Going to be interesting to see whether Mangala was an obligation or option to buy in the summer, as he's barely playing for Lyon and it seems unlikely they are going to want to make it permanent. I think he's going to be back on our books in a few weeks.
a year ago
86
Is that PSR blown for another year then if we were banking on the permanent fee?
From official site:
The agreed fee seemed quite remarkable for a fairly unremarkable player and it seems Lyon think the same.
The loan fee was about £10m with agreed purchase of £16m. I still think there will be be suitors across Europe for a Belgian international at that price.
Dunno. As said by @Seven, seems likely someone will want him.
I guess as we paid £13m for him, and got a £10m loan fee for six months we're still doing pretty well out of the situation. If we managed to sell him for say £20m , him coming back here then being re-sold could actually be advantageous to PSR.
Problem is that the official site (Shelvey loan/Wood transfer) is sometimes wrong.
I think it is moot as we would probably have had to sell Murillo or MGW by the end of June even with the Mangala fee.
£10m loan fee sounds a cracking piece of business - Lyon may make it permanent anyway on the basis that the £10m is a sunk cost - they may as well pay the £15m as they think they can sell him for £20m?
IF we stay up, then a £10m loan fee and getting one of our better midfielders from the first half of the season back, might not be bad business.
IIRC he was happy at Forest and it was a mainly a financial thing? Dunno.
I am also sometimes (often?) wrong, but feel pretty sure the Mangala deal was reported as an obligation to buy at the time - at least in some quarters.
If you're going down the sunk cost route, then that's in the past, and they now have to evaluate if they want to buy Mangala for £15m. Given he's started 6 games in 4.5 months I'm not sure that they will. Though maybe. I couldn't say I know much about their finances to judge whether they can have a £15m squad player. They also may think, as he did with Forest, that he needs some time to adjust to the league.
I recall reading he was keen on the move.
I thought that too - but when I googled it, the reports at the time seem to say it was an option
I was more meaning that if he is worth £20m they may want to pay £15m and then sell him for £20m rather than sending him back and us getting the extra £5m
Aren't these often a bit "nudge and wink"? You claim it's an option so that you can move the cost/income to the period when you want to book it but the three parties have agreed that it will definitely happen.
Similar to us making Wood's transfer dependent on him being in three matchday squads, which people got very confused by (why would we set such a low bar?) but was obviously designed to be basically inevitable.
Indeeed. @JimShady it’s not a simple sunk cost thing if the £10m also comes with the right to buy at a discounted price. If he value is higher than the agreed price and they send him back, they’re throwing away value.
Stop mansplaining guys. I did a Diploma in Finance in 2008. I'm the expert here and clearly know what I'm talking about.
The Premier League season finishes mid May, then the Euros start mid June. I don't think we're going to be able to easily sell anyone in that period and if we do it will be discounted because they will know we have to make a deal.
