Subscriber Dan+ Posted July 17, 2022 Subscriber Posted July 17, 2022 16 minutes ago, The Palace Fan said: Vieira highly rates Doucoure and Julien Laurens seems to think he's a really good signing. He sounds on the face of it like he is everything we needed to prioritise this summer after Kouyate made his position at the club untenable in the eyes of most fans but after what has happened with the likes of Soumare and Ndombele in recent years I'm a little skeptical. He profiles a lot better than Soumare did. My mate is really into his analytics and he said to me funnily enough we should've bought Doucoure. He's livid you've done it so we'll see what he's made of.
True Blue Posted July 17, 2022 Posted July 17, 2022 Romano can suck my ball sack. His "news" are news that every other journalist post. Only thing is that Romano has a following and majority of Soggy Baguettes. So everyone thinks he is ahead of someone. Colwill will probably stay if we stay on only Chalobah, Sarr, Silva, Koulibaly as CB options or even Dave if he doesn't leave us.
Cicero Posted July 17, 2022 Posted July 17, 2022 Doesn’t make sense for him to leave. He can ideally be Koulibaly’s understudy. There’s going to be plenty of matches for him and both he and Broja just signed a 5 year deal. They’ve clearly been told already of a potential pathway already otherwise they wouldn’t of agreed, ala Livramento. Think we will get one more CB and that’s it. Possibly Kounde.
Administrator Stan Posted August 3, 2022 Administrator Posted August 3, 2022 Do you think you still go for Fofana now you've got Cucurella @Cicero?
Cicero Posted August 3, 2022 Posted August 3, 2022 13 minutes ago, Stan said: Do you think you still go for Fofana now you've got Cucurella @Cicero? No idea what we are doing. Cucurellla genuinely happened under our noses.
Dr. Gonzo Posted August 3, 2022 Posted August 3, 2022 19 minutes ago, Cicero said: Smart from Chelsea to include a buy back clause. Not holding him against his will when he can get first team opportunities elsewhere, but keeping the door open for him to return if he develops well enough - so if the dream of playing for Chelsea is still alive, it's always an option for him.
Cicero Posted August 3, 2022 Posted August 3, 2022 Just now, Dr. Gonzo said: Smart from Chelsea to include a buy back clause. Not holding him against his will when he can get first team opportunities elsewhere, but keeping the door open for him to return if he develops well enough - so if the dream of playing for Chelsea is still alive, it's always an option for him. Good deal if true.
Dr. Gonzo Posted August 3, 2022 Posted August 3, 2022 Just now, Cicero said: Good deal if true. Good price for Brighton too. Seems like a good deal for everyone involved if that's true.
Danny Posted August 3, 2022 Posted August 3, 2022 Good move all around for Brighton but it does feel like a glorified loan, buy back clauses should be banned imo.
Dr. Gonzo Posted August 3, 2022 Posted August 3, 2022 3 hours ago, Danny said: Good move all around for Brighton but it does feel like a glorified loan, buy back clauses should be banned imo. If the buy back is triggered though they're guaranteed a great return on their investment. The only shit thing for them really is buy backs don't account for inflation as much. But tbh, I think it's a better system for the "football economy" than the loan system. Clubs get a better reward (the fee that was agreed) for developing young players than they do on loan. Don't get me wrong, I know loans are important when clubs can't afford fees and it's important to protect smaller clubs... but I don't think it's necessarily a given that Chelsea trigger the buy back. Also if Chelsea did make a bid for him meeting that clause... that doesn't necessarily mean the player has to go to Chelsea. Another club could bid more, Brighton would probably accept that as well... and that gives the player a choice. Sometimes a player goes out on loan, does really well and develops pretty nicely... and then the club that loaned the player is left with nothing when that season ends to compensate them for the development they oversaw - and sometimes I think that's a bit unfair too. Yes, they agreed to the loan and always knew that would be a possibility... but sometimes it doesn't really feel like adequate compensation for when a club without as much money puts in the time and coaching to improve a young player. Less wealthy clubs don't really have the leverage for it and sort of need to be able to take in the players they can at times - but really I think more clubs taking out players on loan should be charging a fee for things like x number of appearances, x number of goals, x number of assists. It's hard to say there isn't enough money in football in England to go into funding the clubs that put the time and effort into developing these players so they're more prepared for first team football.
Cicero Posted August 3, 2022 Posted August 3, 2022 45 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said: Also if Chelsea did make a bid for him meeting that clause... that doesn't necessarily mean the player has to go to Chelsea. Another club could bid more, Brighton would probably accept that as well... and that gives the player a choice. Yes it does. That defeats the whole purpose of the contractual obligation if otherwise. If we meet it, Brighton have to sell back despite other interest. They would have to pay us to remove the clause.
Storts Posted August 4, 2022 Posted August 4, 2022 59 minutes ago, Cicero said: Yes it does. That defeats the whole purpose of the contractual obligation if otherwise. If we meet it, Brighton have to sell back despite other interest. They would have to pay us to remove the clause. Yes but the player doesn’t have to sign for you.
Cicero Posted August 4, 2022 Posted August 4, 2022 1 hour ago, Storts said: Yes but the player doesn’t have to sign for you. Not unless there is a cancellation clause from my understanding. If there isn’t (which is likely) we’d have to agree to the sale for the third party. The ‘buy back’ is something the player also has to agree too before it’s inserted I imagine. Coming back in the future. Same thing happened with Ake. City came and bid for him and Bournemouth couldn’t do anything before meeting with us.
Devil-Dick Willie Posted August 4, 2022 Posted August 4, 2022 On 14/07/2022 at 08:56, Devil-Dick Willie said: Misleading title. No one ever leaves Chelsea permanently. 6 hours ago, Cicero said: Self fulfilling prophecy. I can really see chelsea being the next united/arsenal at this rate. They're collapsing imo.
Dave Posted August 4, 2022 Author Posted August 4, 2022 6 hours ago, Cicero said: Not unless there is a cancellation clause from my understanding. If there isn’t (which is likely) we’d have to agree to the sale for the third party. The ‘buy back’ is something the player also has to agree too before it’s inserted I imagine. Coming back in the future. Same thing happened with Ake. City came and bid for him and Bournemouth couldn’t do anything before meeting with us. A buy back clause essentially means the club has no other option than to accept a bid of a certain amount from you and they're entitled to make you aware of other bids. Contract negotiations with the player however start from scratch and the player is well within his rights to turn down the contract and accept others elsewhere.
Danny Posted August 4, 2022 Posted August 4, 2022 11 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said: If the buy back is triggered though they're guaranteed a great return on their investment. The only shit thing for them really is buy backs don't account for inflation as much. But tbh, I think it's a better system for the "football economy" than the loan system. Clubs get a better reward (the fee that was agreed) for developing young players than they do on loan. Don't get me wrong, I know loans are important when clubs can't afford fees and it's important to protect smaller clubs... but I don't think it's necessarily a given that Chelsea trigger the buy back. Also if Chelsea did make a bid for him meeting that clause... that doesn't necessarily mean the player has to go to Chelsea. Another club could bid more, Brighton would probably accept that as well... and that gives the player a choice. Sometimes a player goes out on loan, does really well and develops pretty nicely... and then the club that loaned the player is left with nothing when that season ends to compensate them for the development they oversaw - and sometimes I think that's a bit unfair too. Yes, they agreed to the loan and always knew that would be a possibility... but sometimes it doesn't really feel like adequate compensation for when a club without as much money puts in the time and coaching to improve a young player. Less wealthy clubs don't really have the leverage for it and sort of need to be able to take in the players they can at times - but really I think more clubs taking out players on loan should be charging a fee for things like x number of appearances, x number of goals, x number of assists. It's hard to say there isn't enough money in football in England to go into funding the clubs that put the time and effort into developing these players so they're more prepared for first team football. I feel bad for your 4 paragraphs as the only argument I had to support my statement is that buy backs make football boring
Dr. Gonzo Posted August 4, 2022 Posted August 4, 2022 14 hours ago, Cicero said: Yes it does. That defeats the whole purpose of the contractual obligation if otherwise. If we meet it, Brighton have to sell back despite other interest. They would have to pay us to remove the clause. He can turn you down or stall until another club bids more, it’s happened before
Cicero Posted August 4, 2022 Posted August 4, 2022 18 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said: He can turn you down or stall until another club bids more, it’s happened before 7 hours ago, The Palace Fan said: A buy back clause essentially means the club has no other option than to accept a bid of a certain amount from you and they're entitled to make you aware of other bids. Contract negotiations with the player however start from scratch and the player is well within his rights to turn down the contract and accept others elsewhere. Makes sense. Essentially a first refusal at a discount.
Cicero Posted August 4, 2022 Posted August 4, 2022 15 minutes ago, Cicero said: Deal could now be a loan only.
Administrator Stan Posted August 4, 2022 Administrator Posted August 4, 2022 So Romano was chatting shit the other day then He's toast.
Cicero Posted August 4, 2022 Posted August 4, 2022 8 minutes ago, Stan said: So Romano was chatting shit the other day then He's toast. The here we go was for Cucurella to Chelsea a done deal. (something he is willing to die by the sword). Didn't confirm anything with Colwill as of yet. Brighton assumingly proposed an option to buy but the club countered for only a loan deal.
.thumb.jpeg.842282050184e1a055a60266c191ce72.jpeg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.