macbeth
Dismembered
if signing colwill was one of our prerequisites for doing the cucu deal with chelsea then it must surely be done now if they're bidding for fofana
[tweet]1554951593136619528[/tweet]
[tweet]1554951593136619528[/tweet]
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Brighton] Levi Colwill *Signed on Season-Long Loan 05/08/2022*
- Thread starter AlbionInUs
- Start date
I'm objecting - well, I'm not actually, but to put it far more accurately than you - I'm not happy about the idea that the deal for Chelsea to buy Cucurella might be conditional on Chelsea bending us over for a deal that is far more favourable to them than us involving developing one of their promising youngsters for them, one way or another.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
A £63m bid for a guy who played SEVEN times in the PL last season after coming back from a broken leg...
Wow.
The Fits
Well-known member
- Jun 29, 2020
- 10,106
Mental isn’t it?
They did pay over £30million for him though IIRC. Chelsea are going for it.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Has Fofana really done enough during the (covid-hit) season before last - being as the season just gone was a total write-off for him - to justify a bid of that magnitude ?? Bonkers.
The new owners post-Abramovich seem to want make a splash and show the fans they're serious by throwing money around like its going out of fashion. That always ends well dunnit.
Codner's Wallop
Well-known member
- Sep 11, 2013
- 1,431
£63m bid for Fofana from Chelsea?
Oh hang on, City are in the process of preparing a late bid of £17.25.
Oh hang on, City are in the process of preparing a late bid of £17.25.
METALMICKY
Well-known member
- Jan 30, 2004
- 6,826
Just proves what mugs City are. He's clearly only worth £15.00 with add ons
macbeth
Dismembered
just like the cucurella transfer fee, the amount of the buyback clause has now gone up apparently
[tweet]1554955727831187456[/tweet]
wouldn't be surprised if it's gone up again by another few million this time tomorrow
[tweet]1554955727831187456[/tweet]
wouldn't be surprised if it's gone up again by another few million this time tomorrow
That's the problem. Maybe we should walk away from Colwill if his price is being artificially inflated to 'compensate' for Chelsea paying a lot for Cucurella. Thank you for the £52.5M for Cucu, Chelsea, but we'll pass on Colwill for now.
Stato
Well-known member
- Dec 21, 2011
- 7,367
I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't one. We reportedly refused the Livramento deal because it came with these kind of strings.
macbeth
Dismembered
its probably what's holding the cucurella deal up. chelsea seem pretty keen on one being in there, if we're desperate for him then we may be willing to compromise. personally i could live with one if we were more than doubling our money
AstroSloth
Well-known member
- Dec 29, 2020
- 1,379
How do they not take into account the wishes of the player?
When the club with the buyback clause activate it, they still have to agree a contact with the player.
The player can refuse the contract and remain at his current club.
Seasider78
Well-known member
- Nov 14, 2004
- 6,011
The value of the buy back clause can be negotiated upwards so the Albion are protected financially but this is probably as much about losing control of when you sell. With Cucurella the club could have just said ‘not for sale’ if did not suit the club at that point in time but with buy back I am guessing chelsea can get him back once fee triggered at any point?
Indeed.
Forcing someone to change employer and work in a city... I don't know the UK jurisdictions but I would say it is pretty ****ing illegal.
- May 8, 2018
- 10,624
Levi Colwill
The existence of a buy back obviously impacts the fee we pay for the transfer. If we paid £15m upfront and the buyback was £50m, I’d consider this proportionate.
I wonder if there’s two options on the table, low front with a buy back or a higher fee with none. It’s essentially speculating how Colwill will turn out in the future. I suspect we are keen on the latter but moving the upfront fee down.
Just to add, a buy back only works if Colwill wants to go back, he can’t be forced to return.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The existence of a buy back obviously impacts the fee we pay for the transfer. If we paid £15m upfront and the buyback was £50m, I’d consider this proportionate.
I wonder if there’s two options on the table, low front with a buy back or a higher fee with none. It’s essentially speculating how Colwill will turn out in the future. I suspect we are keen on the latter but moving the upfront fee down.
Just to add, a buy back only works if Colwill wants to go back, he can’t be forced to return.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just not enough. Can't see it being anywhere close what TB wants. Either the fee drops or the buyback clause increases.
Stumpy Tim
Well-known member
If we're paying £20-25m, there's no way the buy back is £40-45m. If we're paying £20-25m I would be surprised if we agreed to any kind of buy back frankly.
Whitechapel
Famous Last Words
I reckon the buyback will end up being for ~£60m. Chelsea will want it to be £40/45m, we won’t want one and we’ll end up meeting in the middle.
um bongo molongo
Well-known member
I wonder whether the discussion is about the fees (£20m with a £50m buy back doesn’t sound too bad, £25m with a £40/45m buyback isn’t great). Or it could be that TB simply won’t agree to any buy back. If it’s the former, you’d think this gets done today. If it’s the latter however…