Ballard game on

The fact that Burnley have pulled out when it looked done and dusted should set alarm bells ringing, I would have thought that our management were aware of the injury concerns anyway. I’d still take Ballard but only on a loan deal that suits us, not Arsenal or his agent.

It also just goes to show all those fat Dan type wallys that were cunting the club off earlier in the week and demanding we jump in feet first on him actually know next to fuck all.
 
Blackpool and Sunderland both interested, surely Blackpool don’t have 2 mill for a defender. Given Zian signed for 1.7 and not the 3 mill banded about the night before the figure being spoken about is probably off too.
 
SEL said:
So another loan?
Only 1 year left on his contract at Arsenal now I think and seems they want to cash in.
Click to expand...
I mean we buy him for 2Mill, and when we sell him, Arsenal get all the money for him and we lose out and get nothing 👀
 
  • Like
Reactions: SEL
I don't understand the reticence towards a potential deal for Ballard. He was very good for us last season.

If there is an injury concern it should be picked up by a medical and, of course, we walk away from the deal. If we consider his personal demands excessive then, again walk away.

So far as Arsenal's sell on conditions are concerned, so what? If we sell him in a couple of years for, say, £6m and Arsenal take 50% of that, that's still a profit of £1m and we will have had the benefit of him for a couple of years. There's always the possibility of Ballard not performing and he has little sell-on value, but that's true of anyone and it's less of a risk with Ballard as we know what level of performance he is capable of.
 
Brusselslion said:
I don't understand the reticence towards a potential deal for Ballard. He was very good for us last season.

If there is an injury concern it should be picked up by a medical and, of course, we walk away from the deal. If we consider his personal demands excessive then, again walk away.

So far as Arsenal's sell on conditions are concerned, so what? If we sell him in a couple of years for, say, £6m and Arsenal take 50% of that, that's still a profit of £1m and we will have had the benefit of him for a couple of years. There's always the possibility of Ballard not performing and he has little sell-on value, but that's true of anyone and it's less of a risk with Ballard as we know what level of performance he is capable of.
Click to expand...
I am reminded again of when I read Colin Wanker’s book.
He explained just how difficult it is these days to make any transfer happen.
There are so many external factors that none of us can be aware of.
Both managers and the player can want the move to happen, but that does not mean it will.
 
Brusselslion said:
I don't understand the reticence towards a potential deal for Ballard. He was very good for us last season.

If there is an injury concern it should be picked up by a medical and, of course, we walk away from the deal. If we consider his personal demands excessive then, again walk away.

So far as Arsenal's sell on conditions are concerned, so what? If we sell him in a couple of years for, say, £6m and Arsenal take 50% of that, that's still a profit of £1m and we will have had the benefit of him for a couple of years. There's always the possibility of Ballard not performing and he has little sell-on value, but that's true of anyone and it's less of a risk with Ballard as we know what level of performance he is capable of.
Click to expand...
youd think a sell on clause would be based on profit above the initial £2m outlay not the total transfer amount.
 
Thought Ballard was a class above last season. Obviously wouldn't touch him if the injury rumours are true, but if he is fit and we have the dough, I'd be happy for him to sign. I know some think we have enough CB's but we play 3 and only have 3 plus untried kids.
 
Lions21 said:
If there are medical issues then that risk should be factored in the deal like it was for Bart otherwise tell them to stick it.
Click to expand...
I was surprised the supposed fee was as low as 2 mill.
Maybe that was because of the supposed injury.
He was out for a while last season injured.
Is that the injury in question here?
 
BigPaul said:
I was surprised the supposed fee was as low as 2 mill.
Maybe that was because of the supposed injury.
He was out for a while last season injured.
Is that the injury in question here?
Click to expand...
I’m assuming it is. If we or anyone else are paying £2m to Arsenal and taking the apparent injury risk then the sell on fee should be low or even zero. Sounds like Arsenal are winning all round on this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Staff online

Members online

Total: 723 (members: 36, guests: 687)