terraloon

For most sell on agreements it will be the fee the club receives be it initial sum( if no add ons achieved ) or the initial sum + the add ons if any paid. It’s difficult to generalise because each agreement will come with a different set of clauses. Back to the sell on clause , not the one to Everton but the possible one that was signed when he came back from Chelsea, that remains active for as long as Saints receive any fee. So speculate that Chelsea get say 20% of the fee of say £42m and say Saints paid £1.5 m to get him back then Chelsea would get £ 8 ish M. Say down the line Saints get another £5m then Chelsea would get £1m If say in the future Everton sell him for £75m and the sell on that saints negotiated was 20% then another £15 m would be paid to Saints but another £3 m would be paid to Chelsea. Thats complicated enough but if say the Club that Everton sold him to sells him on for say £100m and they , Everton , in turn had a 20% sell on then Everton would get £15 mill, £3 million of that would be paid to Saints and potentially £ 600 k of that would be paid to Chelsea Confused ?

There was a far reaching ruling at CAS in 2019 dealing with the status of 16-18 year olds. In effect if he was paid a wage ( defined more than just day to day expenses) then he would be classified as a professional. Yes that ruling was all to do with training compensation but the key point was that players in clouded in scholarship agreements are professionals. When he went to Chelsea the clubs agreed a fee of circa £1.5 m. If as I suspect he received more than just expenses under the Chelsea agreement then he would be considered as a professional. Lets not mix up the agreements he had with the agreement , whatever that was between Chelsea and Southampton indeed the vast bulk of agreements where scholars move voluntarily aren’t considered by tribunal they are settled between the two clubs.

When he returned from his brief adventure at Chelsea someone close to the academy hinted that part of the agreement was a% of any future transfer profit. Anyone else any idea if this is correct

Have you ever wondered why clubs like Chelsea fight so hard to keep some and let others go almost in a whimper ? Both Lamptey and Livermento were behind James in the pecking order and without doubt would have been playing back up to James who seems to be the complete modern player We hear time after time that clubs didn’t want to let players go but they do. I personally think that there is a limit to how many promising 19-20 year olds you can have, but also the sort of financial arrangements made when Saints bought Livermento its pretty obvious that Chelsea have dangled a little bit of financial benefit which then enables them to retain if you like a get out of jail card because they arent 100% in terms of the decision but need at that point in time to produce space to see if they maybe have another cab of the rank who needs room to grow. I made a point of watching Colwill last night, very assured, at 6 foot 2 a good size ,good speed and it’s obvious that he has been very well coached not sure he is quite ready to be a starter at a PL club with ambitions above just mid table but he almost certainly will be at a PL club next season.

The amortisation charge for the £30 million incomings will ( assuming they will be on say four deals ) be around £3-£4 million this season and around £7.5 million season thereafter ,whereas the sale of Dinge for £30 million will show up in full in 21/22 Wages are a different matter but doubt the two full backs will be on mega amounts

When I read the post that you responded to I thought it was a naive take on thing so agree pretty much with your take on things. For me Chelsea appear to be able to develop a far greater % of players who by and large will get a very decent career in football but just like every PL academy the vast majority ( in excess of 97% ) of those that enter through their doors don’t ever get a contract and even then it’s a very small number of those youngsters who get a contract ever get to play for the first team. I can’t now find the article but I read somewhere that Chelsea currently have20/ 21 players out on loan that actually isn’t anywhere near as many as I thought it would be but when you think that 4 of those are the likes of Gallagher, Gilmour, Broja, and Ampadu all full internationals and all aged 22 or younger. Then you have others who clearly they and indeed others on here rate like Colwill. Of course they have some real deadwood in the 15 Drinkwater to name just one but and here’s my main point they really have changed their policy of sending out dozens of youngsters and it seems that they already are complying with the changes that FIFA are planning and that will put certain clubs , particularly in the lower leagues an issue because they won’t be able to tap into the PL loan pool

When Livramento was signed from Chelsea it was within a week of Broja eventually signing on loan. You can’t have two players on loan from the same club. At the time little sense could be made of the fact that the buy back deal doesn’t come into play until 22/23 season nor were Southampton due to pay any of the fee till the end of this season. There is a view and I guess it’s what that tweet was referring to that there may well be another clause in terms of what Chelsea’s options are. https://saintsmarching.com/2021/09/30/crucial-terms-livramento-agreement-chelsea-brilliant-southampton/

Make of this what you will Chelsea Youth @chelseayouth · 7h I am very not here for several aspects of the idea but the mind does wander towards what the framework of a deal to get Livramento back (before the buyback becomes active in 2023) looks like with Broja involved, from both clubs' perspectives.

It actually does. The key is which club he is contracted to and that’s Chelsea.

This is very much how I see it but the concern will be that to date we haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that Chelsea have any intention to sell him indeed all evidence to the contrary,nor had any of the other clubs like Newcastle like WHU be throwing their caps into the ring if the response to the questions about his future not been met with the nonsense and naive response about trying to buy him. The response should and could have been something along the lines of “He is doing well but he is Chelsea player” I have no idea if Chelsea will even bother to engage in any permanent transfer discussion or indeed whatSaints were told about the player in terms of how Chelsea’s development plans were when they agreed to loan him but the evidence suggests Chelsea see him at their club going forward and to a club like Chelsea the length of his contract for a 20 year old is unique so they clearly rate him. There is a delicate line to tread between between reasonable conversations and what looks to me very close to tapping up. The fact is he is a contracted Chelsea player they will we be in constant dialogue with him so will know exactly how the player feels. But it’s the comments made to the media is the concern because he clearly is a player contracted to Chelsea and whilst tapping up goes on everywhere the consequences if another club, in this instance Chelsea, made a complaint are quite mind blowing and I wonder if that could include the forced cancellation of a loan .

Is he actually saying anything? Thought the article was a load of waffle

Bit of a strange comment re rattling through managers because since the Roman shipped up they have had fewer managers than Saints come to that there are quite a few PL teams that have way more managers . Palace, Leeds, Newcastle, Watford and Leicester to name just a few. Others like Spurs &Everton and Norwich are catching them up at a pace.The days of long term appointments, well what was historically considered long terms, are fast becoming a 5ning of the past Very very few managers feel safe enough in their job to try and develop a team. From needing to win a trophy to staving off relegation none can afford to fall short of their KPI s

I personally think this massively mis reads the situation because it’s the here and now that’s important and sadly it about clubs expectations Currently in Chelsea’s squad there are probably as many if not more academy products than at most clubs. Christensen, Chalbaoh, James, Hudson Odi, Loftus Cheek, Mount, are regular starters that’s six. Historically they had one Terry. For whatever reason their players have now a pathway and that won’t have gone un noticed by youngsters many of who are happy to sign long term contracts probably because they know what their clubs plans are for them. Others won’t sign long term contracts and will look elsewhere to try and kick start their careers.Sadly many won’t have a long term commitment at clubs they go to and if you look at Brighton with Lamptey he will be off as soon as he gets an offer as sadly I suspect will Tino continues with his upward trajectory if that happens a significant wedge will end back at Chelsea. If you look at it objectively Chelsea have two loan models. Firstly it’s the players that they paid money for but those, usually big money signings, have bombed. So Chelsea happily loan them to other reasonably high ranked team often they very cleverly sell at a later date often for a value that is equal to or close to their amortised value.So in accounting terms no loss Then you have their academy players. Just like every academy the vast majority of Chelsea academy youngsters won’t get a senior contract so they simply are cast adrift. I read the other day that the average number at PL academies that fall into this is 97% There are others that the clubs see progress but they aren’t at a decent level so they will start off getting a lower league loan and progressively stepping up the standard . Ironically Gallagher falls into that category. He has been on loan at Charlton, Swansea and now at the Palace he like Broja wont be sold until that have now been tested back at Chelsea. I suspect the powers that be at Southampton know that anything other than a stupid stupid offer probably north of £40 million won’t convince them to sale and to be honest I would be staggered if a bid north of £15 million would be sanctioned Then you have the gems who they know have stardust in their boots. Broja and I suspect Gilmour fall into this category. The maddest part in all this that going forward the supposed changes to the numbers and type of players you can send out on loan won’t massively impact in terms of loaning academy players but some mid to lower ranked clubs won’t be borrowing senior players from the real

It’s quite ironic really that away supporters get their tickets for just £30. Then as was witnessed on Sunday putting together you don’t just get a noisy group but you get supporters who are just that as opposed to tourists who have been able to buy tickets through an agency. This whole £30 rule is a nonsense and yes I get it that some see supporters that travel from say Cornwall to StMarys as being plastic supporters who should be supporting say Truro but but the costs for them just getting to Southampton would have been far greater than say Chelsea supporters coming from Surrey

So why is this published? Away fans who make the trip to Turf Moor are housed within the David Fishwick Stand which lies on the Western side of the pitch behind the goal. The standard allocation of around 3,931 doesn’t quite fill the entirety of the stand which is reserved solely for the travelling fans. The number of tickets released can increase for higher-profile matches such as the Premier League and FA Cup however.