It's a bit of a stretch but for anyone more familiar with MLS rules is there any value in staggering when you get large amounts of GAM from player transfers. We seem likely to get a large chunk for Taty in the near future. Maybe there is some upside to differing the Sands money for 18 months?
2022 Roster Discussion
- Thread starter Fantazma
- Start date
santi is in preliminary list for WCQ for Uruguay
His hair is not blonde here, they are getting a lesser version of Santi
is will sands not that good that the team is willing to trade him within the league?
Wait shouldn't this be the Sands bother that we loan while selling the other Sands brother?
Incorrect. He sulked, never showed he cared, never celebrated when his teammates scored, never worked hard defensively and played only for himself. His best stretch of play occured when he knew he was getting loaned out and leaving the team.
I can't call him a pitiful person because I don't know him personally. Pitiful footballer and the antithesis of what NYCFC stands for.
Last edited:
Exactly! Josh Saunders is our 2nd all-time leader in saves, shutouts, wins (keeper) and probably every other keeper stat. He will probably hold that position for at least a few more years. Certainly doesn't mean that he was even a decent keeper.
No. This is not the same thing. How many outfield players have we had? 75? How many goalies? 3?
I have a pretty good one. Let us know when you bring something of value to the table around here. Thanks, champ.
There's really no way to judge the Sands loan without knowing the option purchase price. The nature of an 18-month option suggests it should be significantly higher than what they thought they could get right now.
Our FO is so good I cant believe they would make such a lousy deal for Sands as I thought on first impression. If I assume the FO knows what they are doing (I do), this is the scenario I think we are looking at:
1) James Sands is playing for Rangers for 18 months because the FO think it is a good move in his player development and they trust GVB as his Coach.
2) At the end of 18 months NYCFC can force Sands to come back to NYCFC to finish out his contract (they won't but the bottom line is Sands is an NYCFC player at the end of the loan).
3) Rangers exclusive option to buy is actually a right of first refusal to match any transfer offer during or at the end of the loan.
4) Man City will be offering an appropriate transfer fee to move him onto their books in 18 months (e.g. Harrison, Diskerud) for more than any Ranger offer or, alternatively, another club will present an option that CFG accepts on behalf of NYCFC at the end of the loan.
When I make these assumptions I think Sands/Rangers is a win-win deal for Club and player that will provide a financial benefit to NYCFC in the summer of 2024 that is likely to be substantially higher than anything the Club can get today. With some solid Champions League experience for Rangers this plan is making sense to me.
gbservis one upside to getting a transfer fee in 2024 rather than 2022 is that each club will be getting $400K less in annual TAM in 2024 than they will get in 2022, but I dont think thats a significant factor in the structure of the deal -- I think the FO believes James will be more valuable for NYCFC playing for Rangers the next 18 months than he would be continuing to play for NYCFC during that timeframe.
1) James Sands is playing for Rangers for 18 months because the FO think it is a good move in his player development and they trust GVB as his Coach.
2) At the end of 18 months NYCFC can force Sands to come back to NYCFC to finish out his contract (they won't but the bottom line is Sands is an NYCFC player at the end of the loan).
3) Rangers exclusive option to buy is actually a right of first refusal to match any transfer offer during or at the end of the loan.
4) Man City will be offering an appropriate transfer fee to move him onto their books in 18 months (e.g. Harrison, Diskerud) for more than any Ranger offer or, alternatively, another club will present an option that CFG accepts on behalf of NYCFC at the end of the loan.
When I make these assumptions I think Sands/Rangers is a win-win deal for Club and player that will provide a financial benefit to NYCFC in the summer of 2024 that is likely to be substantially higher than anything the Club can get today. With some solid Champions League experience for Rangers this plan is making sense to me.
gbservis one upside to getting a transfer fee in 2024 rather than 2022 is that each club will be getting $400K less in annual TAM in 2024 than they will get in 2022, but I dont think thats a significant factor in the structure of the deal -- I think the FO believes James will be more valuable for NYCFC playing for Rangers the next 18 months than he would be continuing to play for NYCFC during that timeframe.Similar threads
- Poll
