Daryl Dike

We'd best get a cold bench then, just in case.

 

I can just about understand Chevrolet sponsoring Manure because of its American ownership and the lack of marketshare in the UK, but I'd be very surprised if there has been any material difference to their sales as a result. I'd be very surprised if they continue it after the term ends. Though it seems some of the bigger companies sponsor based on vanity more than actual return.

The manipulation is obvious if an organisation is reliant on a large chunk of revenue. Just like clubs do what Sky say, if a large sponsor puts money in that is significant and its withdrawal would endanger that club, even moreso if a sudden "one off" injection comes about and it relates to a specific player, the clubs integrity can be compromised and external influence could be leveraged on when they do or don't play etc.

I'd be extremely surprised (but I've not seen a sponsorship agreement for probably about 8 years, so there could have been a shift) that sponsorship deals had significant fluctuations based on players signed,,, or indeed sold. Take BFC and when we sold our best players in one window and had a team of kids that struggled. Does that merit a significant reduction in sponsorship fees? It would be a nightmare to initially negotiate and manage thereafter and some of the views of actions good or bad would be hugely subjective. And what if a "key" player gets injured, or say the situation with Diabys ban which wasn't the fault of the cub but had a negative reputational impact. Or think about the Tommy Wright issue. Would a sponsor want to be associated with that? Or what if directors of a company fell out and sued each other? I just use those examples as things as a potential sponsor I wouldn't be very happy about and would maybe tarnish reputation of others associated albeit in a modest way. But even that said, I'd fully expect to have to pay.

And none of it would shift my view about how moral or ethical such agreements would be for Rooney or what we were concerned with re Dike.

Anyway, we disagree amicably, and lets just hope Dike can make a positive impact and it allows a shift to a more aesthetic style of football sooner rather than later.

 

Nah, he can chase down the hoof a bit faster than others...

 

I doubt it will threaten the ball boys jobs.

 

Nope. If he's valued at £10m already, then Orlando can sell him now for that. So either he's worth £10m or he isn't.

Anyway, if he plays for us, and the value increases, then why don't Orlando just let him play with us for a while, go back to them and then they get £14m for him?

We've benefitted by his playing for us for a while.

We're talking Americans here, who are obsessed with the price and profit of everything.

 

Tell you what, I'm excited about this bloke. Big, strong & fast, if he can finish then he's a Kaoda Odajao(Sorry for the spelling) plus.

 

I suspect what will actually happen if he does well is, we'll have a fee agreed only for a bigger club to let him know what they'll pay him if he turns us down, and they'll pay that agreed fee instead. But if that happens, it would still have been worthwhile, because he would've strengthened the team for the second half of the season.

 

Well there would need to be a big fat set of contractual terms to feast upon before you get to an understanding of how this deal suits both parties.

Which would I suspect turn out not not to be incredibly simplistic.

 

I've clearly missed a valuable piece of information here, can anybody link to it?

They way I read it: we've enquired about a player. For whatever reason (there's different theories), Orlando want him to go out loan during their close season, but don't want to sell him (why would they, he's clearly got potential). We've asked about both loaning him and buying him. They've agreed to the loan and then massively overvalued him in terms of transfer fee as they don't want to sell him. The agreement is there in theory for us to buy him, but they know we can't afford him and we know we can't afford him. But that's alright, we get someone who looks pretty decent on loan for a few months. I don't think we're good enough for the play-offs, but looking at the table they're not out of the question, so we've got a striker in for a few months. If he plays well, he'll stay to the end of the season and then go back. If he doesn't and doesn't get in the team, Orlando will recall him. It doesn't do Dike, Oralndo or Barnsley any good to have him freezing his arse off on a Barnsley touchline.

And that's it isn't it? Where did all these dodgy underhand dealings come from? Is there actually any evidence for it or is it just a theory (in the loosest sense of the word)?