Inter - Benfica (3 Oct 23) [1-0]

[PHM1605]

AFAIK the clause sticks permanently.

And 40 % sale clause is ridiculous. In the most simple term, it is appalling to hand out almost half of the money you earn after developing the goalkeeper for a club who does nothing.
Technically speaking, assume we bought him for 10 M and we manage to develop him until he catches world's attention. Then we sell him for 50 M like Onana. That means 40 % * 50 M = 20 M goes to Shakhtar. That only leaves 30 M for us and if it is substracted by our buying price (10 M), that will only leave us 20 M and I am not even considering his wage or amortization. Remember, this scenario is the very optimistic one. If we only manage to sell him for the lower fee then our profit is even smaller and we will struggle to find another GK replacement with a comparable quality. It does not worth the effort.

Why we should sell him with such low profit though?

 

[Choppin Onions]

Very good performance. Lautaro a bit unlucky/his usual self when it comes to finishing but he still looks really good out there regardless.

6 points against Salzburg is critical if we wanna advance. Sociedad look strong and Benfica away won’t be easy either.

 

[Glass box]

Why we should sell him with such low profit though?

See Onana. Plus, there's no guarantee we would sell him at all. Only rich clubs can pay a lot of money but it doesn't mean they'll need a gk. I'm not saying that we should try and sell him had we bought him, just that we probably would have.

 

[PHM1605]

See Onana. Plus, there's no guarantee we would sell him at all. Only rich clubs can pay a lot of money but it doesn't mean they'll need a gk. I'm not saying that we should try and sell him had we bought him, just that we probably would have.

That's my point. If Trubin plays great we could simply enjoy him. No one really cares about the clause at all.

I never get the point of some people here "Let's not use a good player because we can't sell him for profit" (?!?). If he is too green or too expensive that concern is valid. But, quite the opposite, Trubin fee + salary are cheap. We will not get any money for Sommer after all.

 

[Glass box]

That's my point. If Trubin plays great we could simply enjoy him. No one really cares about the clause at all.

I never get the point of some people here "Let's not use a good player because we can't sell him for profit" (?!?). If he is too green or too expensive that concern is valid. But, quite the opposite, Trubin fee + salary are cheap. We will not get any money for Sommer after all.

We penny pinched for Sommer's 6m even. We're paying 6.75m in two installments for him iirc and 7m in two installments for Bisseck (where is this guy btw? )

Maybe 12 m were too much for us. And I don't remember any report 40% clause was even mentioned during Inter's negotiations for Trubin. It either was brushed off by our management or wasn't brought up at all, so we might've needed to pay some more.

 

[varmin]

I don't recall another game this season, where we were so dominant. Even against Milan, we let them to have a ball much more. Benfica had one chance after a throw in, and the corner after that, when the hit the bar directly. On the contrary, we could have scored easily more 5-6 goals. Only Lautaro missed like 5 clear chances.

 

[Darth_Ausilio]

AFAIK the clause sticks permanently.

And 40 % sale clause is ridiculous. In the most simple term, it is appalling to hand out almost half of the money you earn after developing the goalkeeper for a club who does nothing.
Technically speaking, assume we bought him for 10 M and we manage to develop him until he catches world's attention. Then we sell him for 50 M like Onana. That means 40 % * 50 M = 20 M goes to Shakhtar. That only leaves 30 M for us and if it is substracted by our buying price (10 M), that will only leave us 20 M and I am not even considering his wage or amortization. Remember, this scenario is the very optimistic one. If we only manage to sell him for the lower fee then our profit is even smaller and we will struggle to find another GK replacement with a comparable quality. It does not worth the effort.

There is another way. We buy Trubin with the sell on clause, then a season later do a straight swap for Onana + Holjund.

 

[bubba zanetti]

We played really well in second half, if we were clinical like against beelan this would end 6-1. Boys gave it all.

 

[Irequis]

That's my point. If Trubin plays great we could simply enjoy him. No one really cares about the clause at all.

I never get the point of some people here "Let's not use a good player because we can't sell him for profit" (?!?). If he is too green or too expensive that concern is valid. But, quite the opposite, Trubin fee + salary are cheap. We will not get any money for Sommer after all.

1. We reek poverty and must generate plusvalenza every year. When other big clubs flash their money, our management will scramble to sell him.
2. Or the most forcing scenario is if Trubin being tempted to move and requests a transfer. Then we have to sell him else we keep an unsettled player.

 

[PHM1605]

1. We reek poverty and must generate plusvalenza every year. When other big clubs flash their money, our management will scramble to sell him.
2. Or the most forcing scenario is if Trubin being tempted to move and requests a transfer. Then we have to sell him else we keep an unsettled player.

So many negative ifs here. We would never have sold if the offer for Onana was 20m€. +20m€ is not exactly the definition of "splashing the money" and far from "scramble to sell".

Either case is better than buying grandpas. We cant sell and zero +plusvalenza let alone any tiny profit.

And the expiration date for him is 5 years instead of 1 or 2.

Yeah it makes zero sense in this Trubin case. Because that kid is no longer kid, proven and already mature.

 

[danz]

Just finished watch the replay. Oh my god , our performance in 2nd half really out of the world. Total domination with so many chances created. Our trio mid Barella, Miki and Hakan were immense. Toro was so unlucky and he cant believe his luck. What a crucial 3 pts.

 

[Nerazzurri_Ninja]

So many missed opportunities, at least the end result was in our favor

 

[Mikele]

Sommer is just fine. I think, we are ok for next 2-3 years with him. In mean time, we will find replacement. For emmergency, we have young Stankovic, who is solid gk.

 

[PHM1605]

We penny pinched for Sommer's 6m even. We're paying 6.75m in two installments for him iirc and 7m in two installments for Bisseck (where is this guy btw? )

Maybe 12 m were too much for us. And I don't remember any report 40% clause was even mentioned during Inter's negotiations for Trubin. It either was brushed off by our management or wasn't brought up at all, so we might've needed to pay some more.

Maybe you overlook something. The reason we could not afford that gap is not Bisseck. That German kid still has a reason to be invested.

Yeah we already threw 8m out of the window. By a terrible deal obviously from the beginning.

I am not hating Sommer though

 

[Dave54]

Sommer did ok. He saved that shot that was counted offside with a late flag.

 

[bubba zanetti]

Sommer is just fine. I think, we are ok for next 2-3 years with him. In mean time, we will find replacement. For emmergency, we have young Stankovic, who is solid gk.

3 years? No thanks

 

[sdvroot]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1709347598283440595

 

[Dave54]

I watched the highlights again. Lautaro missed five 100% chances. Should have been 6:0.

 

[Nerazzurri_Ninja]

I knew we would win