A detailed report by The Athletic reveals how Clement Lenglet was not Tottenham’s first option, but their desire to complete their transfer business early became a key reason in their pursuit.
As of today’s latest reports, a loan deal between Spurs and Lenglet has been agreed and he will soon be announced as a Spurs player. Fabrizio Romano himself has given the deal his trademark ‘here we go’ seal of approval.
According to the report by The Athletic, amongst the list of left sided center backs Fabio Paratici had shortlisted for this summer, Lenglet was not even close to the top with the likes of Josko Gvardiol, Sven Botman, Pau Torres, Nico Schlotterbeck and Alessandro Bastoni all ahead of him.
Deal for Gvardiol didn’t go through because RB Leizpig were asking for a huge fee and even £50m wasn’t enough for them. Nico Schlotterbeck wanted to stay in Germany and signed for Dortmund instead. Spurs pushed the hardest for Inter Milan’s Bastoni with Conte already having worked with him but Inter were reluctant to sell him. This left Spurs struggling to find the player for the position they prioritised the most.
This got Paratici to change his stance and instead of waiting for later in the window, he decided to move down the list and bring in someone as a short-term fix. And although this seems much like a compromise from Spurs, it is a low-risk move getting someone of his experience who will provide a decent cover as well as competition to the likes of Davies.
Yes that is possible, although there is no concrete evidence that is the reason for there not being an ‘option to buy’ clause. That would seem to be the most plausible reason however, unless the media are mistaken and there is such clause or one is still being negotiated by the two clubs.
For sure, I agree with that.
Why would there be a fee for the insertion of an ‘option to buy’ clause? The fee would be the agreed upon cost of the ‘option to buy’, not the clause!
There is no fee for an “option to buy fee” – err yes I think there is for the precise reasons you are saying why haven’t we got this option … but it works both ways remember the loaning club as well.
[…] Source link […]
This is a “get what you need” signing, not a “get what you want.”
Yes, we did not want to pay the option to buy price, that’s what I’m saying, because we have no intention of buying him. He was like the 8th choice left CB option and Paratici must feel he can get one of the higher choices in the next windows. Which part of this doesn’t make sense?
That is utterly illogical. If Lenglet was no good, then Conte would hardly be sanctioning the loan, would he?! The boy does have pedigree and was highly rated in his first couple of years at Barca, even if he may have subsequently lost confidence.
There is no fee for an ‘option to buy’ clause, it would not increase the loan fee, nor have any bearing on the amount of money that Barca would be paying to cover his wages. Hence, unless we couldn’t agree on the ‘option to buy’ price, there is no logic in not having one.
Because Lenglet is not good and he’s just a stopgap until we sign someone better permanently in January or next summer if Conte is still around. I imagine the option to buy costs money and would increase the loan fee and/or decrease the amount of money Barca is paying to cover his wages.
The only thing that is surprising is no option to buy? Why not? I remember we turned down the Ceballos loan, which Arsenal took up, because Real Madrid would not include a buy option.
So with Lenglet, as Barcelona are trying to get rid and as we might turn this boy’s career around, why have we not negotiated an option to buy clause, to take advantage of that possibility?