Just meant the fee we received imo should have been more but point really was that the fees the club get , in time prove good . I think 50m will tooHow did the club get it wrong with Trossard?
Just meant the fee we received imo should have been more but point really was that the fees the club get , in time prove good . I think 50m will tooHow did the club get it wrong with Trossard?
You are correct, I have friends who are lawyers and thoroughly decent people. I was really thinking of those who get involved in civil cases like boundary disputes, where advice to settle out of court would be the best option, but let it run and run and get paid megabucks.All self serving bottom feeders, mostly. Not lawyers, a necessary evil in this case perhaps.
He’s also olderI thought we got a really good price for Tross seeing as he basically downed tools.
There are good and bad of course but anyone acting as a middleman by definition in an unregulated market with vast sums of money to be made, there's little wonder.You are correct, I have friends who are lawyers and thoroughly decent people. I was really thinking of those who get involved in civil cases like boundary disputes, where advice to settle out of court would be the best option, but let it run and run and get paid megabucks.
Mac Allister did indeed sign a 4.5 year deal in January 2019, so that contract would have expired this summer (it is possible, of course, that there might have been a club option).
However, I did tweet out last summer (and flagged it on here) that a new contract was registered sometime between February 1 2020 and February 1 2021 (which I don't believe was reported by anyone else). That comes from the FA Agents Transactions Report for that period. Unfortunately the exact date of the contract renewal was not disclosed, nor any details (such as contract length). However, I did also find a tweet from an Argentine journalist, last May, saying he was contracted until 2024, so there is some evidence that the new deal may have been a one-year extension.
Naylor reported last year that we had an option.
You are correct, I have friends who are lawyers and thoroughly decent people.
Unless the add ons were ‘make it to the end of the season without kicking the ball in to your own face’ I’d say we aren’t seeing any of those.Both will be correct £45m up front, rising to £55m with add ons.
We still refer to Cucurella fee as £63m, whilst it was widely reported as £55m up front + £8m add ons (which we probably won't see much of)
I think we all do, but if the add ons means £55m which seems to be the case, then it’s still decent money. £48m in profit on one player is more incredible business by the club really. & it seems as though this figure has been set by a contract that was signed pre world cup, a point at which nobody could have predicted what a starring role he would have at that tournament & therefor his subsequent rise in value.Still feel a little short changed if 45m plus add ons is correct.
Correct.Nobody was giving Romano grief when he was reporting Milner signing for us.
I take it he's only a shyster when reporting our outgoings?
Nope, I think it's all a load of bollocks. It's a bit like watching a film trailer over and over again, with little snippets/reveals added in every time. Then, when it comes to the actual film, it's a complete anticlimax.Nobody was giving Romano grief when he was reporting Milner signing for us.
I take it he's only a shyster when reporting our outgoings?
Yes, me too, and it will always rankle a bit - but just think how much worse it would be if he was going going at a bargain-basement price to the likes of Chelsea or Spurs!Still feel a little short changed if 45m plus add ons is correct.
I know - but that was on the new contract (as per my post).
The most important thing is not where Moises goes when he leaves us but that we secure Levi Colwill, and if that means a two-way deal with Chelsea then I'm all for it.As others have said though, Moises is a different kettle of fish and I'd be really disappointed in him if he chose to go to Chelsea.