Liverpool Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread Summer 2014 - Mod Warning post #6893

Blatter wrote: »

- Good player and brilliant professional

- By all accounts a huge fan of the club - provides extra motivation to do well

- Seems like the type of player that wouldn't struggle to 'settle in' - you know what you're going to get.

- Provides another option up front

- Would be an excellent 'impact' player

- Would be happy to play backup

- Wages would more than likely be modest



It would come down to the transfer fee but I can definitely see why Liverpool would be in for him. They don't need more starters up front, they need good quality, reliable backup - and he would provide that.

100% agree. this could be the BR equivalent of when we signed Gary McAllister aged 35 and what an impact he had for a couple of years!!

Ben

I thought Rodgers did not want to play with a target man hence why he got rid of Andy Carroll. At least Lambert can take set pieces.
Hopefully it will work out well. Lallana would be a decent signing along with Moreno.

Utopia Parkway wrote: »

4M plus add-ons for Lambert it seems.

Sounds about right and a good signing at that price. 9m stuff sky are saying is ridiculous.

Suarezistheman wrote: »

your dead aunt takes a mean corner??? (RIP)

She's great on crosses as well.

Whatever about the ins and outs of the transfer it's unbelievable for Lambert himself. Lifelong Liverpool fan signs for the club at 32.

Agueroooo wrote: »

Look i realise we ain't a charity and at the end of the day it's Southampton's money to creatively slice up as much as the like to screw over B'mouth, but still it's a crumby thing to do.

I'm not looking for an argument here Agueroooo, honestly, but my view is that sell on clauses are a bit like earn out clauses in the sale of a business. The buyer is only prepared to pay €x for the asset (player or business) and the seller want's €y. The best way to close the gap can often be a contingent earn out/sell on clause which may or may not happen. In such a circumstance the seller is usually receiving the minimum they'd accept for the asset whilst the buyer is paying the max they are prepared to pay. If the earn out/sell on happens it will be cream on top or a premium. Both parties do the deal with the seller thinking "maybe I'll get another €xxx if the earn out/sell on ever happens" and the buyer thinks "there's no chance the earn out/sell on will ever happen".

Fast forward a few years (14 in this case) a situation arises which is way beyond anything anyone had ever anticipated and all of a sudden a 25% sell on fee which on a good day might have possibly amounted to €3m all of a sudden could amount to £7m and you have £4m reasons why Southampton want to minimise the sell on fee.

Minimising contingent fee's happens all the time in business and the best ways to protect against it happening are to 1) agree cash only deals and/or b) make sure the contingent clause is water tight.

If Bournemouth's sell on clause is simply "we get 25% of any fee Lallana is subsequently sold for" then perhaps next time they are selling on a young talent with potential they will amend same to "we get 25% of any fee Lallana is subsequently sold for and should he be included in a multi player deal or sold to the same club as another player from Southampton within + or - 12 months of being sold himself the fee for Lallana for the purpose of this clause will be determined by an independent valuation expert to be appointed by the FA".

That's how you sometimes have to learn to do business, the hard way!!!

QED :P