Search results

Not sure either - I think there are variations on a theme - but Chelsea have an agreement with Southampton, not with Livramento.

They can't force him to sign a contract if he doesn't want to. That would be illegal.

Wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. Would prefer to buy him, obviously, but....................................... Anyone know how long he'll have left on his contract come next summer?

What, as second fiddle to Veltman?

Just like Lamptey ..........................

Yes, that last bit does grate a bit.

If paying out £5M to get a return of £25M doesn't appeal to you, I suggest you never try running a football club.

Control? OK, you convince yourself it's all about willy waving. I won't.

Anybody wetting their pants over that wuld be a very silly person - as well as incontinent. If we knew at the outset we were getting a player for £5M, but that if he turned out to be good the selling club would have a right to buy him back for £25M we should just look at it calmly and realise...

Because the Lamptey deal is done and dusted. We bought him; he's ours. If we'd made a deal for Livramento we'd have had to send him back if Chelsea wanted him back - but still with a huge profit for us. For whatever reason (and almost certainly not that alone) the deal wasn't made and he's gone...

You really can't see the difference between the two deals? Not that the alleged buy back clause would be likely to be a deal breaker in itself.

Totally irrelevant to the Livramento situation.

Still spending £5M and getting £25M back is a good deal - even if they want him back half way through the season, or two or three years down the line it's still £20M clear profit. Strange that anyone could think that in itself was a problem.

Think that's probably the most likely reason - while a buy back clause may not be ideal, if we'd bought him for £5M, got two good seasons out of him, and then had to sell him back for £25M it would have been a profitable bit of business for us. If we'd wanted him badly enough, and he wanted to...

Wrong. It was a hypothetical answer. Besides, if Southampton pay several £million for him, thus preventing us spending £millions on him, and he then gets run over by a bus, it's Southampton's financial loss, and financially we would have dodged a bullet. It really is very simple to understand...

............ plus he's not the striker we so desperately need to avoid inevitable relegation this season.

It would ralistically mean that we'd dodged a bullet - not that I would wish us to be dodging bullets in such a way.

A bit radical, that .....................

Assuming one of those two will be playing of course. End of post ......................

I haven't forgotten, and I realise it's only one match - but defensively he did not look good. IMHO, like.