Shaqiri's deal is also paid in installments just like nearly every transfer deal so how are Juve getting a better deal 
Buy on AliExpress.com
Winter Mercato 2015 (66 Viewers)
- Thread starter Mark
- Start date
- Status
Buy on AliExpress.com
For sure it is logical. You're not going to outlay cash in one shot, but whether you go through a bank or a counterparty should depend on the implicit interest rate.
My guess is that the smaller serie a clubs allow more deferred payments than the larger ones with more cash payable later.
For example, Hypothetically, let's say Bayern could pay 10 million over 3 years or 8 million upfront (which would for sure be part of the conversation), Bayern which probably borrows at 1% should use their credit facility to borrow the cash, and pay it off over three years.)
Depending on what Juve's cost of borrow is, it definitely would make sense to pay cash upfront to open up more transfer opportunities with larger clubs, rather than haggle over the years that the payments are spread over. A counter party is a counter party and regardless of whether it is a bank or Manchester City, the payment is to be paid. Although it is definitely easier for a bank to push a team into liquidation than another club.
Although one thing is for sure...the leverage metrics optically look better if you use instalments vs. financial debt, even though regardless, you owe the cash.
Then again, as you suggested, it shouldn't be a deal breaker, which leads me to think the Italian clubs (particularly Juventus) are placing a lot of value on loans with the option to buy because they don't want Amauri's or Krasic's. Bayern may have wanted to just sell Shaqiri rather than do the loan deal, vs. Pereyra where Juve was able to utilize that structure. That being said, Pereyra's performance has not been enough to justify a 17 million transfer fee, so why would we pick up the option?
My guess is that the smaller serie a clubs allow more deferred payments than the larger ones with more cash payable later.
For example, Hypothetically, let's say Bayern could pay 10 million over 3 years or 8 million upfront (which would for sure be part of the conversation), Bayern which probably borrows at 1% should use their credit facility to borrow the cash, and pay it off over three years.)
Depending on what Juve's cost of borrow is, it definitely would make sense to pay cash upfront to open up more transfer opportunities with larger clubs, rather than haggle over the years that the payments are spread over. A counter party is a counter party and regardless of whether it is a bank or Manchester City, the payment is to be paid. Although it is definitely easier for a bank to push a team into liquidation than another club.
Although one thing is for sure...the leverage metrics optically look better if you use instalments vs. financial debt, even though regardless, you owe the cash.
Then again, as you suggested, it shouldn't be a deal breaker, which leads me to think the Italian clubs (particularly Juventus) are placing a lot of value on loans with the option to buy because they don't want Amauri's or Krasic's. Bayern may have wanted to just sell Shaqiri rather than do the loan deal, vs. Pereyra where Juve was able to utilize that structure. That being said, Pereyra's performance has not been enough to justify a 17 million transfer fee, so why would we pick up the option?
- Status