Most likely because there has been good discussion.
What if. What if. What if.
I'm not worked up I just struggle to see why people have issues with it. It's the cheaper option, it gets us the best possible player on the pitch and everything else is "what if"! What if we can get him perm? What if we can't? What if we spend big on a "perm" player who doesn't stay with us long term anyway? What if we spend big on an alternative who ends up doing a Markovic or an Aquilani. If we move for him I'll be made up. Even on a loan. He's probably only behind Mbappe for me when it comes to talented young wingers we could bring in. Could being a word thats up for debate.
But you aren't interested in understanding why I have an issue with it. You think we should go for him which is fine, but your opinion seems to be hinged primarily on him being a better player than the alternatives.
We have a starting 11 again?
You said you didn't like loans. You gave reasons why but I did my best to show why those reasons don't always hold up. There's many times the loan is better than purchasing. I think it actually boils down to you simply not rating the player.
its never gonna happen here then. Cant see Klopp agreeing to that. Also because he will only be here a year as a loan...
Well your assumption is incorrect.
to be fair the loan system does not tend to be used by ourselves , united , spurs , chelsea , city or arsenal . In fact i can think of very few premier league clubs that have loaned a player in with the option to buy . The league tends to be the richest so buying a permanent player is often the preferred option .
Don't want to jump in between your discussion but Mascherano was a loan wasn't he? It's the only one I can think of anyway.
good spot ! i'd forgotten that loan .
Yeah good call but I think that was a necessity over his third party ownership/having played for Corinthians and West Ham in the same year etc.
Up till recently we've not had too much joy with transfers full stop so not sure why the loan to buy system should be reliant on our success with it as far as judgement goes. If PSG and Bayern Munich and the likes aren't above a decent loan then I don't see why we should look down our nose at it.
Mane, Firmino and Salah? You mean we don't, and Klopp taking players name out of a hat, like ruffle tickets? Come the fuck on, you know exactly what I was talking about. Is Dembele going to be used as regular as Salah, Mane or Firmino? Your fixation with one player, like last January with Lemar and now this fella is getting closer to fantasy mode.
Just like the fixation with not selling Sturridge in January because there's no way that we could cope without him, only for him to break down again as he played a game.
The theory/story/fantasy/possibility is that Barca are maxed out on their allowed wage bill and get into trouble if it stays the same let alone increases. Barca always do a great PR job of how little money they have yet somehow always get the money from somewhere and I don't think anywhere is saying they need to sell to raise money. However they are in a pickle. At the moment they have Suarez & Messi, two of the best forwards in the world but both over 30. They ain't going anywhere for a while but they need to plan succession. They've started with Coutinho and Dembele and want to add Griezmann. Once Messi and Suarez have retired or moved on that would probably be their new attack as things stand. Whilst they are both still there it's a player or two too many for a front three in a league where you don't need to rotate much. So they are in a situation where they want Dembele in a couple of years time but have no room or wages for him in the here and now. Especially if they want to keep the fans happy and the good vibes going by bringing Antoine in. As such the perfect world for Barca is a 2 year loan to an attacking team that will play Dembele so he continues developing and pay enough to fully cover his wages. Then they can bring him back as Messi and/or Suarez leaves the side when he still has 2 years left on his deal. We haven't been directly linked other than Twitter. But after Fabinho it wouldn't surprise me if we aren't linked to players we end up bringing in.
The problem in this case is we sign him on loan and he is a success and Barca decide not to sell him or they set a ridiculous price which essentially wipes out the Coutinho fee or he doesn't impress on loan and we have to find somebody next year anyway by which point the market might not be so deep with alternatives as it is now.
Your view of what loan with an option to buy is different from mine. And you may be right, but I wouldn't expect it to be loan where after the loan we get to name our price and you take it or leave it. I would think it would be agreed upon in advance or set with the market or something like that. Otherwise, what would make that any different than any other loan?
Well to get the right club they may have to accept the option to buy? From their point of view they'd be hoping the player rejects the perm move and goes back to them. In reality a lot can change over two years and their plans now might not be their plans then. This, if any truth to it, is a holding pattern for them. All came from Balague as an option. He is rubbish for a lot but does seem to know bit more than most about what's going on at Barca and Real but he could still be talking out of his arse. My posts on here have been me not able to understand how people see it as bad from a football or business point of view. Can maybe see it as a bit of hurt pride not owning a player who could be one of our best whilst here but Masch was once in that situation, one of our best Cms whilst still owned by West Ham. At least this is Barca and not fucking West ham.
He's on 220,000 a week, so we'd basically have to tear up our wage structure and throw it out the window.
This.
