Search results

He was THEN. Maybe not now, but then he was. A top scorer in the Championship against a gawky youth not pulling up trees or scoring a lot in PL2? - no comparison!

Because at the time Maupay was a much better striker, and far more experienced than the young inexperienced and still developing Gyokeres?

Nonsense. He's already demonstrated that he's far better than DJ Locadia. Still not something Chelsea should spend zillions on though.

Harsh! :lolol: :lolol:

Yes, he pretty much insisted!

Why are you outlining Gyokeres career and quoting his stats in an answer to a post about Leo Ostigard? "Ostigard, however, I do blame the club (mainly Potter though) for a little. He had a very solid championship loan........." 'He' in that context is obviously Ostigard.

He had a good loan at Coventry, but Stoke decided he wasn't good enough for them and after initially playing him regularly they dropped him and he returned to us because he wasn't getting regular football. He was very determined to play every match (and apparently tried to insist on doing so!)...

To bring out some good and interesting answers over the next few hours?

Yes - IF Sporting Lisbon had agreed to a sell on clause. They are under no obligation to agree one.

Will we though? Assuming we did put a sell on clause when we sold him to Coventry, that would be inserted into the contract as a legally binding agreement. Coventry pay us whatever percentage - of profit or the total fee, whichever has been agreed - because they are legally bound to do so. But...

About £10M a year for Tony's season ticket, most years, isn't it?

Sold him off cheaply? Well yes, I thought so at the time - and got a right telling off from the club-knows-better-than-you cognosenti on here! Like you, I hope we included a better sell-on percentage in the deal.

Coventry will try to get the highest fee they can squeeze out of the purchaser, whether there's a sell-on fee or not - obviously. Ridiculous to think they'd do anything else!

Who would we have to pay the sell-on fee too? For that reason alone, I'm probably out! :facepalm:

No comparison. The sell-on clauses there (such as they were/might have been and whatever other South American multi-ownership chicanery and shennanigans) enabled us to get him cheaper because United pulled out. The only factors in a Caicedo deal now are what a club will pay, and what we will...

And a sell-on clause is affecting the sale price of Caicedo? Tell us more ..............................

Like everybdy else, I've no idea whether we hve a sell-on clause or not - let alone how much it might be! But whatever it us (if it is!) I don't see how it makes any difference to Big Viktor's sale value, or Coventry's asking price.

Wolves think they are too - that's where I found the £25M figure that I quoted. https://www.molineux.news/transfer-news/wolves-transfer-news-sporting-cp-make-viktor-gyokeres-a-priority-target/

I don't think Coventry will actually get £25M, TBH.

Coventry now value him at £25M apparantly.