Agree. Unlike with Gil - in my opinion PL/Champo loan was not a must, since i'm not concerned about his physicality. As long as he will play some minutes at competitive level - should be good loan.
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Player Alejo Veliz
- Thread starter The Fighting Cock
- Start date
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
Agree. Unlike with Gil - in my opinion PL/Champo loan was not a must, since i'm not concerned about his physicality. As long as he will play some minutes at competitive level - should be good loan.
Another fucking loan to Spain? At a guess this is just Espanyol will pay more of his wages or something.
It's the second best league in the world, if he actually gets consistent game time it will do wonders for his development.
I’m not sure why we wouldn’t/couldn’t add some sort of option to buy on loans like these that are pretty unattainable but give the loan club more reason to play him.
As it is, Espanyol doesn’t really have much reason to give Veliz any leash, just like Sevilla.
If we placed like a 30 million option to buy, it’s very unlikely that they would ever trigger that barring some outlandish season that led to them earning a CL place, but at least they’d have some motivation to develop him.
As it is, Espanyol doesn’t really have much reason to give Veliz any leash, just like Sevilla.
If we placed like a 30 million option to buy, it’s very unlikely that they would ever trigger that barring some outlandish season that led to them earning a CL place, but at least they’d have some motivation to develop him.
All this assumed that we want to sell him....................
The exact opposite.
The entire point of loans is to get our players some game time. When the club getting the loaned player knows he is just going back to his parent club, no questions asked, it disincentivizes them to develop the player.
I am saying that if we include a pretty substantial option to buy, they likely aren’t going to pick up the option barring some unbelievable circumstances but at least they would have motivation to play and develop him because he COULD be a player of theirs if things go well.
Hopefully he hits the ground running and Espanyol have no choice but to select him but I have a feeling if he doesn’t, and drops a few stinkers in a row, they’ll go back to what got them promoted and he’ll be back where he was at Sevilla.
I'm guessing an 'option to buy' would also need the prior agreement of the player - and if that clause was in the agreement, he might think his time is up at Spurs anyway.
Over complicated thinking......
a) You're not gonna provide an option to buy unless you're open to the idea of selling.
b) An 'overpriced' option to buy isn't going to motivate selection; performances will.
c) You're giving off signals to the player that they're not wanted here.
I can appreciate that it’s not as simple as I make it seem, I am sure there are so many steps and pieces of the puzzle that go into play with any move.
However, I think just sitting down with Alejo and telling him prior to the loan that he is still absolutely in the plans and the move with an option to buy that will almost assuredly not be picked up is simply to motivate the club to work through any perceived lack of form rather than dropping you from the XI or even entirely from the squad at the first sign of a drop in form.
A) anyone should be available for the right price, Veliz of all people is not an exception.
B) generally true; however the leash is always shorter when the player has no chance to be a club investment.
C) I think a sit down about the reasonings behind it can quell any signals. And again, any player is available for the right price.
Tidy soundbite; but If a manager wants them and the club can afford to keep them then that's a dicey game to play.
Ok..... If you're not keen on the general truth when exploring rhetorical scenarios; let's get specific:
.......In a scenario where we have no desire to sell him; what price should we put on Veliz's head if we're gonna expect it to convince the loan club to play him regularly? (Bearing in mind we spent 17m on him.)
Secondly:
........How many goals this season do you think he needs to score for the loan club to become interested in paying said price?
You’re trying to fire up a debate that I have no interest in.
I agreed that it’s true that an option to buy doesn’t guarantee playing time, good performances are the best way to guarantee that. However, my point is that teams give more leeway to club assets or potential club assets. The entire reason for sending players out on loan is to get the game time they wouldn’t get here. What’s the point if he just rots on the bench?
We’ve seen it once already with this player, in this league, getting zero game time at a club that was/will likely be battling relegation on loan with no option to buy.
You can put a recall in the loan agreement. Doesn't play x games by Christmas then recall.
With respect; you replied by my OG 1 liner with 3 paragraphs.
Ironically; you could have answered my last 2 very basic questions in far less time than it took to write the following:
.......Telling me that 'game-time is good' and 'no game-time = bad loan' is entirely unnecessary.
I just maintain that dangling players like carrots is not a good idea. It can blow up in our face for more than one reason; whilst conversely, it is a low % chance of working in the manner you suggest.
The archetypal good loan that everyone cites here is Skipp/Norwich >>>>> No option to buy required.
One of him & Scarlet was always gonna end up on loan.... Maybe both if we bought someone new.
