Summer Transfer Thread 24/25

spudbynight said:
No, I read that. It doesn’t change my point.

In this scenario, it requires the player to want to leave. If Olise doesn’t want to join Man City (unlikely I know) then Palace won’t sell to Chelsea, even for an increased fee.

My point is that in every scenario, unless a club offers something silly, Palace will do whatever they can to avoid selling. It doesn’t mean they will be able to avoid selling but they don’t want to. It is a different scenario to a club who wants or needs to sell and is trying to achieve the best price.
Click to expand...
I think that's somewhat wishful thinking on your part. It's very difficult to keep a player that wants to leave and while the clause may not apply to Chelsea, it sets a benchmark in the players eyes and if Chelsea were to offer that amount (or slightly more) then good luck keeping the player happy when turning that down. Furthermore the player (or at least his agent) isn't silly, if Palace are playing hardball with Chelsea then they'll use the interest of a CL club to force Palace's hand. Not that I believe there's any chance that Olise wouldn't ultimately move to City/Arsenal/Liverpool if pushed but I you can guarantee that he'll be telling Palace that he'll join them if Palace don't accept Chelsea's £65m bid (for example).

Anyway we've gone down a long hypothetical path here. I've no doubt Palace would like to keep their best players, although I suspect there's an element of pragmatism there and they'll realise that they can potentially improve the side by cashing in on one or two and I suspect the fact that any release clause may exclude non CL clubs will ultimately not count for a great deal.
 
BaZ87 said:
I think that's somewhat wishful thinking on your part. It's very difficult to keep a player that wants to leave and while the clause may not apply to Chelsea, it sets a benchmark in the players eyes and if Chelsea were to offer that amount (or slightly more) then good luck keeping the player happy when turning that down. Furthermore the player (or at least his agent) isn't silly, if Palace are playing hardball with Chelsea then they'll use the interest of a CL club to force Palace's hand. Not that I believe there's any chance that Olise wouldn't ultimately move to City/Arsenal/Liverpool if pushed but I you can guarantee that he'll be telling Palace that he'll join them if Palace don't accept Chelsea's £65m bid (for example).

Anyway we've gone down a long hypothetical path here. I've no doubt Palace would like to keep their best players, although I suspect there's an element of pragmatism there and they'll realise that they can potentially improve the side by cashing in on one or two and I suspect the fact that any release clause may exclude non CL clubs will ultimately not count for a great deal.
Click to expand...

If player X wants to join club Y then there are limits to what the club can do about it.

The only point I am making is that there is a difference between club A who wants to sell a player for as much as they can and club B who wants to avoid selling a player if they can.

With Olise and Chelsea last season we saw how much more complicated these situations are when you have a club who doesn't want or need to sell.
 
Last edited:
C Kent said:
why would you have a player that's played a handful of games at lb 4 odd seasons ago 'fill in' when one of the most injury prone players in your squad is, shock horror, injured? Go and get a 1st choice starting lb.
Click to expand...

We have Malacia who is also a left back. Shaw played 47 games in the 22/23 season. I am sure he will be back to 100% next season. What happened this season is all the stars aligned and we were buggered.

Priority is CB as we don't have the cash so have to make compromise.
 
Last edited:
Seen a few on twitter saying Lille have rejected a £42 mill for yoro as they want £50m, un-named club but most places are reporting it as Liverpools bid.
 
Seen a few reports coming out now that United are walking away from the Braithewaite deal due to Evertons expectations. Will be interesting to see if this actually happens given they need to sell and we've agreed terms so he's obviously happy to leave.

Would be a step in the right direction for us providing we don't then go crawling back at the end of August!
 
Last edited:
If United bought him and it was at a proper valuation rather than a shady lowball one, I sort of see his point.

But then, I don’t know the rules to the extent of a lot of people here and I’m sort of biased.

Edit: I base that off of the fact they only part-own United and fully own Nice.
 
Last edited:
The issue isn't the value (that's already covered by related party transactions) but whether one club potentially has control over another club competing in the same competition. It's all good and well Ratcliffe saying Nice are allowed to sell to Spurs (for example) so why not Utd but the key difference is that it will be 100% their choice if they sell to Spurs and the decision will be made with the best interests of Nice at heart. The same is potentially not true with a deal to Utd.
 
BaZ87 said:
The issue isn't the value (that's already covered by related party transactions) but whether one club potentially has control over another club competing in the same competition. It's all good and well Ratcliffe saying Nice are allowed to sell to Spurs (for example) so why not Utd but the key difference is that it will be 100% their choice if they sell to Spurs and the decision will be made with the best interests of Nice at heart. The same is potentially not true with a deal to Utd.
Click to expand...

Its all a bit murky but I can see why they do it. I wonder how often a player moves when the club who gets them hasn't offered the best price to the club? Fundamentally players don't have to move if they don't want to.

Anyway, once Barrada starts i'm sure he can use some of his "experience" to get around this. Nice cancel his contract. He goes to work at the local super market and United "discover him" and give him a nice contract befitting a talented shelf stacker. Who knows. This isn't my area of expertise.
 
Shamikebab said:
It's pretty hilarious that City are allowed a global network of clubs with players moving between them at will but suddenly United do it and it's cracked down on.
Click to expand...
It’s not that at all, it because your playing in the same European competition, had you not won the FA Cup you could have signed him tomorrow. It would be the same for city if they tried to sign a player from Girona

As mr Kent said above
 
Last edited:
Didn’t Manu vote to block Loans etc when the Saudi league started to buy players incase they were loaned back to Newcastle:D

Well well well . How the tables have turned :D
 
Bigpig said:
Didn’t Manu vote to block Loans etc when the Saudi league started to buy players incase they were loaned back to Newcastle:D

Well well well . How the tables have turned :D
Click to expand...

That's a little different though.

One is getting around FFP rules by having someone else buy a player and then loan him cheap to another club in the same group, the other is someone trying to buy a player at fair market value
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom