schmunk
"Members"
He's still wearing a White shirt now.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] Moises Caicedo - New contract signed until summer 2027 with 1 year extra option.
- Thread starter Lurchy
- Start date
He's still wearing a White shirt now.
- Jan 3, 2012
- 16,580
Technically any shirt that he wears is a 'White' shirt
I should have thought of that!
I don’t think anyone is suggesting otherwise? I agree, if an offer is too to turn down I would have no issue selling a Bissouma or a Ben White. I’m sure most feel the same.
What I had a problem with, were those here gleefully wanting to accept the first low ball bid from Leeds for Ben White in the summer. Giddy with excitement some were.
[emoji106]
GT49er
Well-known member
And therein lies the rub. To other clubs we are still little old Brighton, never sold anyone for more than £10M (I think, give or take a few thousand quid), so they're not going to expect to pay top dollar. They'll make a low offer; Tony will 'stand firm' and 'not sell anyone we don't want to sell' - we will hug ourselves with glee because we're not being pushed around and the big club will shrug its shoulders and move on to someone else.
Southampton, Leicester - they'd cough up. It's a barrier we've got to break through, but we haven't got there yet.
Moises Caicedo?
I think if things progress next season, it’s going to be impossible to keep the likes of Lamptey and or Biss.
Lamptey is easily a potential £50m player (as crazy as that sounds, that’s the business). How much did Wan Bissaka go for. We will get one of those crazy fees. It’ll be sad, but vindication as well.
I think if things progress next season, it’s going to be impossible to keep the likes of Lamptey and or Biss.
Lamptey is easily a potential £50m player (as crazy as that sounds, that’s the business). How much did Wan Bissaka go for. We will get one of those crazy fees. It’ll be sad, but vindication as well.
Psychobilly freakout
HellBilly
All this is true to an extent, until.....
An agent gets involved, a players head is turned, and instead of getting on with the job hand...
Releases little rumblings of discontent, possibly slightly disruptive in training, basically manufacture a move....
That is something Tony can’t plan for, and if that’s the case, we may have to sell and replace the rotten apple with a fresh juicy apple.
Stato
Well-known member
- Dec 21, 2011
- 6,581
It's not about who is selling, but who is buying. Southampton and Leicester got big bucks because they were selling to Liverpool, United, City, Chelsea, none of whom have wanted to buy any of our players yet. Everton paid Watford big money for Richarlison, so may be another big money purchaser, but the likes of Leeds are not in the same stratosphere. They, like us and most of the rest of the division, simply cannot afford to buy players that other Premier League sides have under contract and wish to keep.
mxs_harrow
New member
Until this guy (eventually ) lands and it is decided where he is playing... from Rory Smith article New York Times..... titled " A Morality Tale"
"The key thing to remember, strictly speaking, is that there is no villain in the story of Moisés Caicedo. For the last couple of weeks, I have been trying to piece together the reason so many European clubs have been given the same warning: That for all Caicedo’s immense promise, a deal for him is just too complicated to pull off.
The reason for that is, on one level, unremarkable. The transfer market is saturated with agents who try to interject themselves into any prospective deal. They approach players with promises that they can get them to a certain club or to a certain league. They receive mandates from clubs to sell a player in a specific territory.
In Caicedo’s case, at least three separate agencies are thought to have some sort of legal claim on his transfer; the likelihood is that several more are touting their own connections across Europe in an attempt to conjure a transfer out of nowhere. And, to reiterate, this is all (seemingly) perfectly above board, as things currently stand.
Whether it should be that way is a different matter. It feels, from the outside, as if much of this is completely unnecessary, as if soccer’s authorities are vaguely complicit in allowing the transfer market to operate as a free-for-all. It is hard to see how any of this is in the players’ best interests. The benefits to the clubs seem indistinct, at best, too.
It should not be hard to regulate things a little more effectively. Agents, certainly, should not be allowed to operate for more than one party in any deal. The practice of allowing clubs to nominate agents to act on their behalf makes sense — it allows them to retain some negotiating power — but the issuing of multiple mandates seems ripe for complication. And it might help if representation agreements had to be signed long before deals were completed.
Caicedo, it is to be hoped, will find himself in the right place regardless of the squabble over his future. Brighton, the running favorite to land him, is a well-run, forward-thinking club, much like his current employer, Independiente del Valle. But it is a shame that his emergence — as the standard-bearer for a talented young generation of players in Ecuador — should be allowed to become a faintly tawdry opportunity for lots of people to try to get rich quick.
"The key thing to remember, strictly speaking, is that there is no villain in the story of Moisés Caicedo. For the last couple of weeks, I have been trying to piece together the reason so many European clubs have been given the same warning: That for all Caicedo’s immense promise, a deal for him is just too complicated to pull off.
The reason for that is, on one level, unremarkable. The transfer market is saturated with agents who try to interject themselves into any prospective deal. They approach players with promises that they can get them to a certain club or to a certain league. They receive mandates from clubs to sell a player in a specific territory.
In Caicedo’s case, at least three separate agencies are thought to have some sort of legal claim on his transfer; the likelihood is that several more are touting their own connections across Europe in an attempt to conjure a transfer out of nowhere. And, to reiterate, this is all (seemingly) perfectly above board, as things currently stand.
Whether it should be that way is a different matter. It feels, from the outside, as if much of this is completely unnecessary, as if soccer’s authorities are vaguely complicit in allowing the transfer market to operate as a free-for-all. It is hard to see how any of this is in the players’ best interests. The benefits to the clubs seem indistinct, at best, too.
It should not be hard to regulate things a little more effectively. Agents, certainly, should not be allowed to operate for more than one party in any deal. The practice of allowing clubs to nominate agents to act on their behalf makes sense — it allows them to retain some negotiating power — but the issuing of multiple mandates seems ripe for complication. And it might help if representation agreements had to be signed long before deals were completed.
Caicedo, it is to be hoped, will find himself in the right place regardless of the squabble over his future. Brighton, the running favorite to land him, is a well-run, forward-thinking club, much like his current employer, Independiente del Valle. But it is a shame that his emergence — as the standard-bearer for a talented young generation of players in Ecuador — should be allowed to become a faintly tawdry opportunity for lots of people to try to get rich quick.
Gazwag
5 millionth post poster
I think people are getting a little bit carried away with Lamptey, until he is proven to be able to play more than a handful of games in a row nobody will buy him.
Silverhatch
Well-known member
Please can everyone stop saying it’ll be impossible to not sell our players. We’ve sat at the top table (down the shit end admittedly) for 4 years now. Any serious domestic competitors will know Tony and how he operates. We, like every other club, take losses on some players and we will certainly hold out for TOP dollar if someone comes calling for our top ‘hyped’ talent (Lamptey/White and the emerging Biss). And they will all come at some point and they’ll know that low-balling Bloom is a poor strategy - as evidenced by Leeds
Mentioned on the Sky transfer show tonight that we’re signing MC and that Biss won’t be leaving in this window.
B-right-on
Living the dream
Technically any shirt that he wears is a 'White' shirt
He technically wears a Blue and White White shirt.
um bongo molongo
Well-known member
I don’t disagree with any of this. But if we had Vardy and Maddison up front in our team we’d be top half as well. We’re one or two top class attackers away from being a very good side. But there’s a reason they go for the big bucks...
Everyone?
Not everyone. I have been saying the same consistently here on NSC for a long time now. If we sell it will have to be an exceptional offer.
Not the £20m desperation bid from Leeds for Ben White that some here got giddy about.
GT49er
Well-known member
No, it's about selling. We can buy - £20m plus for the likes of Webster and Maupay. We are not good at selling, end of. Arsenal can pay big bucks; they borrowed Ryan .......................
Stato
Well-known member
- Dec 21, 2011
- 6,581
Its odd to say that we are not good at selling when we don't wish to sell. Had we had a £20 million bid for Dunk and sold him when we could have got £40, I would say that we are not good at it. We haven't and we didn't, so how have we under-performed at selling? We chose not to sell Shane Duffy because he would have strengthened another EPL side. Arsenal would not have given us big money for Mat Ryan. They wanted a reserve keeper. Not even the richest sides spend a fortune on a reserve keeper. Had we insisted on a sale, they would have moved on and we would still be paying his wages, despite our manager's intention not to play him.
Danny Wilson Said
New member
We have never seemed willing to pay for Premier League experience. To me, it was terrible timing that Sidwell got injured and never played in the PL for us. Lallana and Welbeck have it but - surprise, surprise - are seldom fit. We try to get value by buying from the Championship or abroad but there are occasions when you get what you pay for. Even though Leicester have recruited better than us in those areas, they also got Jonny Evans, who is not the greatest defender of all time, but has Premier League know-how.
rogersix
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2014
- 7,902
bloom can't sell an asset, does that make any sense?
GT49er
Well-known member
What bids have we had? None worth while - because we are seen as little Brighton, who've never sold anybody for more than £10M. We might think it was great that we turned down £20M for Dunk when he should have been sold for $40M - but nobody was offering £40M, not for a player from Brighton! And were we really so afraid of Duffy playing for another team in the EPL ? - we must still be a bit small then ............... Then even Celtic wouldn't buy him. That also begs the question as to why weren't we afraid of Stephens playing for a rival? As far as not paying for reserve keepers is concerned, I believe we paid seven figure fees for both Button and Steele. Arsenal, on the other hand, just borrow one from us.
We buy - but we can't sell, not big anyway. whether you like it or not, that is a barrier we have to get past if we are to progress. Until we do we will remain, in the eyes of potential buyers for any of our players, a smaller club (and therefore likely to receive lower bids for our players) than the likes of Southampton, Leicester, etc., thus reducing our purchasing power within the context of sustainability.