Morgan Rogers

Comes across well in his interview. Interesting that he has watched our last two games and had several conversations with Scott Parker. Obviously there will have been a snought in the trough agent snorting and snuffling for dollars in the background, but it does sound as he has thought about where it would be best for him to be to progress as a player.

I am looking forward to see him play.
 
Without looking at him, my only concern is that Man City is willing to sell him to us.

In other words, they've determined that selling him cheap (by their standards) to a Championship club is the best they'll get. He's only 19 but they've obviously determined his development ceiling would still give him no chance of getting near the first team.
I guess he could still be a good player for us, but the experience with Ibe has sort of scarred me permanently.
 
canadiancherry said:
Without looking at him, my only concern is that Man City is willing to sell him to us.

In other words, they've determined that selling him cheap (by their standards) to a Championship club is the best they'll get. He's only 19 but they've obviously determined his development ceiling would still give him no chance of getting near the first team.
I guess he could still be a good player for us, but the experience with Ibe has sort of scarred me permanently.
Click to expand...

Not quite. It's a sign they've learnt from the Sancho mistake. They've determined he isn't ready for their first team squad, and may not be for several years. They have three options:

1 - Let him run his contract down and leave with no say in the matter like with Sancho

2 - Keep him in contract and out on loan for several years to see if he develops. It can work (see Harry Kane) but some players need a settled environment to really develop

3 - Sell him but with a buyback clause. Then he has a chance to develop in a system and, if he makes large strides, they can nab him back at below market value.

So from Man City's point of view, it lets him mature whilst retaining an element of control on his future.

The problem for them is if he makes an interim move then he'll be out of their clutches.

Ibe had a buyback clause. Liverpool got to see if he could make it at no risk to them.

Personally, I'd ban buyback clauses but then I'd also restrict teams from player hoarding. Neither will happen as they both favour the six.
 
Surely the option to buy fee will be agreed now. If we say we want to sign him at the end of the season and they want him back, they would have to negotiate at a fee with us.
 
Audenshaw Cherry said:
Please tell me, because I really don't know, is it an 'Option' or 'Obligation'? I have heard both used.
Click to expand...

Both were reported in advance of the deal but looks like it's confirmed as an option since on COWS it says:

" Rogers has joined the Cherries on a season-long loan from Premier League champions Manchester City in a move which could be made permanent with an option as part of the agreement."
 
kirsikka said:
Not quite. It's a sign they've learnt from the Sancho mistake. They've determined he isn't ready for their first team squad, and may not be for several years. They have three options:

1 - Let him run his contract down and leave with no say in the matter like with Sancho

2 - Keep him in contract and out on loan for several years to see if he develops. It can work (see Harry Kane) but some players need a settled environment to really develop

3 - Sell him but with a buyback clause. Then he has a chance to develop in a system and, if he makes large strides, they can nab him back at below market value.

So from Man City's point of view, it lets him mature whilst retaining an element of control on his future.

The problem for them is if he makes an interim move then he'll be out of their clutches.

Ibe had a buyback clause. Liverpool got to see if he could make it at no risk to them.

Personally, I'd ban buyback clauses but then I'd also restrict teams from player hoarding. Neither will happen as they both favour the six.
Click to expand...
But is there a buyback clause?
I thought there was an option for us to buy - which would at least put the ball in our court, sort of.
Are you suggesting that the details of that option to buy are already determined, and that they will have to include a buyback clause?
 
canadiancherry said:
But is there a buyback clause?
I thought there was an option for us to buy - which would at least put the ball in our court, sort of.
Are you suggesting that the details of that option to buy are already determined, and that they will have to include a buyback clause?
Click to expand...

We've already seen the fee of £8-9m mentioned when it was an 'obligation' to buy... It seems to have changed globally now to an 'option' to buy which could have been why there was a delay in announcing it.

Maybe we decided we couldn't afford for this to be another Jordan Ibe and wanted to renegotiate to an 'option'..? Nine million would be a lot for us to fork out next summer on a youngster that didn't perform... The downside of that is Man City would still hold most of the cards as if he does perform, would either want to keep him or we'd have to stump up serious cash... maybe double the initial 'obligation' fee...

All speculation of course :)
 
Option to buy usually indicates the decision is in the hands of the buying club at a pre-agreed fee. In which case there's no reason not to have negotiated buyback clauses at the same time. I would imagine Man City would have insisted on them.
 
Option to buy means we have the option to purchase at a set fee if we want to. The only difference between option and obligation is that we can back out if we want to.
 
Maybe the obligation and option are dependent on certain elements like games played and promotion? So technically it's an option that becomes an obligation if those criteria are met.

Imagine that if we get promoted and we get the fat reward of promotion, if you are Man City then you might want that to trigger the obligation so they share our spoils regardless of how many games he played. We might agree but only if he plays 40% of the games to avoid buying someone who wasn't all that. If Rogers then proves himself in the PL the next season, you might then want a buyback clause if you are City so you don't have to pay £50m to get him back.

Could be as simple or as complicated as they want.
 
If he turns out to be red hot for us during the season are Citeh going to hang on to him rather then sell him to us for (by their standards) a bargain fee?
 
wingsnwheels said:
If he turns out to be red hot for us during the season are Citeh going to hang on to him rather then sell him to us for (by their standards) a bargain fee?
Click to expand...
Doubt it.....the reality is he could be incredible for us ....be top scorer in this league and still be a million miles away from the Man City team......these kids they have are just a way of managing FFP .
 
ChampagneCherry said:
Maybe the obligation and option are dependent on certain elements like games played and promotion? So technically it's an option that becomes an obligation if those criteria are met.

Imagine that if we get promoted and we get the fat reward of promotion, if you are Man City then you might want that to trigger the obligation so they share our spoils regardless of how many games he played. We might agree but only if he plays 40% of the games to avoid buying someone who wasn't all that. If Rogers then proves himself in the PL the next season, you might then want a buyback clause if you are City so you don't have to pay £50m to get him back.

Could be as simple or as complicated as they want.
Click to expand...

I seem to recall Wolves having an obligation to buy Benik Afobe if he played a certain number if games. Harry Arter at Fulham too if they got promoted and he played a certain number if games?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;