Daryl Dike

That would make more sense. I can't see how the club would spend money they don't have because they think they can recoup it quickly. It's the polar opposite of what has been done since they took over.

No doubt if it comes to it, there'll be a range of transfer fees speculated on. Wouldn't be surprised if the overall total was easily our transfer record, but would be heavily dependant on appearances, goals or even promotion. Then there's the fact that in the end, it would be up to the player.

 

Of course it's immoral. It's a short term fudge disguised as commercial innovation. (And don't get me started on the morality of betting firms involvement in football sponsorship.) Derby couldn't afford Rooney, so they looked at ways to fudge it. Just like we can't afford the value of Dyke if the release clause is in the multi millions.

At what point does football look at itself and truly reform? Rather than looking at its inherent failings, its imbalance and obscenity, there is concerted efforts by some (us now included) who look to keep the bandwagon going in the name of innovation.

Consider the influence of external parties, the lengths connected parties will go to to have their "product" in a window for their own commercial benefit.

What you allow today, will be worse tomorrow. Football has shown us that in spades.

 

To be honest, I think the person that originally tweeted the suggestion that we'd buy to sell straight on was talking nonsense. The idea has minefield written all over it, and I can't see a pandemic and empty stadiums as things that reduce the board's aversion to risk.

We could offer an up front fee plus extra for every say, 10 goals. Which would probably offer more value than we've had for any of our other current forwards bar Woodrow and maybe Chaplin.

On the other hand, he could be crap.

 

The potential for an external company to manipulate opportunities and betting markets is huge, particularly if that company in question is a betting company. The moment the locus of control shifts from inner to outer, you have scope for all the worst aspects of commercial and human enterprise to take root.

We obviously fundamentally disagree on this. In your view commercially savvy. In my view immoral and further gradients on a slippery slope.

And just seen the doug o'kane posts, so let's hope that there is truth in those comments and its not verisimilitude. Then we can all hope he does well, that a fee is affordable if it comes to that and there is nothing sinister or grubby to any potential future transfer.

 

* Googles "verisimilitude"*

 

God interview from Dane. Nipped the speculation in the bud. He's getting better at that side of things - this was one of the problems in his first 6 months.

 

You'll find the truth

 

I suspect the recall clause is linked to him not warming his arse on the bench too much

 

I doubt he'd be doing much warming at all in Barnsley, after living in Orlando for a while.

Images of Clint Marcelle in his first winter here spring to mind (albeit a much bulkier version).

 

Maybe the deal is.....

We sign for 1 million, but weve already agreed as part of the loan to put in a 20 million release clause in his permanent contract. Of which it gives the 20% to Orlando...

 

But would you get a VW do such a thing, that sort of industry, more traditional ones, seems to be diminishing and the return on outlay became less obvious (incomes derived from sponsorship and advertising is exceptionally difficult to accurately track unless its through more digital forms which piggyback the referrer). Or is the more natural synergy with a more digital operation? And that's the shift that's occurring with sponsorships. You have some that are used by existing owners to pump money into the club to try and evade financial sanctions (Man City and Sheff Wed as example) and we have a growing number sponsored by betting firms and the obvious link to an industry that could then manipulate for its own good and benefit if it was directly paying for a players wages.

The danger is the hold the "sponsor" has and the leverage it can muster on the entity desperate for money to pay more money to agents and players and keep the plates spinning. And thats why i see it as not only unethical and immoral, but also ultimately dangerous.

And I just base that on whats gone before and the state football is in right now.

 

I have read through all the posts discussing the players potential value ,with speculation about this that & the other, but at the end of the day a player is only worth what a buyer will pay, so until that day arrives everything is speculative guesswork .

 

Don't believe you are missing anything GO.

What you've not missed is the fact that some of the theories in this thread are what you say, full of conspiracy. Conspiracy based on the supposition that the Club, are ("yet again") up to no good. Conspiracy theories speculating that the Club / Dane Murphy are bringing DD into the squad for pure financial (not football) gain.

If they're right they'll say "Told you so".

If they're wrong, they'll say " So what; nothing wrong with a bit of harmless speculation."

Problem is ,it's not harmless.

 

Good to hear Dane clear up the situation pretty quickly. I’m not against us bringing players in on loan with no intentions to buy, but it’s even better with an option to buy. Not to judge somebody from a few clips, but it looks like he has the pace and power that we’re really lacking.

Not sure what the all the attempted justification was about on here, before Dane’s comments came out. If the option had been $20 million, as initially quoted, there’s no way we’d make any profit on him, after just over three months in the Championship. Bonkers to suggest anything different.

 

Taking Dane's comment to be correct, I think this is a very good deal. Dike has the chance to prove himself at a higher level. If it works, we end up with a player we want and need at a price we can afford (definitely not £20 mill then). If it doesn't work out, DD can return to Orlando. Good for us, good for DD. Good for Orlando, as long as they don't renege on the £1-2 million agreed fee.