Douglas Luiz, our model ex-Citizen?

[Risso]

The thing that concerns me most about the deal is not City wanting him for their midfield, more that his market value will be well in excess of the £27.5m, meaning it's in their interests financially to do the deal regardless of their needs.

I imagine though if that were the case, we'd negotiate the difference to buy him back. If the deal ended up with us paying them another £10m, that would still mean we'd paid about £25m for a top class midfielder.

That's pretty much it in a nut shell. I reckon it would be a bit more than that, but still a bargain. He could be one of the best midfielders in the league for the next 10-12 years.

[ktvillan]

Frank Carrodus was a pretty good signing at the time and did very well for us for a few years.

Really hope Citeh think Luiz is not up to their standards.

[Brazilian Villain]

The thing that concerns me most about the deal is not City wanting him for their midfield, more that his market value will be well in excess of the £27.5m, meaning it's in their interests financially to do the deal regardless of their needs.

I imagine though if that were the case, we'd negotiate the difference to buy him back. If the deal ended up with us paying them another £10m, that would still mean we'd paid about £25m for a top class midfielder.

That's pretty much it in a nut shell. I reckon it would be a bit more than that, but still a bargain. He could be one of the best midfielders in the league for the next 10-12 years.

Agree 100%. It might be another 15-20m if his good form continues but he's integrated in the team and playing well so better that than paying 'saving' money and risking a new midfielder to replace him. Even another 20m would mean he's cost us the same as Drinkwater cost Chelsea so still good business.

[cdbearsfan]

If Guardiola is reading this, Luiz is shite.

[paul_e]

The thing that concerns me most about the deal is not City wanting him for their midfield, more that his market value will be well in excess of the £27.5m, meaning it's in their interests financially to do the deal regardless of their needs.

I imagine though if that were the case, we'd negotiate the difference to buy him back. If the deal ended up with us paying them another £10m, that would still mean we'd paid about £25m for a top class midfielder.

Isn't there a rule around registrations to stop players being bought and sold in the same season? So if they activated it with the intent to sel lhim they'd have to wait a year with his value probably dropping below what they paid if he didn't play for that time. I don't think there's much chance of it.

[PaulWinch again]

The thing is from a Manchester City point of view what is the value in not exercising the clause? Clearly if they rate him as a player they’ll sign him. But even if they don’t I’d say £27.5m is likely below his market value therefore they can just sell him and make a profit.

I hope I’m wrong clearly, but I struggle to see why they wouldn’t activate the buy back.

[Ads]

Isn't the resale £30m now? Its was £20m last year and now up to £30m. Presumably we could also pay Man City off, which if their aim was to merely sell himself where for £10m, then that saves some hassle.

[placeforparks]

The thing that concerns me most about the deal is not City wanting him for their midfield, more that his market value will be well in excess of the £27.5m, meaning it's in their interests financially to do the deal regardless of their needs.

I imagine though if that were the case, we'd negotiate the difference to buy him back. If the deal ended up with us paying them another £10m, that would still mean we'd paid about £25m for a top class midfielder.

Isn't there a rule around registrations to stop players being bought and sold in the same season? So if they activated it with the intent to sel lhim they'd have to wait a year with his value probably dropping below what they paid if he didn't play for that time. I don't think there's much chance of it.

you can be registered for three clubs in a season, but can only play official matches for two of them.

if luiz went back to city, it's either on the guarantee of first team football there, or a deal to sell him elsewhere immediately.

[Risso]

The thing that concerns me most about the deal is not City wanting him for their midfield, more that his market value will be well in excess of the £27.5m, meaning it's in their interests financially to do the deal regardless of their needs.

I imagine though if that were the case, we'd negotiate the difference to buy him back. If the deal ended up with us paying them another £10m, that would still mean we'd paid about £25m for a top class midfielder.

Isn't there a rule around registrations to stop players being bought and sold in the same season? So if they activated it with the intent to sel lhim they'd have to wait a year with his value probably dropping below what they paid if he didn't play for that time. I don't think there's much chance of it.

No, there isn't any such rule. Therefore the rest of your post doesn't apply. Best we can hope for is that they don't really want him and we pay the difference to them to make it "permanent".

[PaulWinch again]

Sorry Lee missed you’d made exactly the same point.

[Richard E]

The Meaning Evil says that the journos in Manchester don’t anticipate City activating the clause.

[dave.woodhall]

We've already got a Douglas Luiz thread so can we get back to the original point on this please?

[paul_e]

The thing that concerns me most about the deal is not City wanting him for their midfield, more that his market value will be well in excess of the £27.5m, meaning it's in their interests financially to do the deal regardless of their needs.

I imagine though if that were the case, we'd negotiate the difference to buy him back. If the deal ended up with us paying them another £10m, that would still mean we'd paid about £25m for a top class midfielder.

Isn't there a rule around registrations to stop players being bought and sold in the same season? So if they activated it with the intent to sel lhim they'd have to wait a year with his value probably dropping below what they paid if he didn't play for that time. I don't think there's much chance of it.

No, there isn't any such rule. Therefore the rest of your post doesn't apply. Best we can hope for is that they don't really want him and we pay the difference to them to make it "permanent".

Well there is, it was posted in the reply before yours, but it's based on playing games. I think I'd confused it with the one that stops you buying a player and loaning them straight out to a team in your league.

Either way I don't see them buying him to sell him on and i don't know of any case where that's happened before, the process for it to happen with no risk of him ending up stuck at Man City who don't want him (in this scenario) is incredibly messy and just not worth doing for a few million quid.

[kippaxvilla2]

John Gidman went the other way didn’t he? He was a good right back.

[ktvillan]

Gidman went to Everton then Yanited I think