I should have worded that differently: .........the one transfer that could potentially undermine our other transfer dealings.
The club would have used alternative asset/assets as guarantee for whatever financial instrument that is issued as part of a transfer deal. Player transfers are more liquid as assets than say real property. From what I understand from reading the entire LOC debate, Stoofs explanation, and my own knowledge from when I was involved in brokering commercial loans between companies in Mexico and lenders in the U.S, real property that is used as a guarantee are harder to structure and take longer to execute, but when the guarantees are backed by liquid assets such as cash, bonds, etc, then the value is higher and the execution somewhat easier. So, if Modric isn't sold, the club may use a different form of asset to guarantee payment to the selling club. I'm not by any means saying this is gospel, merely based on the little I know about such dealings.
As for where the notion that our transfer dealings a dependent on the Modric deal, well that has been mooted by most, if not all, the respected ITK, and again I don't know the validity of of it, but it makes sense to me.
The way we go about our business... trying absolutely everything to get the best price deals for the best strikers in the world... done on the cheap....reminds me of this....(imagine Homer Simpson is Daniel Levy...and Bart Simpson is "AvB" at the "Internacional" signing centre looking to sign Damaio!)
A reminder to those browsing without an account, it's quick and easy to Register Here. Come and join the fun!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.