Daryl Dike

Seems a bit dodgy. But also very risky. What if you were to buy, but the option to sell fell through?

 

The ethical issue is that we're not in a position to afford his contract. So we have no wish to actually have the player, other than to try and take a slice of the fee. We're effectively acting as an agent and just taking a finders fee. Thats whats unethical.

If this is ethical, so was the ownership by third parties of Carlos Tevez. So is the selling of grounds to owners for the illusion of short term cashflow. So is loaning a whole club from an owner from another club (Watford).

We all have different ethics of course, but this doesn't sit well with me at all.

Loan a player, buy him, develop him over time, sell him. No problem with that, but this? No, not good.

 

Just that. What’s hard to understand?.

 

Clubs will want to see more than a few months worth of performance before parting with that sort of money. You have to be a standout for at least a full season, like Watkins was and it took him a year or two to get to that level.

 

I remember watching him during the half time interval once, players usually look cool pinging the ball to each other and doing little flicks and tricks, he even looked hopeless at that!

 

Not sure why DWLC, it seems to me to be an arrangement that suits all parties. Dike gets game time and we're giving him a chance by putting him in the shop window. We are going to be paying wages of some description, so why shouldn't we make some money if it goes well?

 

I doubt it's illegal (will be interesting to see what the footballing authorities would make of it if he was moderately successful and was sold off and if they changed their terms as they did when Watford became Udinese for a season).

It's just not football because its not the natural cycle of a footballer. We're almost acting as agent. And the thought of us (or anyone) becoming sales agents with multiple of these players in the side every season just to take a slice and make a quick buck really doesn't sit well with me at all.

I'm not going to judge til it's over and see what happens with his ownership. But as I say, this goes well against my ethics and just feels a seedy grubby way of trying to make money.

And there's no need for kisses either ;-)

 

Hopefully we're paying wages, otherwise it gets grubbier still.

 

Does anyone know if he takes penalties?

If he does it will be Deekay on PKs. The American commentators will love that.

 

If it was the twitter link, it said it didn't work in Europe.

I've no issue buying players to develop and sell. But he's not our player. And we can't afford him. That's what we've been doing for decades, and many other clubs too.

And let's think this through. What happens if it succeeds? We make a few million off it. We do it again. Are we going to have half a team of such an approach? What does that do to our actual players that they get bumped while we act as estate agents showing off someone elses asset? What does it do for team unity?

What do buying teams think? And could they just get in touch with the loaning club, ask them to let the loan lapse and buy at a lower price but one that gives them more money?

What if the Championship just decide its going to act as sales agents for other clubs?

But my main issue is we can't afford him. Where would the money come from initially (if say its in the realms of £4-10m). A bridging loan? (We know the mess these owners created at Nice lining up shonky credit lines). No upfront sale monies til we've sold?

It's just another avenue that takes the heart out of football and is ethically dubious.

 

How does this arrangement help Orlando?

If he does OK with us, then surely any club could approach Orlando directly after his term with us ends, and cut out the middleman (i.e.us).

I understand that he gets some exposure in playing with us, but he could achieve that anywhere else, if he's so much in demand.

It might be the case that we are obliged to play him so many times just to satisfy this apparent arrangement, and have him in the shop window. Which would be a ****** if he's a dud.

I'm probably missing summat obvious.

 

It's not a question of positivity, and who the player is doesn't come into the relevance of it. It's an ethical one.

Was it ethical that Wayne Rooneys salary was paid by a betting company that then had him wear their short number? As an aside, I'm amazed nothing more has been made of this. But it highlights where this game of ours is. Where a quick buck, a shady trade, a leveraged buyout, indebtedness and flips, land transfers and who knows what else are all being used for a hoped boost that give a club a perceived advantage or prevent a disadvantage.

The issues that could follow have to be considered ahead of doing something.

Anyway.... i have to turn to chef duties, so you're saved from a lengthier diatribe of concerns for football and our part in it tarnishing the game we all love just a little bit more.

 

She also this about the fee:
The price tag is correct, but the likelihood of a Championship team being able to shell that out is fairly low. But this gets him onto the English market, and if Dike performs the way the Orlando City FO certainly thinks he can, it could raise his stock for a future transfer.

So in conjunction with what you have summarised that says to me that if someone offered 20 we would buy for X and sell for 20.

 

This thread though! I think we're getting waaaaaaay ahead of ourselves looking at the intricacies of a $30 million buy out clause for someone who's barely played any football. I like a bit of speculation as much as the next man/woman/zer but this is like planning on what you're going to do with your winnings after you've just bought a lottery ticket and getting into a heated argument with your wife about it.