Can someone please explain to me the Logic?

Something has always bothered me, now before this goes out of hand, this is not to insult Marotta nor to start any conflicts, arguments or trolling. Let's keep this respectful please as we don't want to return like in the past. And please let's not go overboard and critize who he used to replace those players, let's just stick with the main point of this.

So like I was saying, regarding Marotta last season, when it came down to loans, loans within us loaning our players. Usually, when we loan players... we loan them with buy out clauses in which we did with Giovinco. The buy out clause was fairly cheap, only 3.2 million. Now the odd part is, after a poor season with Amauri only scoring one goal in a year, it was time for him to go... So Marotta decided to loan him to Parma where Giovinco was loaned, but WTIHOUT a Buy Out clause.

Now here's my issue. Seeing that since January we wanted to get rid of Amauri with all costs... due to his poor form and us having enough strikers, and his huge salary, why didn't Marotta insert a Buy Out clause for Amauri when they wanted to release him from the squad and to Giovinco we in fact give them a buy out clause... when in reality we always needed him. Sure we own 50% of him, however we shouldn't have putten a buy out clause in the first place, instead we should of done that with Amauri...

Now please, Del Neri has nothing to do with this, except with Giovinco's departure. So let's not include him in this.

I heard another thing to be honest...

I heard Parma was doing the impossible to get Amauri but he did not wanted to reduce his wages demands and Parma had no money to buy him.

Maurotaurox wrote:I heard another thing to be honest...

I heard Parma was doing the impossible to get Amauri but he did not wanted to reduce his wages demands and Parma had no money to buy him.

Yes, however Amauri has no descion when it comes to buy out clauses, so if Marotta in fact inserted a buy out clause and Parma wanted him then he would in fact have no choice to stay at Parma wether he likes it or not. Now when it comes to the buy out clause, we could of put an affordable price, like 3-5m. Don't get me wrong... he did score 10 goals with them... so it's reasonable also for them to give them a good wage as his performance with them surely desserves it.

Yes, as I mentioned the wages are a problem, however if he is not willing to stay with Juventus, if Parma is the only club in which they are interested in him, then well he has no choice to lower them. Today it's said that both parties agreed on Amauri, so he in fact is on the verge of going to Parma, as for him price it's not certain, should be around 5m guessing, and for his wages, they might be reduced by a bit.

The thing I'm trying to figure out is why wasn't there any buy out clause put on Amauri's name when he was loaned, when 90% of the time in Serie A when a player is loaned(Except for youth players) there are always clauses in which this case there wasn't and odd because as I said before Juventus were trying to release him and he had a poor season in which he was not needed... It's like saying then Juventus still wanted him... That's what is odd and that is why I don't understand the logic under this.

Parma didn't have to execute the buy out option for Giovinco so it doesn't really matter. They could have just sent Giovinco back to Juventus if they wanted, they were under no obligation to pay the 3.5m. But they decided to because it was a steal of a deal.

In regards to Amauri, I am sure Marotta tried to sell him off but with no takers so the only option was to loan him to Parma. But with his ridiculous wages there is no way Parma would have purchased him permanently even if there was a buy out clause. They would have just sent him back to Juventus, which in fact is what they did.

Amauri is the problem of Secco plain and simple, no one else is at fault for his situation. At the time it looked like a good deal, Amauri was at the top of his game at Palermo, but then for whatever reason he became a stiff at Juventus. Probably alot to do with the fact that Amauri needs a set up man like Giovonco to be effective, which Juventus has never had since 2006, so that is a big reason for his failure here. He should just go back to Parma really and he might get 15 goals playing with Giovinco. Maybe we should just eat half his wages to get rid of him, it would be worth it.

Maybe it is much more tedious to include those Buy Out Clause for Amauri. Usually buy out clause is inserted to explain that the player is still NEEDED at the club. But for Amauri case, I believe we wouldn't want to do that as Juve still respect him as a player.

Ok what i am going to say is purely hypothetical..

There was no buyout clause in Amauri's contract is because perhaps Marotta thought he could negotiate a fee with the interested parties pertaining to the transfer fee..

His done well at Parma so that provides room for negotiating a transfer fee rather than having a fixed amount which teams are obliged to pay..

And one more main factor that doesnt support the idea of having a buyout clause in his contract is his enormous wages..

In this case Parma who dont earn as much as the top clubs cannot afford his wages hence there is no point in having a buyout clause however less it may be when they are not going to activate it..

And also doesnt mean that only Parma are interested in him since they are associated with him pertaining to this loan deal because there isnt a clause of an outright purchase like there is in giovinco's deal..

So the thing is it provides room for more number of clubs to negotiate with us regarding Amauri transfer..

Again this is just a hypothesis.I may be wrong..

juve_gigi wrote:Parma didn't have to execute the buy out option for Giovinco so it doesn't really matter. They could have just sent Giovinco back to Juventus if they wanted, they were under no obligation to pay the 3.5m. But they decided to because it was a steal of a deal.

In regards to Amauri, I am sure Marotta tried to sell him off but with no takers so the only option was to loan him to Parma. But with his ridiculous wages there is no way Parma would have purchased him permanently even if there was a buy out clause. They would have just sent him back to Juventus, which in fact is what they did.

Amauri is the problem of Secco plain and simple, no one else is at fault for his situation. At the time it looked like a good deal, Amauri was at the top of his game at Palermo, but then for whatever reason he became a stiff at Juventus. Probably alot to do with the fact that Amauri needs a set up man like Giovonco to be effective, which Juventus has never had since 2006, so that is a big reason for his failure here. He should just go back to Parma really and he might get 15 goals playing with Giovinco. Maybe we should just eat half his wages to get rid of him, it would be worth it.

No of course Parma didn't have to buy Giovinco, but it was Marotta who put the buy out option in the first place in which was never needed for Giovinco. It was a steal for them, which was ridiculous for us, in which once again is one of my main problems... why... did he set the price so low? Why a buy out clause in the first place... The only good I can see from this is us owning him for 50%...

Yes, once again nobody wanted him... however... he could of at least inserted a buy out clause in the loan deal, Parma would have nothing to lose from that... and look what happened. Without the buy out clause, now he's back in Juventus, and Parma want him for a very low price, with a buy out clause they could of already settled a good price for Amauri after his 10 goal half-season with them, they would have no choice to get Amauri for that certain price... and he would be gone away. Sure it may seem to be the right move, as now Marotta would look for profits, but how did that turn out? Not so good, once again nobody wants Amauri except Parma and now they got to deal a cheap price for him... When this could of been already done if there was a buy out clause.

Without a doubt it is Secco's fault, as he did spend 25m on him and put this huge wages, but that is not what were focusing on here.. Marotta is trying to release Amauri because of those wages and because of his poor form and lack of motivation to stay with us as he is not need, so in doing so, my main problem is why did he not put a buy out clause?

areve wrote:Maybe it is much more tedious to include those Buy Out Clause for Amauri. Usually buy out clause is inserted to explain that the player is still NEEDED at the club. But for Amauri case, I believe we wouldn't want to do that as Juve still respect him as a player.

I'm sorry, but that is completely false, a buy out clause is meant that the player is NOT NEEDED at the club anymore. When you don't insert the clause, it means the the player has no choice to return after his loan is finished to his original club. Juventus never respected him as a player since Marotta came... Since January once again they wanted to release him at all costs, once again even this summer. If we respected Amauri, then we wouldn't go through all this trouble...

Surag.Blueguy wrote:Ok what i am going to say is purely hypothetical..

There was no buyout clause in Amauri's contract is because perhaps Marotta thought he could negotiate a fee with the interested parties pertaining to the transfer fee..

His done well at Parma so that provides room for negotiating a transfer fee rather than having a fixed amount which teams are obliged to pay..

And one more main factor that doesnt support the idea of having a buyout clause in his contract is his enormous wages..

In this case Parma who dont earn as much as the top clubs cannot afford his wages hence there is no point in having a buyout clause however less it may be when they are not going to activate it..

And also doesnt mean that only Parma are interested in him since they are associated with him pertaining to this loan deal because there isnt a clause of an outright purchase like there is in giovinco's deal..

So the thing is it provides room for more number of clubs to negotiate with us regarding Amauri transfer..

Again this is just a hypothesis.I may be wrong..

Good theory, however that may be case, where is the logic behind that. In January... nobody wanted him... so what sense would it make that in the summer that idea would change. Even after 10 goals with Parma, nobody is still interested in Amauri except Parma...

His wages regardless, Parma has nothing to lose if they had a buy out clause in their loan deal. After that stellar performance, there was without a doubt Parma would of signed Amauri... But he had no choice to return to Juve, and look now... Parma are trying to get a cheaper price for Amauri... the wages wouldn't of bothered Parma period after half-season he had with them.

Tony, even if a buyout clause was inserted Parma would have still been under no obligation to buy him outright, so we would still be dealing with the same thing. The reason Parma doesn't want to buy him is because he makes 4m a year. That is the problem. A buyout clause would have been irrelevent and most likely Parma never agreed to it so it was never included. The only way Parma will take Amauri back is if we eat half his wages, that is what Marotta has to do. Otherwise, he will be on our bench again this year.

As for Giovinco, that is a completely different story. Marotta screwed up big time on that one. There should have never been a buy out clause with Giovinco, or if there was it should have been 10m. That was Marotta's mistake plain and simple. Too bad, but at least we still own half of him so it wasn't catastrophic. We will just need to pay alot more to get him back if he turns out to be great.

juve_gigi wrote:Tony, even if a buyout clause was inserted Parma would have still been under no obligation to buy him outright, so we would still be dealing with the same thing. The reason Parma doesn't want to buy him is because he makes 4m a year. That is the problem. A buyout clause would have been irrelevent and most likely Parma never agreed to it so it was never included. The only way Parma will take Amauri back is if we eat half his wages, that is what Marotta has to do. Otherwise, he will be on our bench again this year.

As for Giovinco, that is a completely different story. Marotta screwed up big time on that one. There should have never been a buy out clause with Giovinco, or if there was it should have been 10m. That was Marotta's mistake plain and simple. Too bad, but at least we still own half of him so it wasn't catastrophic. We will just need to pay alot more to get him back if he turns out to be great.

Yes I understand that they wouldn't be obliged, but Pino they are going after Amauri as if it is a MUST transfer for them... Even with his current wages, the problem is both Juventus and Parma have not agreed on a transfer fee, not on the players wages, as it stands, they in fact agreed terms with Amauri, so wages wouldn't be a problem, and like I said after that season he had with Parma, they would've signed him from that clause. How I can determine that is what their going through now with Juventus, now Juve have no choice to let him go for cheaper then before.

Giovinco agreed, I only mentioned Giovinco to compare his case with Amauri and why there was a buy out on Giovinco and not one on Amauri.

sciacca wrote:

Surag.Blueguy wrote:Ok what i am going to say is purely hypothetical..

There was no buyout clause in Amauri's contract is because perhaps Marotta thought he could negotiate a fee with the interested parties pertaining to the transfer fee..

His done well at Parma so that provides room for negotiating a transfer fee rather than having a fixed amount which teams are obliged to pay..

And one more main factor that doesnt support the idea of having a buyout clause in his contract is his enormous wages..

In this case Parma who dont earn as much as the top clubs cannot afford his wages hence there is no point in having a buyout clause however less it may be when they are not going to activate it..

And also doesnt mean that only Parma are interested in him since they are associated with him pertaining to this loan deal because there isnt a clause of an outright purchase like there is in giovinco's deal..

So the thing is it provides room for more number of clubs to negotiate with us regarding Amauri transfer..

Again this is just a hypothesis.I may be wrong..

Good theory, however that may be case, where is the logic behind that. In January... nobody wanted him... so what sense would it make that in the summer that idea would change. Even after 10 goals with Parma, nobody is still interested in Amauri except Parma...


His wages regardless, Parma has nothing to lose if they had a buy out clause in their loan deal. After that stellar performance, there was without a doubt Parma would of signed Amauri... But he had no choice to return to Juve, and look now... Parma are trying to get a cheaper price for Amauri... the wages wouldn't of bothered Parma period after half-season he had with them.

Actually to be honest , i am not sure whether Players can dictate the transfer to a particular club..

In this case i am not sure if Amauri is the one who preferred the loan deal rather than transferring to Parma outright..
Today i read a report in which says Alex wants permanent transfer to Juventus rather than a loan deal and i think this says a lot although not sure if it entirely works that way in many cases..

Now at present the the only team with concrete interest is Parma but we can just consider this just as pure co-incidence since many other clubs (eg.Milan(looking for vice-ibra) havent really shown real interest in him..

And also perhaps Marotta wanted to keep another option open of getting him back if he manages to succeed at Parma hence he dint include a buyout clause..

There are many theories which we can relate to this transfer ,but i am sitting on the fence pertaining to this transfer.. And to add one more thing,We were paying Amauri's wages in the entire six month period.

I heard not so long ago we were asking for 7 millions and their president said they didn't have the money so they are not going to buy him.

Surag.Blueguy wrote:Actually to be honest , i am not sure whether Players can dictate the transfer to a particular club..

In this case i am not sure if Amauri is the one who preferred the loan deal rather than transferring to Parma outright..
Today i read a report in which says Alex wants permanent transfer to Juventus rather than a loan deal and i think this says a lot although not sure if it entirely works that way in many cases..

Now at present the the only team with concrete interest is Parma but we can just consider this just as pure co-incidence since many other clubs (eg.Milan(looking for vice-ibra) havent really shown real interest in him..

And also perhaps Marotta wanted to keep another option open of getting him back if he manages to succeed at Parma hence he dint include a buyout clause..

There are many theories which we can relate to this transfer ,but i am sitting on the fence pertaining to this transfer.. And to add one more thing,We were paying Amauri's wages in the entire six month period.

In fact players do, that's why there are agents in which agree with both the club and the player. The agent is the one who represents his player in which he feels is best for him, so for example if the club wants him to be transfered, and both parties agree to the fee's, then it's left with the player in which he agree's terms with the club.

I'll tell you this, he in fact wanted to leave as he saw his career with Juventus was not going anywhere, his first press conference with Parma made it clear that he didn't want to return. And now, he's back and once again gone, once again Amauri wanting to leave however still with his same wages.

You mention Alex and how he wants to move away in which he will only accept a long term deal rather than a loan, and that in fact is how it works, the clubs decide if they want to loan or not, however once again it comes down to the player if he accepts the move or not. Put it this way, Fiorentina want Quagliarella for Vargas, however it's up to the club to accept than the player.

In reality there were some clubs interested however nobody took the interest for Amauri to the next level, in which we saw in January and once again now in the summer which is why I once again question, why wasn't there a buy out clause in his loan.

Maurotaurox wrote:I heard not so long ago we were asking for 7 millions and their president said they didn't have the money so they are not going to buy him.

The report is false. I recall something like that, in which both parties said those terms never existed.

Sciacca wrote:In fact players do, that's why there are agents in which agree with both the club and the player. The agent is the one who represents his player in which he feels is best for him, so for example if the club wants him to be transfered, and both parties agree to the fee's, then it's left with the player in which he agree's terms with the club.

I am not talking about players agreeing personal terms..Thats pertaining to his wages and i am not dwelling on that aspect..
I am talking about the kind of transfer a player is interested in him..Whether its a loan deal with a buyout option,only a loan deal or a permanent transfer ,can a player dictate a particular type of transfer ?Not entirely sure of it..

Sciacca wrote:I'll tell you this, he in fact wanted to leave as he saw his career with Juventus was not going anywhere, his first press conference with Parma made it clear that he didn't want to return. And now, he's back and once again gone, once again Amauri wanting to leave however still with his same wages.

Ok i am explaining this in reference to my first point..If Amauri has indeed had an influence this particular loan deal perhaps he wanted to prove himself and show his worth at another club so you know he kept another option of returning back to the club..

Sciacca wrote:In reality there were some clubs interested however nobody took the interest for Amauri to the next level, in which we saw in January and once again now in the summer which is why I once again question, why wasn't there a buy out clause in his loan.

Again as i said ,we can just consider it as a pure co-incidence and nothing else that Parma happen to be the only club keen to sign him up since he has done well there..

And,put it this way if there existed a buyout clause in his deal,Parma wouldnt have anyway executed that option due to wage restraints...

And now the situation has got so worse,From Amauri's perspective that he has no option but to reduce his wages and since Parma are the only club interested here,he would perhaps be obliged to sign up with them..

All in all we can say that Amauri went to Parma with the hope he can return back to Juventus with good form and a no.of goals under his belt "OR" transfer to another club with higher prestige..

But unfortunately hasnt turned out well for him..