Even if there was a clause, very little as that's barely making a profit.Same here. £12M seems incredibly low - to me that's a 'binning him off' price. Wonder how much of that £12M Chelsea would get?
Even if there was a clause, very little as that's barely making a profit.Same here. £12M seems incredibly low - to me that's a 'binning him off' price. Wonder how much of that £12M Chelsea would get?
But it doesn’t translate to the other games when he played, so no, not for me.And my point is that missing one of the most successful progressive passers in the league was almost certainly a factor why we spent seven games circulating the ball without finding passes in between the lines.
Whilst I think he is surplus to requirements, I was hoping for another £20m!Same here. £12M seems incredibly low - to me that's a 'binning him off' price. Wonder how much of that £12M Chelsea would get?
It does. If Brighton would have scored one goal (+2 own goals) every 7th game we would be having very different conversations now.But it doesn’t translate to the other games when he played
There has now been an upgrade.And my point is that missing one of the most successful progressive passers in the league was almost certainly a factor why we spent seven games circulating the ball without finding passes in between the lines.
Progressive passing in the Eredivisie where you have twice the time and twice the space to do something with the ball is in a different league to doing it in the Premier League.There has now been an upgrade.
Mats Wieffer:
“His profile makes him a worthy addition to the Brighton squad as Wieffer excels in several key areas. His passing statistics are noteworthy, with 6.81 passes played into the final third per 90 minutes (92nd percentile in Europe’s top five leagues) and 8.03 progressive passes per 90 (94th percentile).” New York Times
Wee Billy Gilmour:
View attachment 185885
Let's hope so! Mind you, Dahoud was a good replacement last year - until the season started!Mats Wieffer and maybe Diego Gomez (after the Olympics) will do that for us. Both big old units who can fall back into Hürzeler’s back 5 when we set-up the low block. Also players who can shoot and assist.
It does. If Brighton would have scored one goal (+2 own goals) every 7th game we would be having very different conversations now.
I'm not saying scoring or not scoring is entirely dependent on Billy, but people are massively underrating his role in making the team somewhat functional over the season. Statistically he is not only one of the best passers in the top 5 leagues but also one who carries and passes the ball FORWARD whenever possible.
Here's a "all actions in a game" type of video that show a little of what Billy is actually doing on the pitch:
Thank you for using WB.No. It is an estimation of WB's contribution to the team by the speculator. It is not a statement from Fab about what he thinks.
I don't think our high demands are preventing Dahoud from leaving...I’d offer them Dahoud on a free just to free up the reported £3.5m a year we are paying him.
I don’t believe the £12m valuation. If anything else, that would cause a huge congestion problem on the A27 with both Premier League and Championship recruitment teams queuing up in order to buy the wee laddie.12m seems incredibly low.
That's a bit less than we let Burn go to Newcastle for isn't it? And he had less time on his contract and asked to leave because it was a now or never opportunity to play for his boyhood club.
Now I'm sure Billy would jump at the chance to play for Napoli but why would we let him go for so little? We got 20m+ for Trossard with 18months left, 25m+ for Bissouma with one year left, we got 25m for Sanchez, a gk who refused to play for us. And only one of those buying teams was Chelsea, so...
Transfermarkt believe that we paid about £7m for him. Say Chelsea have a 30% sell-on, that is normally on the profit. So about £1.5m to Chelsea from the £5m profit.Same here. £12M seems incredibly low - to me that's a 'binning him off' price. Wonder how much of that £12M Chelsea would get?
Transfermarkt believe that we paid about £7m for him. Say Chelsea have a 30% sell-on, that is normally on the profit. So about £1.5m to Chelsea from the £5m profit.
But what if we, in order for Napoli to get him so cheap, had a 50% sell-on clause with this deal?
So hypothetically, if Napoli sold him to Milan for £40m in 2027, we could get another £14m from the profits and limit the amount Chelsea get from the sale this summer. Total profit on WBG would be £17.5m which would be pretty good for a player rejected by our new manager.
It’s a gamble for sure, you’d just need a Chairman who is good at that sort of thing to pull it off.
Effectively, we’d be getting rid of Chelsea’s opportunity to make money on is sale and replacing with ours in the future. Bad news for Chelsea.