Folarin Balogun

[nutsncider]

Is dzeko available?

 

[Johnny Ludlow]

there was a time where i desperately wanted Caprari at Inter. Terrible memories.

And now you desperately want Balogun, right?

Possibly horrible future memories are being created as we speak.

 

[ElDuccio]

And now you desperately want Balogun, right?

Possibly horrible future memories are being created as we speak.

not neccesary, but i would like him. If not i hope Morata, he is the only decent player from the ones that are remaining..

 

[Jane The Virgin]

För the amazing talent he is, and relatively cheap price, we're so lucky it's only us who want him, and not other big clubs, or Arsenal.

Imagine if they knew what some fif members know about Balogun... So lucky.

#blessed

 

[Hikonyán]

Yea, you are not biased at all...

 

[CafeCordoba]

To be honest, this is actually the sort of scenario where I think signing Balogun is not so unreasonable. It's still a high fee for a risky player, dont get me wrong, but the sell-on fee decreases the immediate risk to Inter while also cutting Arsenal in to the reward. I'm 100% down with models like this, it does slightly relegate us to a bit of a development club/stepping stone, but there's nothing stopping Balogun spending 18 years at Inter and then retiring here for example.

Explain to me how the sell-on fee decreases the risk for us? IMO it rises the risk for us in the case Balogun is not a success. We want to get rid of him, we sell but we need to slice 20% of the price to Arsenal. Arsenal ain't buying from us unless the kid blossoms here.

 

[Johnny Ludlow]

.h. Is mathematically correct. It makes the variance smaller for us, which equals saying it makes the risk smaller.

By giving them the 20% slice we’ll get him cheaper now. Thus the best case scenario (him blossoming and us selling him for big profit) is worse, but the worst case scenario (him being utter shit) is better. That is, smaller distance between the extremes and thus smaller risk.

 

[CafeCordoba]

Oh that way, yes I understand that. But he's already pretty fucking expensive with the "discount".

I'm talking about the point of sale in the future, which is clearly in the club's mind. Unlike the coach's, who'd just want a proper, useful forward who he doesn't have to teach that much.

 

[Johnny Ludlow]

If I had to guess, he gunned for a concept like that.

 

[Gal]

The risk depends on the price he is consequently sold at and the difference between the price with and without the sell on clause… But generally if the price is at or below the purchased price with the clause, you loose less money then if you bought him at asking price, unless there is a minimum amount attached too it.

However dos depend on the sell On percentage. The negative is if he is a success well the profit you potentially gain is noticeable less profitable.

 

[Johnny Ludlow]

You don’t understand the concept of risk if you say that the risk depends on the future event once we know it. No. Risk is something we have to evaluate now, not after the fact.

 

[.h.]

Explain to me how the sell-on fee decreases the risk for us? IMO it rises the risk for us in the case Balogun is not a success. We want to get rid of him, we sell but we need to slice 20% of the price to Arsenal. Arsenal ain't buying from us unless the kid blossoms here.

It decreases the risk because if he was, say, 40mil or 45mil for 100%, then we lose all of it if he flops. At 20% + 35mil, we only lose 35mil if he flops.

 

[IM21]

we are in competitions with some real powerhouses

https://twitter.com/x/status/1688637585776672768

 

[CafeCordoba]

It decreases the risk because if he was, say, 40mil or 45mil for 100%, then we lose all of it if he flops. At 20% + 35mil, we only lose 35mil if he flops.

Both cases the price is too high. Imagine ever paying 40m for such a neverheard player. Dropping the initial price and adding the resale-% simply by our side that the valuation is right and we just want to structure the price differently.

Because we are anyway buying the player in the hope of selling him in later, the whole valuation needs to support it. This type of valuation we'd be agreeing here diminishes the returns for us already. Unless the guy hits 100m€ levels.

 

[.h.]

Eh, I dont disagree, I Think I said as much since the first day we were linked with him, BUT if we're gonna overspend on a risky player like balogun, I'd prefer 35+20% over 40 for 100% every day.

 

[Johnny Ludlow]

I agree in principle, but that 20% should be worth more than 5m. If his value would stay the same, it would be worth 8m. And I would be OK with that.

 

[.h.]

I agree in principle, but that 20% should be worth more than 5m. If his value would stay the same, it would be worth 8m. And I would be OK with that.

yeah, its the trade off from Arsenal's perspective. Clearly they are going to lean on the "more immediate reward now, less risk", and we're happy to go on the "more risk less reward" side, so its a natural tension. Arsenal giving up 8m for 20% doesnt really make economical sense for them, so we need to give them 'some carrot' as such. Yeah, it;'d have been better if the price was lower, for example, but eh. I still prefer this over 40m (or, not at all) outright

 

[Gal]

You don’t understand the concept of risk if you say that the risk depends on the future event once we know it. No. Risk is something we have to evaluate now, not after the fact.

The risk can be calculated by setting up potential scenarios and making a probability for those scenarios to happen and then calculate on the economic effects of said scenarios.

That’s how you figure out if buying outright or with a percentage clause is the potentially biggest risk.

 

[.h.]

Sure, but I don't think any of us trust inter to make that judgement in a purely empirical way given we paid so much for salcedo colidio etc. Marcoscopically if we are set on balogun this is probably as good a deal as we will get on him. Whether he's worth the 35m or not I don't know, and I'm a bit skeptical, but if we are settled on him, giving up some resell money for the sake of lowering immediate cost is fine


On an unrelated note in FM I did this on young top stars all the time to get them to Inter. Offer decent cash, aot of bonuses on caps and appearances etc and a high sell on fee. If they made it, I'd keep them for their best years anyway. If they didn't, my pay out was significantly reduced.

 

[Sawyer]

Eh, I dont disagree, I Think I said as much since the first day we were linked with him, BUT if we're gonna overspend on a risky player like balogun, I'd prefer 35+20% over 40 for 100% every day.

I'd rather pay the extra 5m and not lose 20% on a future sale.

5m is nothing now compared to 20% resale when/if we need it.

I understand from your posts after this one what you mean though.