Bukayo Saka (7)

[theHotHead]

Zenith makes a great point

I think now we have been seeing clubs now being so greedy for players that hit a bit of form being worth £70m-£100m (A la Nunez maybe?), that we will see more players run down their deals, with the examples that Zenith has mentioned and Mbappe just another.

That is one element, but also you can be these players with a lower/nil transfer fee will get huge signing fees. For all the talk of Haaland being so cheap at £50m, his signing bonus and his agent bonus would top that up to a sizeable investment.

Oh absolutely, its like the short-sightedness of claiming victory getting a player for "free" but spending an astronomical amount of money on their wages. I have no doubt Haaland is getting a huuuuge signing on bonus, after all, he didn't have to say yes to Man City. So if you want me here .. you gots to pay !!

[Salibatelli]

Even if you factor in signing on fees, it’s still a significant saving, he’d be worth 100 million plus (actually valued at 130 milllion).

As for wages, you’d be paying those regardless, not sure they are much higher than they would be if you paid the full amount for him.

Haaland is only 22 as well which makes him a great investment.

[ag6789]

I don't see a big problem in setting a high sale value in his clause. If he doesn't agree now , he still has two years to think about it. If we do well this season, he'll probably change his mind, if not he'll go, nothing much can be done about it.
If we had made CL this last season, and next year, MC or Chelsea approached Saka with double/treble his salary, he'll go anyway ( play all kind of games then like Cesc). Loyalty means nothing in football nowadays.

[Salibatelli]

I can’t see why a player who wants a release clause in his contract would accept a high release clause, the whole point of the release clause would be to give him the option to choose if he wanted to move if a club came in for him.

I’d expect he’d want to set something like a 45-50 million clause or thereabouts, thus the club get a reasonably decent fee and he doesn’t price himself out of a move.

[Angelito]

Why won't we be able to sell Saka this summer? He is great and all that but he is not irreplaceable for the right money.

We need to start being bolder in our negotiations like Daniel Levy! David Dean would not have allowed these contract mistakes to keep happening! Why should we be different to all the other clubs in the league when it comes to this stuff?
Tell these players to sign or f**k off! As you mentioned, it's a WC year. We hold the keys to their future. I am convinced Saka will sign but if he plays hard ball, it's be sold or don't play this side of the world cup.

It doesn't work that way, unfortunately.

From the club's perspective, If we sell Saka this summer, the club would have to double-down on all the PR it's dished out since Arteta took charge.

There are possibly five clubs that could pay big money for Saka—City, Liverpool, PSG, Real, and ManU. Real and PSG aren't interested for now. ManU have their own issues. That brings it down to City and Liverpool. None of them are desperate to sign Saka.

If shit really hit the fan, we still wouldn't get more than £75m for Saka even if we did decide to sell him. If we do sell Saka, it'd put KSE is extreme negative light.

Saka has all the balls in his court.

You mention Dein. But remember, he's one of the players partly responsible for the existing state of the club. It's something that's not mentioned enough.

Levy asked for £150m for Kane. City's offer was £80m + £20m in add-ons. City weren't willing to go over £100m for Harry Kane. They're not going to break the bank for Saka.

That's ignoring Kane's unwillingness to move abroad; Kane being England captain and his dream of breaking Shearer's arbitrary Premier League goalscoring record.

I don't see a big problem in setting a high sale value in his clause. If he doesn't agree now , he still has two years to think about it. If we do well this season, he'll probably change his mind, if not he'll go, nothing much can be done about it.
If we had made CL this last season, and next year, MC or Chelsea approached Saka with double/treble his salary, he'll go anyway ( play all kind of games then like Cesc). Loyalty means nothing in football nowadays.

That's the problem though. Loyalty is a two-way street.

Do you think clubs are loyal entities? Are players sole culprits in this existing model we live under?

Far from it.

Clubs don't think twice before dispatching players if they're surplus to requirements. It's unrealistic to expect an individual to remain loyal to a corporate entity when the latter doesn't want to reciprocate.

We're desperate to extend Saka's contract because he's a high-value "asset," today for Arsenal. If events take a tragic turn, we wouldn't bat an eyelid before disposing him.

I don't think it's become as apparent. But football—and society in general—has devolved into a dystopian reality. We're simply accustomed to it, hence, we think it's the norm.

Sports-people have limited time-frames to achieve their goals, to earn money. We can't blame them for optimizing on self-security when their stock is high. If they don't protect their interests, clubs surely won't.

As Zenith mentioned, we've seen an increasing trend of players running down their contracts. In fact, Wenger predicted this back in 2015. Just look at the Mbappe drama. He had both PSG and Real Madrid dancing to his tunes and ultimately, took the most lucrative financial proposition on the table. It wasn't that solely but he'd have won either way.

If Saka wants to leave, it's not out of a lack of loyalty. He's simply looking out for himself. If he doesn't, or his agent doesn't, the club isn't going to. That's the cold truth.

[StockGooner]

Even if you factor in signing on fees, it’s still a significant saving, he’d be worth 100 million plus (actually valued at 130 milllion).

As for wages, you’d be paying those regardless, not sure they are much higher than they would be if you paid the full amount for him.

Haaland is only 22 as well which makes him a great investment.

I still think they are considerably higher. Sure someone can find more relevant, modern types but Campbell came to us on £100k a week? Astronomical, but because he was a free agent. I still think it's common practice as generally speaking the reaosn player is going on a free is because they have signed a contract years prior and have developed since then with little increase in wages, so it's almost backpay for them.

Take Saka, if he is on £40k now and turns us down and goes for free in two years, he'll say he missed out on £60k for two years, so £6m and he wants that to be included in his wages and signing on fee as well as what he's worth now

[Hypergooner]

@ Angelito, is does work like that if there are live buyers. Although on a different scale completely, I have to deal with contracts daily. If I have a really good supplier but we can't agree to terms on contract renewals, we have a very open conversation about me looking to shift them on for the long term stability of my business. For the remainder of the contract, they get the scraps while I try out new suppliers on the bigger and more profitable work! They usually see their potential losses and terms are agreed!

To put it in Saka terms. We love him playing for us, we want to keep him, but he has to know we can't get to a point where we loose out as his contract wears down. If terms can't be agreed, we will have to look to sell him for proffit now, if we can find buyer and get suitable replacement. If we can't find a buyer, he doesn’t get the game time he wants while we give some other players a chance. This might not be what he wants (or us) but it is fair!

It's a WC year. He needs to be playing to make the squad. He'll sign or find a buyer, or miss a great career opportunity at the WC!

[swipe right]

Gavi’s new contract has a billion euro release clause.

[EliteKiller]

@ Angelito, is does work like that if there are live buyers. Although on a different scale completely, I have to deal with contracts daily. If I have a really good supplier but we can't agree to terms on contract renewals, we have a very open conversation about me looking to shift them on for the long term stability of my business. For the remainder of the contract, they get the scraps while I try out new suppliers on the bigger and more profitable work! They usually see their potential losses and terms are agreed!

To put it in Saka terms. We love him playing for us, we want to keep him, but he has to know we can't get to a point where we loose out as his contract wears down. If terms can't be agreed, we will have to look to sell him for proffit now, if we can find buyer and get suitable replacement. If we can't find a buyer, he doesn’t get the game time he wants while we give some other players a chance. This might not be what he wants (or us) but it is fair!

It's a WC year. He needs to be playing to make the squad. He'll sign or find a buyer, or miss a great career opportunity at the WC!

You make a strong argument much of which I agree with, where I think you miss the reality is that, to use your analogy, you have a really good supplier but he has a dozen companies wanting him to supply them instead. Indeed they will offer him better terms than you. Sure you can enforce the contract, pay him in full whilst no longer using his full services (Ozil, Auba) but that hurts you as much as it does them. Your only real option is to give him what he is being offered elsewhere or replace his services with a similar or better supplier.

In a supply and demand market as long as the demand is greater than the supply (in this case a potential world class player) it will always be the supplier who holds the cards. The ONLY chance you have of keeping them is with high value long term contract that gives them the rewards (CL, Trophies, Money) that they seek - and just look how some of our recent attempts at those have worked out.

Just maybe Saka has a loyalty streak that is stronger than his desire for CL, Trophies, Money but most of us don't, he knows that once he no longer meets the club's needs their loyalty will be zero, we all know that, why should we expect any difference?

It's tough to accept but we just might have missed our moment when we didn't extend last year, that was the moment before Saka became an established international and before his value was common knowledge. Not doing that was a failure at board/manager level, we are not alone in making that mistake we just seem to repeat it more than most.

[Hypergooner]

@ Angelito, is does work like that if there are live buyers. Although on a different scale completely, I have to deal with contracts daily. If I have a really good supplier but we can't agree to terms on contract renewals, we have a very open conversation about me looking to shift them on for the long term stability of my business. For the remainder of the contract, they get the scraps while I try out new suppliers on the bigger and more profitable work! They usually see their potential losses and terms are agreed!

To put it in Saka terms. We love him playing for us, we want to keep him, but he has to know we can't get to a point where we loose out as his contract wears down. If terms can't be agreed, we will have to look to sell him for proffit now, if we can find buyer and get suitable replacement. If we can't find a buyer, he doesn’t get the game time he wants while we give some other players a chance. This might not be what he wants (or us) but it is fair!

It's a WC year. He needs to be playing to make the squad. He'll sign or find a buyer, or miss a great career opportunity at the WC!

You make a strong argument much of which I agree with, where I think you miss the reality is that, to use your analogy, you have a really good supplier but he has a dozen companies wanting him to supply them instead. Indeed they will offer him better terms than you. Sure you can enforce the contract, pay him in full whilst no longer using his full services (Ozil, Auba) but that hurts you as much as it does them. Your only real option is to give him what he is being offered elsewhere or replace his services with a similar or better supplier.

In a supply and demand market as long as the demand is greater than the supply (in this case a potential world class player) it will always be the supplier who holds the cards. The ONLY chance you have of keeping them is with high value long term contract that gives them the rewards (CL, Trophies, Money) that they seek - and just look how some of our recent attempts at those have worked out.

Just maybe Saka has a loyalty streak that is stronger than his desire for CL, Trophies, Money but most of us don't, he knows that once he no longer meets the club's needs their loyalty will be zero, we all know that, why should we expect any difference?

It's tough to accept but we just might have missed our moment when we didn't extend last year, that was the moment before Saka became an established international and before his value was common knowledge. Not doing that was a failure at board/manager level, we are not alone in making that mistake we just seem to repeat it more than most.

That's exactly my point. If Saka has all the companies(teams) wanting his services, he better go play for them as we won't used him. We will sell him while the price is high.
It's still a ball ache setting up for a new team, relocating, changing your delivery model to suit them etc. Or he could get more money to stay where he is by signing the contract extension.
If he stays win win
If he leaves win win

As it stands, it's only win for Saka, not us. Which is not right. He needs to sign or be sold

[theHotHead]

You can only sell him if he agrees to be sold, thats where your process falls down HyperGooner.

[Hypergooner]

As I said, if he wants to be playing regularly this side of a WC, he needs to sign or find a buyer. It's not about us not respecting him or anything. We have made it quite clear we love him by offering loads more money to stay. It's about our failing transfer model, by letting players run down contracts, not put as much in for the final months and us loosing transfer fees!
We're not talking about Henry here! As good as Saka is, he's not single handedly dragging us in to CL finals and top 2 finishes.

[Power n Glory]

As I said, if he wants to be playing regularly this side of a WC, he needs to sign or find a buyer. It's not about us not respecting him or anything. We have made it quite clear we love him by offering loads more money to stay. It's about our failing transfer model, by letting players run down contracts, not put as much in for the final months and us loosing transfer fees!
We're not talking about Henry here! As good as Saka is, he's not single handedly dragging us in to CL finals and top 2 finishes.

Everyone understands the hardline stance you're presenting but it's whether it's enforceable and realistic. Saka is the poster child for Project Youth 2.0 and the 'Process'. If we sell this summer or decide to freeze him out, which is cutting our nose to spite our face, how do you think the fans would react?

You've seen and acknowledged the crazy transfer fees for players. Replacing Saka won't be cheap or easy. He contributed to 19 goals last season and we were close to a CL finish. Losing him could harm our CL chances and trying to freeze him out of the team drops his value, which harms us off the pitch as well.

We don't hold the best cards in this situation no nlmagger how it is sliced. But we have to make a tough choice.

[DiamondGooner]

You can only sell him if he agrees to be sold, thats where your process falls down HyperGooner.

............ well there are some dark arts to that isn't there.

If Saka is being difficult and looking like he wants to run down the clock to get a free then you put him bang up for sale while his stock is high, get £75-£90m by engaging a bidding war so you can buy a top replacement.

If Liverpool come in with £80m and Saka sticks his nose up and won't sign a new deal then he's played his hand .......... and we tell him, fine, rot on the bench for 2 years then see your value plummet, don't even let him play a reserve game.

When someones out to bend you over a barrel you have to deal in extremes or get played, simple as that, give them something to lose, we both make good or we both jump off the cliff, make it his choice to slit his own wrist.......... most choose not to, even Ozil got a deal arranged for himself in the end, as did Auba to avoid that situation.

[Hypergooner]

As I said, if he wants to be playing regularly this side of a WC, he needs to sign or find a buyer. It's not about us not respecting him or anything. We have made it quite clear we love him by offering loads more money to stay. It's about our failing transfer model, by letting players run down contracts, not put as much in for the final months and us loosing transfer fees!
We're not talking about Henry here! As good as Saka is, he's not single handedly dragging us in to CL finals and top 2 finishes.

Everyone understands the hardline stance you're presenting but it's whether it's enforceable and realistic. Saka is the poster child for Project Youth 2.0 and the 'Process'. If we sell this summer or decide to freeze him out, which is cutting our nose to spite our face, how do you think the fans would react?

You've seen and acknowledged the crazy transfer fees for players. Replacing Saka won't be cheap or easy. He contributed to 19 goals last season and we were close to a CL finish. Losing him could harm our CL chances and trying to freeze him out of the team drops his value, which harms us off the pitch as well.

We don't hold the best cards in this situation no nlmagger how it is sliced. But we have to make a tough choice.

I Don't agree that it's hard line. It's just honesty and very much depends on how it's present. I'd like to think fans were bright enough to understand if the club explained the position honestly.
Our transfer policy has put us in a financial and sporting mess. We need to get out of it, if we have any hope of being a top team again!

The numbers say it all!

Saka signs for £120k per week for 6 years, thats total loss -£37.44m and we keep a poster boy. Best case!

If he doesn't sign leaves in 2 years at £40k per week, that’s -£4.16m. We buy -£40m replacement on £100k PW thats -£20.8m total loss = -£64.96m Over 6 years. Worst case!

We sell him for £70m now, cheap for a player of his quality and age. Buy £40m experienced replacement on £100k pw, 6 year deal, that’s £71.2m. Toal loss -£1.2m