[Albion] Where is Moises going? (Chelsea - 14/08/2023)

[BevBHA]

I think the problem with this deal is that add ons are no good to us as Chelsea are sh1t.

Maybe 85+5 will do it. And a sell on clause

Lol. So true.

Even if they get Moises they are only an Enzo or Caicedo injury away from a midfield pivot of Gallagher and Chukwemeka

 

[brighton_tom]

Chelsea are just desperate not to get their pants pulled down over a fee again, seeing what happened with Marc.

 

[Hugo Rune]

For balance, we’re never going to see the Chelsea mouthpiece declaring that Colwill wants to move to the Albion are we?

I’m not normally one for violence, but I’d pay good money to see @dwayne remove his glasses and give him a ruddy good thick ear.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

Why do people constantly refer to what he cost us in the first place in relation to what we should sell for? It makes no sense to me at all.

We brought him for 3 million as an unknown that’s what he was worth in the market then.

What he’s worth in the market now is a totally separate entity surely? Otherwise we may aswell just sell off all of our players for cut prices just because we brought them cheap and developed them.

Do people "constantly refer" to his initial cost? No.

The problem is that £100m is an unrealistic asking price. We know this for sure because over 2 transfer windows no one has got close to offering it, and it’s pretty much eliminated all interest in buying him. Only Chelsea are still there. The fact that they paid a ridiculous 107m for Enzo and 63m for Cucurella actually makes is less likely that Chelsea will make the same mistake again, not more likely.

In these situations you have to take a step back and consider your options. Is selling for 90m so bad? When considering this you have to include all factors including the cost of retaining a miserable player, the other things you could do with that money, and yes, the profit you’d still be making on the player. Do we hold out for a gross profit of 97m (which won’t happen because no one will offer 100m), or do we accept 87m instead?

In percentage terms the 10m difference is relatively small when we’re comparing 100m with 90m. If it was 5m vs 15m, the percentage difference would be massive.

And that’s why the initial purchase price matters.

 

[Eeyore]

£80m would be fair in modern terms. He's had one strong season in Albion colours. He was very good for most of the season, and at times outstanding, but I do feel that he is being a bit mythologised.

I'll be glad when it's over.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

'This point will be reiterated directly to Brighton today.'

I would LOVE to be a fly on the wall if that was done face-to-face.

It's clear TB and co have a figure in mind – and they've probably told Chelsea they won't settle for less. But it's probably nearer £100m than £70m, so why are Chelsea Todd, Losestanley and the rest of them pissing about with bids that they know will be rejected? Just stump up the money (or at least something closer to it) and get it done!

 

[Colonel Mustard]

Intrigued why so many people think he will go for 80-85 million. That just seems like guessing to me. The noise from the club is we want 100 with as much of it upfront as possible. Exactly the same as with Rice- West Ham wanted over 100. That's what they got.

Only when City appeared with a 90m bid. Unless another club appears with a 90-95m bid, there’s no way we’ll get 100m for Moises. Just saying that he’s worth 100m doesn’t make it true unless someone actually steps forward and offers it.

 

[dwayne]

'This point will be reiterated directly to Brighton today.'

I would LOVE to be a fly on the wall if that was done face-to-face.

It's clear TB and co have a figure in mind – and they've probably told Chelsea they won't settle for less. But it's probably nearer £100m than £70m, so why are Chelsea Todd, Losestanley and the rest of them pissing about with bids that they know will be rejected? Just stump up the money (or at least something closer to it) and get it done!

I guess it's embarrassing for Brighton if caciedo kicks off again and acts like we are holding him as a slave !! So they can probably knock a few mill off the asking price by getting him riled up in public. So it's probably a good tactic and may make Brighton think about offloading him for less than desired.

It's dirty though so I hope we hold firm.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Do people "constantly refer" to his initial cost? No.

The problem is that £100m is an unrealistic asking price. We know this for sure because over 2 transfer windows no one has got close to offering it, and it’s pretty much eliminated all interest in buying him. Only Chelsea are still there. The fact that they paid a ridiculous 107m for Enzo and 63m for Cucurella actually makes is less likely that Chelsea will make the same mistake again, not more likely.

In these situations you have to take a step back and consider your options. Is selling for 90m so bad? When considering this you have to include all factors including the cost of retaining a miserable player, the other things you could do with that money, and yes, the profit you’d still be making on the player. Do we hold out for a gross profit of 97m (which won’t happen because no one will offer 100m), or do we accept 87m instead?

In percentage terms the 10m difference is relatively small when we’re comparing 100m with 90m. If it was 5m vs 15m, the percentage difference would be massive.

And that’s why the initial purchase price matters.

20% sell on clause isn't there?

So Profit on £90m would be £70m .

It isn't our model, but from a sellers point of view, you have to ask: "Could we buy a Caicedo replacement for £70m?"

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Well done Tony for rejecting the bid. We've got an unbelievable bargaining position. Let's continue to use it

 

[Greg Bobkin]

I guess it's embarrassing for Brighton if caciedo kicks off again and acts like we are holding him as a slave !! So they can probably knock a few mill off the asking price by getting him riled up in public. So it's probably a good tactic and may make Brighton think about offloading him for less than desired.

It's dirty though so I hope we hold firm.

How is it embarrassing for Brighton if one of the players has a strop? I don't remember the club being embarrassed over Trossard, Sanchez, Poyet after his 'ceiling' comments, Poundland Sideshow Bob or any of the other tantrum-inducing players.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

20% sell on clause isn't there?

So Profit on £90m would be £70m .

It isn't our model, but from a sellers point of view, you have to ask: "Could we buy a Caicedo replacement for £70m?"

I don’t know the full details but the point remains.

 

[southstandandy]

'This point will be reiterated directly to Brighton today.'

I would LOVE to be a fly on the wall if that was done face-to-face.

It's clear TB and co have a figure in mind – and they've probably told Chelsea they won't settle for less. But it's probably nearer £100m than £70m, so why are Chelsea Todd, Losestanley and the rest of them pissing about with bids that they know will be rejected? Just stump up the money (or at least something closer to it) and get it done!

I suspect it's not necessarily the fee that's the ultimate problem as Boehly carries that sort of sum around in his back pocket, but more the terms of the deal. I would guess if £80m and £10m in add ons would do, Chelsea want to pay as little up front as possible and our Tony wants most of it upfront. Suspect its the payment structure thats the issue more than the fee. Chelsea would probably pay £100m if they could pay £20m each season for 5 years, but can't see TB going for that.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Until Chelsea test are resolve and start making bids on other players, we aren't going to drop our price.

 

[Milano]

20% sell on clause isn't there?

So Profit on £90m would be £70m .

It isn't our model, but from a sellers point of view, you have to ask: "Could we buy a Caicedo replacement for £70m?"

No, because with £70m our club would buy at least 3.
I still think our end game from the beginning has been to get Colwill as part of it.
If anyone still thinks that TB will blink first, or will really give a shite what a f***ing parasite agent leaks or lies about then they’ve been living under a rock.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

I suspect it's not necessarily the fee that's the ultimate problem as Boehly carries that sort of sum around in his back pocket, but more the terms of the deal. I would guess if £80m and £10m in add ons would do, Chelsea want to pay as little up front as possible and our Tony wants most of it upfront. Suspect its the payment structure thats the issue more than the fee. Chelsea would probably pay £100m if they could pay over £20m each season for 5 years, but can't see TB going for that.

Why not?

surely there's plenty of money in the pot after last year's sales?

 

[ac gull]

if Rice is worth £105m - then considering Moises had him in his pocket Veltman style when we played them he is worth more - simples

or put another way - the thing is Todd he is twice as good as Cucurella - you do the maths

 

[ConfusedGloryHunter]

Do people "constantly refer" to his initial cost? No.

The problem is that £100m is an unrealistic asking price. We know this for sure because over 2 transfer windows no one has got close to offering it, and it’s pretty much eliminated all interest in buying him. Only Chelsea are still there. The fact that they paid a ridiculous 107m for Enzo and 63m for Cucurella actually makes is less likely that Chelsea will make the same mistake again, not more likely.

In these situations you have to take a step back and consider your options. Is selling for 90m so bad? When considering this you have to include all factors including the cost of retaining a miserable player, the other things you could do with that money, and yes, the profit you’d still be making on the player. Do we hold out for a gross profit of 97m (which won’t happen because no one will offer 100m), or do we accept 87m instead?

In percentage terms the 10m difference is relatively small when we’re comparing 100m with 90m. If it was 5m vs 15m, the percentage difference would be massive.

And that’s why the initial purchase price matters.

I'm sure in your head this answers the question but it really doesn't.

We are not a wholesaler only worried about profit and loss, we are a football team that does not want to lose a player unless we get a huge amount of money for them. It doesn't matter if we paid 3m or 30m to buy him, he is worth either whatever money some other team is willing to spend on him or a bit more to us to make us keep him.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Chelsea have been embarrassed as a club twice by us in the last twelve months with Cucurella and Potter. Both of their own making mind. Nonetheless that is why I can't see us getting Colwill and also why they are being difficult (in now expecting Moises to apply pressure behind the scenes) with Caicedo. That's my two-penneth.

Cue Colwill arriving and Moises off for £100m.

 

[cjd]

I don’t know the full details but the point remains.

You know how Crystal Palace supporters go on about how a number of our fans who have season tickets for the Albion, also have season tickets for their main club Chelsea....?

I don't know how true that is, but there are one or two posters on this thread that certainly arouse suspicion.