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

[Brighton] Levi Colwill *Signed on Season-Long Loan 05/08/2022*



Springal

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2005
24,780
GOSBTS
That’s not a terrible deal. Given we’ve lost a player after 12 months anyway. Maybe a bit light if Cucu & White are the benchmark , but gives us a drop in replacement without hassle or to much risk
 








One Teddy Maybank

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Aug 4, 2006
22,984
Worthing
Regardless of left or right sided, this must spell the end for two of Duffy, Clarke and Van Hecke.

Must admit, probably in a minority, but defensively I haven’t been that impressed with Van Hecke, over commits and positionally not the best. Clarke on the other hand has looked okay, slow though. With Burnley going, probably the only time to play Duffy is against Mitrovic.
 


axscott

Well-known member
Jan 10, 2022
144
Buyback is basically confirmed, we just don't know the numbers behind the deal.

Really hoping its not near what's been rumoured, those are some very unlike Brighton numbers
 




Jim in the West

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 13, 2003
4,951
Way out West
This may not be how things pan out, but if the buyback is £45m, and in a few years Chelsea trigger it, the cash profit on the total Cucurella + Colwill deal is £62.5m:

Cucurella cost: £15m
Colwill cost: £20m
TOTAL: £35m
Cucurella proceeds: £52.5m
Colwill proceeds: £45m
TOTAL: £97.5m

Net of the two = £62.5m

[The accounting profit will be greater, as the cost of the two players will have been reduced by amortisation]
 








stss30

Registered User
Apr 24, 2008
9,546
A bit of a dissapointing deal if the buy back is that low, although we clearly need a left sided defender now Cucu has left the building. Plus, it seems like there's quite fierce competition for left backs in the market presently so we'll definately take it, and if he's a success it's another tidy profit I suppose.

I see it's rumoured that the buy back wouldn't become actionable until 2025 so we'd be guaranteed at least 2 full seasons. Still think these sort of deals stink a bit though.
 
Last edited:




gazingdown

Well-known member
Feb 26, 2011
1,071
Is there a time limit on buy backs? Ie only after two years or whatever
It can/will be whatever the two parties agree to. There’s no “law” as to what conditions/add-ons/buyback/etc. are put in the deal.

I would suspect (if this does happen and there is a buyback - not convinced that we should tho) that it will be a 4yr contract, buy back expires after 1 or 2 yrs.
 




axscott

Well-known member
Jan 10, 2022
144
[tweet]1554910785150885888[/tweet]

This guarantees that Colwill comes in to directly replace Cucurella
 


Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...
Mar 18, 2010
30,458
Hove
It does. Can't see the club agreeing such a deal.

The trouble with this side of the deal, Colwill may well be holding the cards. He is under contract to Chelsea, they can't actually force him to sign for Brighton. Loan / Buy back maybe all down to Colwill's demands rather than either club because Chelsea are keen to get the Cucu deal done, and Brighton are keen to have a replacement in straight away, but Colwill might not be so keen to move.
 


Greg Bobkin

Silver Seagull
May 22, 2012
16,034
The trouble with this side of the deal, Colwill may well be holding the cards. He is under contract to Chelsea, they can't actually force him to sign for Brighton. Loan / Buy back maybe all down to Colwill's demands rather than either club because Chelsea are keen to get the Cucu deal done, and Brighton are keen to have a replacement in straight away, but Colwill might not be so keen to move.

Ah well, no Colwill deal, no Cucu sale :lolol: The club have already shown they aren't to be messed with or taken for a ride (apparently), so probably best Chelsea don't bother playing games.
 




DJ NOBO

Well-known member
Jul 18, 2004
6,816
Wiltshire
The trouble with this side of the deal, Colwill may well be holding the cards. He is under contract to Chelsea, they can't actually force him to sign for Brighton. Loan / Buy back maybe all down to Colwill's demands rather than either club because Chelsea are keen to get the Cucu deal done, and Brighton are keen to have a replacement in straight away, but Colwill might not be so keen to move.

He’ll be sprinting down the M23 as we speak.
 


Jim in the West

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 13, 2003
4,951
Way out West
The trouble with this side of the deal, Colwill may well be holding the cards. He is under contract to Chelsea, they can't actually force him to sign for Brighton. Loan / Buy back maybe all down to Colwill's demands rather than either club because Chelsea are keen to get the Cucu deal done, and Brighton are keen to have a replacement in straight away, but Colwill might not be so keen to move.

I think we hold quite a few of the cards - Chelsea want Cucurella, but we'll only do the deal if we get Colwill for a decent fee. No doubt Chelsea will be pretty keen to facilitate that part of the deal....
 


Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...
Mar 18, 2010
30,458
Hove
Ah well, no Colwill deal, no Cucu sale :lolol: The club have already shown they aren't to be messed with or taken for a ride (apparently), so probably best Chelsea don't bother playing games.

Joking aside, it's an interesting dynamic though; one club upset that their player handed in a transfer request, the other club trying to lever their contracted player out of their club possibly against their wishes...
 






Nobby Cybergoat

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2021
8,624
Buy back options as a concept should absolutely be banned.

They are anti-competitive and don't sufficiently take into account the wishes of the player
 


Nobby Cybergoat

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2021
8,624
Regardless of left or right sided, this must spell the end for two of Duffy, Clarke and Van Hecke.

Must admit, probably in a minority, but defensively I haven’t been that impressed with Van Hecke, over commits and positionally not the best. Clarke on the other hand has looked okay, slow though. With Burnley going, probably the only time to play Duffy is against Mitrovic.

So yes ok, we're buying Colwill, who's about 4 years younger than Clarke and 2 younger than Van Hecke. He's got loads less league experience. And we're totally sure he's going to leap frog over them in the pecking order?

They would surely be within their rights to feel, that they've done their dues going through the academy process, out on loans, achieved recognition, done the hard yards, they should probably be getting a go ahead of some Chelsea lad who's not properly contracted to us anyway.

And I know **** happens in football, but what about the next youngster we want to send up to some northern ****hole with the promise of first team consideration the following season. They would also be within their rights not to agree to do those hard yards
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here