Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Albion] Billy Gilmour SINGED on a four-year contract













Change at Barnham

Well-known member
Aug 6, 2011
5,306
Bognor Regis
There's a lot of noise on social media from Chelsea fans wanting to keep Billy Gilmour instead of Conor Gallagher.
For that reason I would just loooov it if we signed him permanently just to annoy them.

I'm not sure if we actually need him, but it would be funny.
 








Hugo Rune

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Feb 23, 2012
23,370
Brighton
There's a lot of noise on social media from Chelsea fans wanting to keep Billy Gilmour instead of Conor Gallagher.
For that reason I would just loooov it if we signed him permanently just to annoy them.

I'm not sure if we actually need him, but it would be funny.

The problem is, I don’t think Chelsea ‘do’ permanent transfers to us anymore after the profound robbery of Lamptey.

We tried with Livramento, the player wanted to come here but we couldn’t get our heads around the buy-back clause.

Then with Colwill, Chelsea didn’t really want to sell so a loan was the best we could do, even though we had the negotiating power as they were after Cucu.

If Gilmour leaves (and Gallagher too), you have to assume that there will be a buy-back. I just can’t see the club agreeing to that sort of control over our future transfer business.

So, expect to see Gilmour in a Palace or Southampton shirt come the end of the week. Both teams are able to compromise enough to get deals with Chelsea through.
 




Justice

Dangerous Idiot
Jun 21, 2012
20,094
Born In Shoreham
The problem is, I don’t think Chelsea ‘do’ permanent transfers to us anymore after the profound robbery of Lamptey.

We tried with Livramento, the player wanted to come here but we couldn’t get our heads around the buy-back clause.

Then with Colwill, Chelsea didn’t really want to sell so a loan was the best we could do, even though we had the negotiating power as they were after Cucu.

If Gilmour leaves (and Gallagher too), you have to assume that there will be a buy-back. I just can’t see the club agreeing to that sort of control over our future transfer business.

So, expect to see Gilmour in a Palace or Southampton shirt come the end of the week. Both teams are able to compromise enough to get deals with Chelsea through.
Didn’t Chelsea just sell someone with a matched highest bid buy back clause? Might be wrong, the buy back clause is fine but what if the player has no interest in going back to Chelsea?
 


Bakero

Languidly clinical
Oct 9, 2010
14,702
Almería
Didn’t Chelsea just sell someone with a matched highest bid buy back clause? Might be wrong, the buy back clause is fine but what if the player has no interest in going back to Chelsea?

Then they can't buy the player back.
 








Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
17,454
Fiveways
The problem is, I don’t think Chelsea ‘do’ permanent transfers to us anymore after the profound robbery of Lamptey.

We tried with Livramento, the player wanted to come here but we couldn’t get our heads around the buy-back clause.

Then with Colwill, Chelsea didn’t really want to sell so a loan was the best we could do, even though we had the negotiating power as they were after Cucu.

If Gilmour leaves (and Gallagher too), you have to assume that there will be a buy-back. I just can’t see the club agreeing to that sort of control over our future transfer business.

So, expect to see Gilmour in a Palace or Southampton shirt come the end of the week. Both teams are able to compromise enough to get deals with Chelsea through.

Chelsea have a squad bloated with players they've developed, many of which are talented youngsters, who want to play football and recognise that the likelihood of this increases if they are sold. It's not just about what Chelsea wants in this situation, especially because their squad is bloated, full of players that won't get any game time -- or, if they do, it's negligible. Players begin to gain the upper hand within this scenario as a consequence.

This is something for us to keep in mind for the future.
 


chaileyjem

#BarberIn
NSC Patron
Jun 27, 2012
14,565
Then with Colwill, Chelsea didn’t really want to sell so a loan was the best we could do, even though we had the negotiating power as they were after Cucu.

.

A loan for a versatile CB and experienced, talented prospect with plenty of other PL interest with no loan fee was the “best” we could do.
 






Swansman

Pro-peace
May 13, 2019
22,320
Sweden
Then they can't buy the player back.

Indeed.

It was one of the common misunderstandings about buy-back clauses, but indeed the player could just say no - obviously there's a ****load of laws preventing him from being forced to change his employer (and thus in some cases forcing the player to move to another country etc - there's probably some UN shit preventing that).

Another one is that the club couldnt sell him to another club. But if Chelsea had a £60m buyback clause or something, Brighton could still sell him for £50m or £70m to Melchester Rovers. All it means is that if Chelsea pay £60m, Brighton will be forced to accept the bid.
 










Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo

I believe in Joe Hendry
Oct 4, 2003
11,820
Well, they had better be quick in making up their minds, with just 2 days to go…
Would it be the first time a player left Chelsea for Brighton so as to move up the League?

We signed Welsh goalkeeper John Phillips in 1980 when we were a division above Chelsea. Transfermarkt has him joining us directly from Chelsea, but Wikipedia seems to suggest he played for Crewe briefly after leaving Chelsea before joining us. So he might not have been signed from Chelsea.

Other than that Chris Hutchings is probably the closest to a sideways move but Chelsea would have been a few places above us in the second division when he joined in November 1983.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here