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

[Blue Valkyrie]

Wasnt Lampety down to the last six months of his contact at Chelsea? I don't think they were in any position to demand a sell on.

I'm sure an official source said there was a sell-on.

However, I can't be bothered to trawl it down.

 

[Machiavelli]

I'm with @BV. Think there is a sell-on % for Chelsea. What they didn't get was a buy-back clause. Considering we got him for about £3m, cracking business in my book.

 

[Johnny RoastBeef]

I'm with @BV. Think there is a sell-on % for Chelsea. What they didn't get was a buy-back clause. Considering we got him for about £3m, cracking business in my book.

Only source for that I can find is goal.com and the express, nothing official and no quotes in either report.

Either way, with just six months remaining on his contract, we wouldn't have agreed to a very large percentage sell on, if any.

 

[GT49er]

I think the main point is that there is a tangible difference between the desirability of a sell-on clause and a buy back clause (especially as with a player who could walk away for free a few months later wouldn'rt generate a large percentage sell-on clause).

 

[Justice]

I'm with @BV. Think there is a sell-on % for Chelsea. What they didn't get was a buy-back clause. Considering we got him for about £3m, cracking business in my book.

Didn’t Ashworth say it was £1m in one of his interviews.

 

[Live by the sea]

Levi’s anyone - on a serious note , it’s very sad that he died so young as did his brother Barry . Barry was a model as well then an illustrator. Chester the other brother is a quality guitarist and plays with Bryan ferry .

https://youtu.be/zhkqGn91VAM

 

[Swansman]

I'm with @BV. Think there is a sell-on % for Chelsea. What they didn't get was a buy-back clause. Considering we got him for about £3m, cracking business in my book.

GP said in January or February that Lamptey cost less than £1m.

"The guys you mentioned (Lamptey and Veltman), different stages of their career, but to pick both of those two for under one million [each], I think you have to say well done to them for that."

 

[brighton_tom]

We were apparently interested...

https://twitter.com/FabrizioRomano/status/1547280695239786501

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

I think the main point is that there is a tangible difference between the desirability of a sell-on clause and a buy back clause (especially as with a player who could walk away for free a few months later wouldn'rt generate a large percentage sell-on clause).

The fact that Chelsea insisted on a buy-back clause is why we didn't pursue our interest in Livramento. Southampton apparently don't mind developing other clubs' prospects for them.

 

[Horses Arse]

The fact that Chelsea insisted on a buy-back clause is why we didn't pursue our interest in Livramento. Southampton apparently don't mind developing other clubs' prospects for them.

I get that for a loan, but wasn't livramento a big fee and a three year activation if they wanted him? Could be rubbish itk know rumours of course. But if true, the only difference is a predetermined fee as the initial contract approaches its end rather than a negotiated fee as bigger clubs circle. Seems silly to turn down players due to buy back to me.

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

I get that for a loan, but wasn't livramento a big fee and a three year activation if they wanted him? Could be rubbish itk know rumours of course. But if true, the only difference is a predetermined fee as the initial contract approaches its end rather than a negotiated fee as bigger clubs circle. Seems silly to turn down players due to buy back to me.

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

It's not silly. Billionaire owners like Tony want full control of the contract situation of players they spend money on.

Plenty of players available without buyback clauses.

 

[HastingsSeagull]

Surely it depends on the price they can buy him back for! If we bought him for 1.5M although seems we paid even less, then buy back clauses of 4M, 40M and 400M have rather varied likelihood of being accepted be it by us or southampton.

 

[Horses Arse]

It's not silly. Billionaire owners like Tony want full control of the contract situation of players they spend money on.

Plenty of players available without buyback clauses.

From memory the buy back was £30m. If it was after three years then it doesn't seem that bad a deal. What fee do you get when the contracts ending anyway, noting £30m ish for biss. Doesn't stack up for me (if those details are right). Southampton have a billionaire owner too of course. I totally get the loan objection but walking away from buyback still seems silly to me.

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

 

[The Fits]

IIRC they have buy backs on Tomori and Guehi. Both are now internationals and neither seem to be of interest to Chelsea even though they’re after defenders. I wouldn’t be put off by that kind of clause.

 

[Icy Gull]

Haven’t read the thread in detail but can the selling club buy back at anytime at a pre arranged price or only at the end of the contract?

If Getafe, for the sack of argument, had a buy back clause could they get him back this season?

 

[Ⓩ-Ⓐ-Ⓜ-Ⓞ-Ⓡ-Ⓐ]

IIRC they have buy backs on Tomori and Guehi. Both are now internationals and neither seem to be of interest to Chelsea even though they’re after defenders. I wouldn’t be put off by that kind of clause.

But it's a little more complex. Hypothetically (and depending on the exact nature of the buy back clause) say that Tomori has a stonking season for Milan and then Real Madrid or PSG decide they want to sign him for their team. In that case Milan can't really do a deal that's good for them - if they say to Real Madrid - sorry he's our best defender, he'll cost you £60m then Chelsea could just say OK, we'll activate our buy back clause and bring him back to Chelsea for £10m and then sell him to Real Madrid for £60m themselves, leaving Milan without their best defender and only £10m to replace him with.

 

[beardy gull]

The fact that Chelsea insisted on a buy-back clause is why we didn't pursue our interest in Livramento. Southampton apparently don't mind developing other clubs' prospects for them.

Man City also insisted on a buy-back clause in Southampton’s deal for Gavin Bazunu. If it’s true that the buy back clause is the reason we pulled out of the Livramento deal then this looks dead in the water.

Unless we change our stance or the player has any influence on this?

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

It's quite possible that it's the terms of the buy back which we objected to rather than the principle itself. (It's also possible that Livramento just chose Saints over us).

I can't stand the idea of us doing it and I think it the concept should be banned, but I could see some short term advantage in a specific situation if we just had a to fill a position for a year or two years with a decent option while we waited, for example, for an academy player to come out

My biggest concern is medium to long term. If we went for this Colwill and play him ahead of players like Offiah and Turns etc, what does it say to them that we're developing Chelsea players at the expense of our own. Why would the next youngster choose Brighton?

 

[Horses Arse]

It's quite possible that it's the terms of the buy back which we objected to rather than the principle itself. (It's also possible that Livramento just chose Saints over us).

I can't stand the idea of us doing it and I think it the concept should be banned, but I could see some short term advantage in a specific situation if we just had a to fill a position for a year or two years with a decent option while we waited, for example, for an academy player to come out

My biggest concern is medium to long term. If we went for this Colwill and play him ahead of players like Offiah and Turns etc, what does it say to them that we're developing Chelsea players at the expense of our own. Why would the next youngster choose Brighton?

Agree with the first statement re terms etc, none of us know for sure. In terms of the concept, if we look at Livramento we did really well from the decision as we got Cucurella and we have some control of the fee we would get.
Although player power and the draw of a club that wins things reduces that control somewhat. But if he was on a buy back option after 3 years then we are better off in some ways as we'd have him for that period. As he approaches the end of the contract then the value descends anyway so the £30m I believe was set for Livramento would not be so bad.

As you say, its all down to the terms and I may be way off the mark as to what I read re Livramento. But as a concept, if the terms were as I'd read I really can't see a problem.

 

[ThePaddy]

IIRC they have buy backs on Tomori and Guehi. Both are now internationals and neither seem to be of interest to Chelsea even though they’re after defenders. I wouldn’t be put off by that kind of clause.

There is no buy back for Guehi. Chelsea have a right of first refusal, i.e. if Palace accept an offer from any other club, Palace are obligated to accept an offer from Chelsea for the same amount of money if they wish to make it.