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

[brighton_tom]

Seems pretty clear to me that we would have wanted Colwill on a permanent deal, but in the negotiations when it looked like that wasn’t possible I assume the club took the stance that a years loan is not so bad either. It gives us a year to find that perfect replacement or to continue developing one of our youth. & who knows what the situation will be with Colwill next summer, we might find ourselves putting in a bid to make the deal permanent then.

 

[Arthur]

What happened to the stance "we don't like loans, why should we develop other teams players?"

Did that leave with Ashworth?

If there was an option to buy at the end of said loan I could understand it but it seems that isn't the case if the press reports are to be believed.

 

[dazzer6666]

I think this is a mistake. It's the first clear sign that Dan Ashworth has left the club and taken his vision with him. I think it's bad business to bring a player in for a single season like this. He's going to block the progression of Matt Clarke in our squad. Developing other clubs players for them and not financially benefitting is not a good business model. The reason we didn't end up signing Tino Livramento last summer is because of the buyback clause which would limit the level of profit we could have made on the deal. The Cucurella deal was possible because the cards were in our hand, they're not with Colwill and it's bad business.

Not likely to be bad business if it a) got us £60m+ for Cucu b) gives us cover in defence whilst we grow or findnone of our own c) isn’t obstructing the development of one of our own d) doesn’t actually cost anything e) gives us a highly thought of young player anxious to prove himself to a top club in the PL f) Bloom, Potter and Barber think it’s worth doing (on that basis I suspect they think he’s a way ahead of Clarke)

 

[Justice]

Smart move from Chelsea, if he plays well they can either keep him or sell him and recover a good chunk of the Cucurella money.

 

[dadams2k11]

What happened to the stance "we don't like loans, why should we develop other teams players?"

Did that leave with Ashworth?

If there was an option to buy at the end of said loan I could understand it but it seems that isn't the case if the press reports are to be believed.

Maybe a short term fill for the bigger picture as been mentioned above.

 

[Reddleman]

Usually I have complete faith in the clubs recruitment but for first time in a while this has left me feeling really deflated. Like others have said I just don’t understand how bringing in a loan for a year is the best option for our club long term. I do get taking the money for Cucu but this deal feels short termist and knee jerk.

I know Tony has put fortunes into the club and he should rightly take some back out but that’s us made £100m in player sales since January. We struggled to find a top class left back/wingback for a couple of seasons so I think it’s right we can expect the club to spend in this area. I have no reason to think they won’t but it will be very disappointing to finish the transfer window with no significant reinforcements.

 

[Gabbiano]

As much as it would have been fantastic to sign Colwill without the buy-back clause, its not too bad a deal all in all.

If initial rumours were to be believed that we were negotiating a £52m sale with a ~£20m purchase of Colwill, and instead we opted for £55+7m and only a loan with no option to buy, then effectively Chelsea are paying us the extra up to £10m to develop Colwill for a year. Normally it would be us paying them a loan fee for this pleasure.

And this gives us two windows to find a more permanent solution.

 

[dazzer6666]

Usually I have complete faith in the clubs recruitment but for first time in a while this has left me feeling really deflated. Like others have said I just don’t understand how bringing in a loan for a year is the best option for our club long term. I do get taking the money for Cucu but this deal feels short termist and knee jerk.

I know Tony has put fortunes into the club and he should rightly take some back out but that’s us made £100m in player sales since January. We struggled to find a top class left back/wingback for a couple of seasons so I think it’s right we can expect the club to spend in this area. I have no reason to think they won’t but it will be very disappointing to finish the transfer window with no significant reinforcements.

We’re doing ok if Enciso,Undav, Mitoma and Colwill equate to no significant reinforcements over last season. Also, do you really think Tony is going to be taking money back out ?

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

Indirectly maybe his arrival with give a kick up the arse to those he’s apparently blocking? No guarantee he starts ahead of any of them, it will be on merit on a weekly basis


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Reddleman]

We’re doing ok if Enciso,Undav, Mitoma and Colwill equate to no significant reinforcements over last season. Also, do you really think Tony is going to be taking money back out ?

I’m sure I read that at some point he wants to start some of his investment/loans being repaid and he’s entitled to do that.

 

[Reddleman]

We’re doing ok if Enciso,Undav, Mitoma and Colwill equate to no significant reinforcements over last season. Also, do you really think Tony is going to be taking money back out ?

I’m sure I read that at some point he wants to start some of his investment/loans being repaid and he’s entitled to do that.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I’m sure I read that at some point he wants to start some of his investment/loans being repaid and he’s entitled to do that.

He has already converted some of the investments into shares. He said he wants to leave the club to his son when he retires. A fourth generation of Blooms.

 

[Badger Boy]

I respect the alternative opinions but I think this is a clear sign that Weir has a different approach to Ashworth and I think within a window or two, we're going to be much weaker for it. In twelve months time we either have to pay an inflated fee for Colwill on a permanent deal or he leaves on a free and we have to replace him, either way. That's bad business and it's the sort of thing we avoided during the Ashworth tenure. We were about future proofing the squad and ensuring that we had players coming through across the pitch to plug gaps when we sold players on big fees, without having to splash out big sums ourselves. I think this Colwill deal will prove to be an error when we look back in hindsight.

I also think almost nobody saw the value of Dan Burn when he came into the team, but he proved himself capable. I would argue that Clarke has had a better career in the Championship than Burn had had prior to our signing him, so writing off Clarke seems very strange to me and I think it's a mistake that we're bringing in a loan player to block his pathway into the team. I think that's a mistake and I'm sure he'll leave, hopefully for a fee, before the end of the window. I think he should have been given the chance ahead of bringing in Colwill on loan. If it was a permanent deal then fair enough, or a loan with an option or obligation. But if it's not, then this is unwise in my opinion.

 

[blockhseagull]

I respect the alternative opinions but I think this is a clear sign that Weir has a different approach to Ashworth and I think within a window or two, we're going to be much weaker for it. In twelve months time we either have to pay an inflated fee for Colwill on a permanent deal or he leaves on a free and we have to replace him, either way. That's bad business and it's the sort of thing we avoided during the Ashworth tenure. We were about future proofing the squad and ensuring that we had players coming through across the pitch to plug gaps when we sold players on big fees, without having to splash out big sums ourselves. I think this Colwill deal will prove to be an error when we look back in hindsight.

I also think almost nobody saw the value of Dan Burn when he came into the team, but he proved himself capable. I would argue that Clarke has had a better career in the Championship than Burn had had prior to our signing him, so writing off Clarke seems very strange to me and I think it's a mistake that we're bringing in a loan player to block his pathway into the team. I think that's a mistake and I'm sure he'll leave, hopefully for a fee, before the end of the window. I think he should have been given the chance ahead of bringing in Colwill on loan. If it was a permanent deal then fair enough, or a loan with an option or obligation. But if it's not, then this is unwise in my opinion.

Why would you want to develop Matt Clarke when he also can leave for nothing in 10 months time ?

 

[Johnny RoastBeef]

In twelve months time we either have to pay an inflated fee for Colwill on a permanent deal or he leaves on a free and we have to replace him, either way. That's bad business.

Is it? He is 19 and we are already being quoted an inflated fee, rumoured to be £20m.

At least with a free loan we get to try before we buy, hopefully with an option to buy at an already agreed price.

 

[Bodian]

another minor club Crystal Palace

?! - surely you're not equating us to Palace in the 'minor' stakes! Shocking....

 

[Jim in the West]

It looks like a win-win-win to me:

We get circa £60m for Cucurella
We get a season of a decent (by all accounts) left-sided defender who can help bolster the gap left by Cucurella until we find a permanent replacement
Chelsea get a Premier League ready defender
Chelsea get the best possible coaching for their developing talent
Colwill gets the opportunity to test himself in the EPL in a great environment

Of course it DOES break with the policy of the past few years, but this is perhaps the exception that proves the rule....and clearly Chelsea weren't going to sell without a decent* buy-back clause (*for them), and that was a step too far for us.

I don't see any other signs of us jettisoning the policy ref loans which has served us well in the recent past.

Happy to trust the decision-makers at BHA

 

[Baldrick]

I respect the alternative opinions but I think this is a clear sign that Weir has a different approach to Ashworth and I think within a window or two, we're going to be much weaker for it. In twelve months time we either have to pay an inflated fee for Colwill on a permanent deal or he leaves on a free and we have to replace him, either way. That's bad business and it's the sort of thing we avoided during the Ashworth tenure. We were about future proofing the squad and ensuring that we had players coming through across the pitch to plug gaps when we sold players on big fees, without having to splash out big sums ourselves. I think this Colwill deal will prove to be an error when we look back in hindsight.

I also think almost nobody saw the value of Dan Burn when he came into the team, but he proved himself capable. I would argue that Clarke has had a better career in the Championship than Burn had had prior to our signing him, so writing off Clarke seems very strange to me and I think it's a mistake that we're bringing in a loan player to block his pathway into the team. I think that's a mistake and I'm sure he'll leave, hopefully for a fee, before the end of the window. I think he should have been given the chance ahead of bringing in Colwill on loan. If it was a permanent deal then fair enough, or a loan with an option or obligation. But if it's not, then this is unwise in my opinion.

I watched Clarke play at Crawley just after we signed him. Potter wanted to sign him for Swansea when Potter jouned us. At the time Clarke looked like a championship player and three years on that is what he still is. Very similar to Duffy really.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

So, it is a loan…. At least we haven’t had to shell out money for him . But we pay him , coach him and then hand him back to Chelsea a better player.
I thought the days of taking promising youngsters on loan were over, a relic of our Championship days. Last season we thought we had arrived among the big boys….. except we have not.

 

[albionalbino]

Not for me. Loans are great for Championship and lower league clubs or PL if it's with an option to buy.
I doubt this would have happened if Dan Ashworth was still around