[Albion] Tino Livramento

[Dunk&Disorderly]

I thought that Karbownik’s defending was poor V Luton.

I had great hopes but he may need more time and coaching.

Agree his defending was poor and thought that must've been why he's not been given the minutes so far. Going forward and attacking he looks much better and is clearly technically gifted. Hopefully we can improve on the defensive side of his game.

 

[brighton_tom]

Not going to be that disappointed if we miss out on Livramento, it always felt a bit of a luxury signing to me and not a necessary one seeing as we have Lamptey/Veltman/Karbo/Alzate who can all play at right back. When the deal was first on it was probably one where the club thought that we dont actually need to make this signing but given his age/quality/price/low wages it probably also felt like that it had no down side for us. But given that it now seems like Chelsea have made the deal less appealing with whatever these clauses are (with extra interest it could be an increased purchase price, could be a sell on percentage, could be higher wages, could be a buy back option, who knows... ) we've probably just walked away thinking the money could be better spent elsewhere.

 

[dwayne]

The buyback clause is 25m. We wouldn't turn that down !!

More than likely we can't guarantee him game time. Too risky.

Sent from my SM-G986B using Tapatalk

 

[Finchley Seagull]

Disappointed with missing out on him but, if Lamptey is fit, he may not have played a lot and the buy back clause is a bit off putting. If he does well, we have no control over his future, which would be frustrating. We will see how big a miss he is and how quickly he gets into Southampton's team.

 

[vagabond]

Slightly ironic if we lose out on a player because of that after 12 months of bleating about our wonderful 'pathway' to the first team in the Athletic and the Argus

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

It’s like you’re looking for a reason to criticise the club when you hear this news.

It’s more than likely that Chelsea had various stipulations that Tony and co. felt wouldn’t best serve the interests of our club. Of course we have a pathway. Ben White. Sanchez. Connolly. Alzate. Lamptey.

Silly comment.

 

[albionfan37]

I guess we think karbo is up to the task

 

[blockhseagull]

The buyback clause is 25m. We wouldn't turn that down !!

More than likely we can't guarantee him game time. Too risky.

Sent from my SM-G986B using Tapatalk

Wouldn’t we ?

I mean £25m sounds a lot, but we’ve just got £50m for White after one season of PL football and if someone had offered £25m for Lamptey pre hamstring issues I doubt you would have accepted it.

I’d imagine that the concept of a buy back is the issue, you are effectively taking all the risk and paying out a fee for someone you ultimately have zero control over.

 

[Terry Butcher Tribute Act]

It’s like you’re looking for a reason to criticise the club when you hear this news.

It’s more than likely that Chelsea had various stipulations that Tony and co. felt wouldn’t best serve the interests of our club. Of course we have a pathway. Ben White. Sanchez. Connolly. Alzate. Lamptey.

Silly comment.

You again, almost stalker like. So precious. I was commenting on one person on here's speculation on the reason for this transfer not going through.

It's now suggested online that Saints were prepared to agree to a £25m+ buy back clause. Obviously we didn't agree to that as our club likes full control over transfers. Makes sense.


Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[The Fits]

I guess we think karbo is up to the task

He looks way off to me atm. As others have said, this was something of a luxury signing. We know Tony won’t be held to ransom to we move on.

 

[dwayne]

Wouldn’t we ?

I mean £25m sounds a lot, but we’ve just got £50m for White after one season of PL football and if someone had offered £25m for Lamptey pre hamstring issues I doubt you would have accepted it.

I’d imagine that the concept of a buy back is the issue, you are effectively taking all the risk and paying out a fee for someone you ultimately have zero control over.

If the player is amazing you get at least one good season out of him and 20m profit. To me this seems like a no brainer.

Sent from my SM-G986B using Tapatalk

 

[DarrenFreemansPerm]

I think Potter is going for a back 4 this season.

Right backs (in order of preference) could be:

1. Lamptey
2. Veltman
3. Karbownik (he must have impressed recently for us to pull out of the Tino deal)
4. Alzate

I think this highlights what I’m alluding to, from 1-4 I don’t really think any of those are natural full backs except possibly Veltman. Personally I can’t see us playing a back 4 as we need to hide the fact we don’t have any proper full backs, a 3 or 5 makes more sense as you can disguise wingers as wing backs and allows us to lean on our plethora of centre backs.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

How does a buy-back clause work?

Is it first refusal, when the buying club sell on, or can the selling club say, " we are going to buy him back now".

If the latter then it's a loan with benefits.
If the former, then less so.

 

[dwayne]

How does a buy-back clause work?

Is it first refusal, when the buying club sell on, or can the selling club say, " we are going to buy him back now".

If the latter then it's a loan with benefits.
If the former, then less so.

20m of benefits !!!

Sent from my SM-G986B using Tapatalk

 

[vagabond]

If the player is amazing you get at least one good season out of him and 20m profit. To me this seems like a no brainer.

Sent from my SM-G986B using Tapatalk

Obviously we don’t know specifics, maybe it was a much lower buy back.

I suppose the club may look at it as being opportunity cost as well. We’re developing a player to give back to Chelsea who will reap the benefits. That playing time could be given to one of our own talents who we can develop and sell on for enormous profit.

I’m disappointed we didn’t land this guy as well though. Seems a real talent no doubt but I think we’d have been good for him too.

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

It’s like you’re looking for a reason to criticise the club when you hear this news.

It’s more than likely that Chelsea had various stipulations that Tony and co. felt wouldn’t best serve the interests of our club. Of course we have a pathway. Ben White. Sanchez. Connolly. Alzate. Lamptey.

Silly comment.

Lets face it we burnt Chelsea with the Lamptey deal, they won't be making that mistake again so now their young players don't show the value that we look for. Hence the buy back clause on this lad and the deal with Palace where Chelsea have the right to match any accepted bid for Guehi.

 

[studio150]

How does a buy-back clause work?

Is it first refusal, when the buying club sell on, or can the selling club say, " we are going to buy him back now".

If the latter then it's a loan with benefits.
If the former, then less so.

Depends on the deal, but I believe the clause on Brewster going to Sheffield United, was that Liverpool could buy him back in any of the transfer windows in the three seasons following him being sold to Sheffield United.

 

[vagabond]

Lets face it we burnt Chelsea with the Lamptey deal, they won't be making that mistake again so now their young players don't show the value that we look for. Hence the buy back clause on this lad and the deal with Palace where Chelsea have the right to match any accepted bid for Guehi.

Exactly.

 

[Jim in the West]

How does a buy-back clause work?

Is it first refusal, when the buying club sell on, or can the selling club say, " we are going to buy him back now".

If the latter then it's a loan with benefits.
If the former, then less so.

I know nothing about football contracts, but if the selling club has the option to trigger the buy-back it really is a loan. So my guess is that the buy-back only works if Southampton are looking to sell. If so, Chelsea would have first refusal, provided they paid the £25m figure. That would obviously give Southampton a nice profit, but it would be pretty unusual for a right back to command that sort of fee. But if the guy IS as amazing as reports make out, then in a few years he could theoretically be worth a lot more, and Chelsea would be the winners (as they would only pay £25m to buy him back). And I'm sure the deal will be structured in such a way that if Chelsea didn't want to pay £25m, but someone else paid (say) £20m, then the sell-on clause will give Chelsea a very decent proportion of that.

On the face of it this is great for Chelsea.....they develop a young player, but can't find a place in their first team for him. So they sell him at a decent fee AND have the option to buy him back if he turns out to be great AND, even if he doesn't, they get a decent proportion of whatever profit Southampton make. Of course, it may also make good sense for Southampton.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

I take it as a good sign that we're not going all-out to get Livramento. I was concerned that they were more worried about Lamptey's hamstring than they were letting on.

 

[GAZTASTIC]

A friend of mine in Bristol reckons we are looking at Tomas Kalas, the BCFC captain. He is 28 which makes me think unlikely, but apparently formed a great partnership with Adam Webster a few years ago. He has also played centre back and right back so fits the Potter profile.