a single loan again without at least an option we can trigger.

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 21, 2024 1:18 pm

You’d likely have been surprised at those figures for Maatsen and Tella last time we were in the Championship and I think we’d have secured both for similar fees.

By the following summer we were allegedly looking at £31.5m and €23m respectively!

Smart business and shows were learning. Well done club. I don’t want a single loan again without at least an option we can trigger.

We had agreed a fee with Chelsea for Maatsen at a fee way below either of the two figures you have mentioned.

gawthorpe_view wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 21, 2024 12:54 pm

Aaron Ramsey perhaps?

Ahh - could well be... Not sure I would have got that even without jetlag!

we clearly have quite a good working relationship with Chelsea, which is no bad thing.

Papabendi wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 21, 2024 10:54 am

why does it follow this will be anything like the Tresor deal? And what is the learning there exactly? A signing is a signing. Some work some don't. The aim is to get the % working as high as possible.

Some good business so far this summer.

Because if he is not fit for purpose we are lumbered with a £15million pound signing. Options, yes OK, obligations no no no!!!

and if he's great, he will likely become out of our range, case in point being Maatsen and Tella.

Looking forward to people calling him Humphrey on this messageboard all season. Good to keep the Hendricks/Woods legacy alive.

Pickles wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 21, 2024 3:43 pm

Looking forward to people calling him Humphrey on this messageboard all season. Good to keep the Hendricks/Woods legacy alive.

Is William Bogarde still playing?

He would’ve made an ideal partner for him.

The figures quoted make absolutely no sense in regards to his proven experience
Tresor and Trafford all over again

How long before some genius puts an apostrophe in his name? There was a 'Danny Ing's' the other day.

Stan Tastic wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 21, 2024 6:38 pm

How long before some genius puts an apostrophe in his name? There was a 'Danny Ing's' the other day.

Been done loads of times already

ksrclaret wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 21, 2024 10:13 am

A warm welcome to Burnley for someone who I'm assuming is the first Bashir to play for us.

Not the first Basher though. Haha good old Ash.

Signing someone on loan with an obligation to buy is just the same as buying them. It’s just structured differently for accounting purposes. If indeed there is an obligation then to all intents and purposes he is ours. People are getting hung up on the loan bit but if we just bought a player outright you wouldn’t expect the option to return later if they turned out crap (much as we might like to!).

Hopefully he looks like a first class centre half in this league. He ought to at that price.

It wouldn't be Up the Clarets if our signings weren't criticised or seen as busts before they've even kicked a ball in earnest...