Summer Transfer Window 2023

[Fabrice29]

2 minutes ago, Smirking_Saint said:

That price is only for City though, and if they don’t want to accept it then its irrelevant

Fact is they don’t need another No.6, they already have probably the worlds best

Theres not many good young No.6’s, certainly not At reasonable prices… it’s basically Lavia or Ugarte and the latter will pitch up at PSG I suspect

I always assumed we’d get north of £50m for Lavia, especially considering the 10-20% sell on fee and especially considering the team’s interested… I am surprised in Arsenals interest considering they seem to be pushing for Rice but I imagine Lavia also fits the HG qoutas required and is likely cheaper by a good 40m+

It's not though is it? If you're a buying club and you're coming in for him next year why would you pay over that? If City do come in for him, you match their offer and if City don't come in for him then you go to Saints and say the max we'll give you is what you agreed with City so if you want that money take it or leave it. In fact if City don't come in for him next year, which is very possible seeing as they were happy to sell him last year, then any buying club probably comes in under that price.

[UpweySaint]

Just now, egg said:

I see it the same as you. He's a kid who's played 1 season. Yes he's very good, but he's been a tad overhyped imo. Any buyers will know that he'll probably want the bright lights and money one of the big boys will pay, and that anything over £32m is more than we'll get  next year. Out only hope for a massive fee is a bidding war. 

I get this but he is likely to hold value next year and is unlikely to be worth less than £32m to any interested party. Therefore for us, presuming we play hard ball, there is no incentive to sell now and weaken the squad unless there is an offer that exceeds that. I've seen £45m mooted as a value and given market rates/his high ceiling I don't think that's bad value for any club buying a player who could be a key part of their midfield for the next decade.

[ErwinK1961]

2 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

It's not though is it? If you're a buying club and you're coming in for him next year why would you pay over that? If City do come in for him, you match their offer and if City don't come in for him then you go to Saints and say the max we'll give you is what you agreed with City so if you want that money take it or leave it. In fact if City don't come in for him next year, which is very possible seeing as they were happy to sell him last year, then any buying club probably comes in under that price.

Because we can say no, whereas we can’t to City. 

And any buying club offering less than that will also be told no. 

All irrelevant anyway as he won’t be here behind the summer.

[egg]

2 minutes ago, UpweySaint said:

I get this but he is likely to hold value next year and is unlikely to be worth less than £32m to any interested party. Therefore for us, presuming we play hard ball, there is no incentive to sell now and weaken the squad unless there is an offer that exceeds that. I've seen £45m mooted as a value and given market rates/his high ceiling I don't think that's bad value for any club buying a player who could be a key part of their midfield for the next decade.

If city want him next season it's £32m that we get. If we work on the assumption that city will want him back next year, our only hope of getting more is to sell him to the highest bidder now. If £40m is the best offer this year, would the club forego £8m for another year of Lavia? 

[Danbert]

An actual rumour 😳

"That could enable Southampton to sign Bojang’s international teammate Dembo Saidykhan, a defender who also plays for Steve Biko FC. Both were part of the Gambia side that reached the final of the Under-20 Africa Cup of Nations in March, where Bojang scored four times and was named in the team of the tournament."

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/jun/20/manchester-united-and-newcastle-adama-bojang-the-gambia-premier-league-bundesliga

 

[Saint Garrett]

18 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

It's not though is it? If you're a buying club and you're coming in for him next year why would you pay over that? If City do come in for him, you match their offer and if City don't come in for him then you go to Saints and say the max we'll give you is what you agreed with City so if you want that money take it or leave it. In fact if City don't come in for him next year, which is very possible seeing as they were happy to sell him last year, then any buying club probably comes in under that price.

Why would we agree to that? It would essentially put £0 value on him staying for a year. 

[Fabrice29]

10 minutes ago, Saint Garrett said:

Why would we agree to that? It would essentially put £0 value on him staying for a year. 

I don't really understand what you're asking here but anyway it's all irrelevant because I suspect he'll have a preferred team he wants to move to this summer and they'll offer just over £40 million in some form, we'll want more and there will be some sort of add ons attached and ensure we get a little more than we would next year and everyone will be happy. Nobody will be paying anywhere near £60 million.

Edited 20 June, 2023 by Fabrice29

[Saint Garrett]

9 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

I don't really understand what you're asking here but anyway it's all irrelevant because I suspect he'll have a preferred team he wants to move to this summer and they'll offer just over £40 million in some form, we'll want more and there will be some sort of add ons attached and ensure we get a little more than we would next year and everyone will be happy. Nobody will be paying anywhere near £60 million.

I didn’t say they would. I just said £45m would be a bargain. I expect us to sell for a fee higher than the guaranteed price next year.

[SW11_Saint]

1 hour ago, Saint Garrett said:

Just me who thinks £45m for Lavia is derogatory? The guy is already phenomenal, let alone being 19 and a long contract. We’re somewhat hampered by City deal next year, but I’d be wanting £60m for him, especially given we lose 20% back to city, 

Me too. He’s only 19, it’s about his future worth… He’s phenomenal already, and he’s going to get much much better. I think we should be asking £60m min. 

[Saint86]

1 hour ago, Fabrice29 said:

I don't really understand what you're asking here but anyway it's all irrelevant because I suspect he'll have a preferred team he wants to move to this summer and they'll offer just over £40 million in some form, we'll want more and there will be some sort of add ons attached and ensure we get a little more than we would next year and everyone will be happy. Nobody will be paying anywhere near £60 million.

It is basically irrelevant what clause we have with city. Just because city have a clause doesn't mean we have to accept £40m from someone else... City might not even be in for him and you're arguing we have to price match to an offer that they may not table 🙄. Fundamentally, unless we absolutely need the money, we would be mad to sell for £45M this summer. We can sell 4-5 squad players, keep lavia, and have a far better chance of promotion (and restoration of the prem millions), and we'd still be able to sell him for £40M next year... Ditto he may not want to go back to city (i mean he's left once already when he could have gone on loan).

[skintsaint]

On 18/06/2023 at 17:30, Wade Garrett said:

I hope they all go and play in the Sportswashing League.  Hopefully none of them speak out about the Human Rights abuses and gets murdered by command of the Prince.

 

Kante now on his way there too.

[verlaine1979]

3 hours ago, egg said:

I see it the same as you. He's a kid who's played 1 season. Yes he's very good, but he's been a tad overhyped imo. Any buyers will know that he'll probably want the bright lights and money one of the big boys will pay, and that anything over £32m is more than we'll get  next year. Out only hope for a massive fee is a bidding war. 

Agree with this - he's very, very good, but he's still a long way off the level that Morgan was for us when he could legitimately run the midfield against top opposition. Lavia keeps the ball exceptionally well and everything else about his game is very good, but at 19 he's not a dominant No. 6, so we're not going to get record breaking money for him.

[Smirking_Saint]

5 hours ago, Fabrice29 said:

It's not though is it? If you're a buying club and you're coming in for him next year why would you pay over that? If City do come in for him, you match their offer and if City don't come in for him then you go to Saints and say the max we'll give you is what you agreed with City so if you want that money take it or leave it. In fact if City don't come in for him next year, which is very possible seeing as they were happy to sell him last year, then any buying club probably comes in under that price.

Because that price is contracted to only apply if City wish to enforce it. It genuinely doesn’t affect anybody else, so there are two options;

1. City don’t enforce the option, then Lavia is free to move to the highest bidder, we are under no obligation to sell for a contracted price to anybody else

2. City do attempt to enforce the price but others still want him… again, we are under no obligation to accept a lower fee from any other team, so if they wanted to get to speaking terms they’d need to do so on our terms

It depends very much on factors such as our finacial health and whether Lavia wants to down tools.. if neither are an issue and Chelsea say… here is £32m take it or leave it Id be inclined to tell them to do one, we’re in control tbh… especially as long as City remain out of any proposals 

[Convict Colony]

8 hours ago, Danbert said:

An actual rumour 😳

"That could enable Southampton to sign Bojang’s international teammate Dembo Saidykhan, a defender who also plays for Steve Biko FC. Both were part of the Gambia side that reached the final of the Under-20 Africa Cup of Nations in March, where Bojang scored four times and was named in the team of the tournament."

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/jun/20/manchester-united-and-newcastle-adama-bojang-the-gambia-premier-league-bundesliga

 

The coolest football team name i've heard for a bit.

[Fabrice29]

7 hours ago, Saint86 said:

It is basically irrelevant what clause we have with city. Just because city have a clause doesn't mean we have to accept £40m from someone else... City might not even be in for him and you're arguing we have to price match to an offer that they may not table 🙄. Fundamentally, unless we absolutely need the money, we would be mad to sell for £45M this summer. We can sell 4-5 squad players, keep lavia, and have a far better chance of promotion (and restoration of the prem millions), and we'd still be able to sell him for £40M next year... Ditto he may not want to go back to city (i mean he's left once already when he could have gone on loan).

 

2 hours ago, Smirking_Saint said:

Because that price is contracted to only apply if City wish to enforce it. It genuinely doesn’t affect anybody else, so there are two options;

1. City don’t enforce the option, then Lavia is free to move to the highest bidder, we are under no obligation to sell for a contracted price to anybody else

2. City do attempt to enforce the price but others still want him… again, we are under no obligation to accept a lower fee from any other team, so if they wanted to get to speaking terms they’d need to do so on our terms

It depends very much on factors such as our finacial health and whether Lavia wants to down tools.. if neither are an issue and Chelsea say… here is £32m take it or leave it Id be inclined to tell them to do one, we’re in control tbh… especially as long as City remain out of any proposals 

Just mad that anyone thinks a buying club with any sense next year is going to come along and say ‘nice little clause you’ve got there, let’s offer you £20 million more than that and still maybe lose out’ 😂

I repeat, if Lavia has a preferred bidder and it isn’t City, they would be utterly nuts to go over an already agreed amount with another team.

But anyway, it quite clearly isn’t coming to that. We’ll sell this year because Lavia will want us to and because we can sneak a few more million out of clubs to do it now.  

[Lee On Solent Saint]

We need to add a high sell on clause whatever happens. He's going to sell again for a lot more than whoever buys him from us. 

[Saint86]

2 hours ago, Fabrice29 said:

 

Just mad that anyone thinks a buying club with any sense next year is going to come along and say ‘nice little clause you’ve got there, let’s offer you £20 million more than that and still maybe lose out’ 😂

 

If they're worried about losing out, then they won't bid at all... your logic is flawed here fabrice IMO. We are the selling club and his value is what we'll do a deal for. He has a long contract and will be a great player for us/someone.

With city we have an agreement in place that was part of our purchase. But with everyone else, if they want to buy him they have to pay what we're happy with or not get him.

And as i said before, the facts remain that if he stays we likely have a far stronger chance of promotion, we would be silly to sell now for the sake of a few million compared to the financial security that comes with promotion. Honestly, the only reason we should be selling him at such a cheap price is if we desperately need the money specifically from his sale.

Edited 21 June, 2023 by Saint86

[Saint Fan CaM]

Being a developmental and selling club means even when on long contracts, players ultimately hold all the cards. Let’s face it, when we promise the player and his agent that we’ll sell when the big clubs come calling, that’s exactly what we have to do. If we don’t do that for whatever reason our reputation of developing and releasing the best young players goes down the toilet and the model implodes. It won’t take long for the pro football grapevine to starting talking about how Saints Academy is failing youth.

[Dman]

17 hours ago, Turkish said:

Lots of my sources are telling me Russell wants to bring Matt Grimes with him 👀👊

Keep it coming Turks - good to finally have a genuine ITK on this site!!

[SambaMaverick]

Around £45m and a 20-25% sell-on clause - that would be fair enough.

We've dug this hole for ourselves by getting relegated - and City would've had him back for £32m next season with presumably no sell-on clause anyway.

Edited 21 June, 2023 by SambaMaverick

[Dman]

12 hours ago, egg said:

I see it the same as you. He's a kid who's played 1 season. Yes he's very good, but he's been a tad overhyped imo. Any buyers will know that he'll probably want the bright lights and money one of the big boys will pay, and that anything over £32m is more than we'll get  next year. Out only hope for a massive fee is a bidding war. 

That's not true. We'll have to pay City 20% sell on fee regardless of where we sell him. £32m is £40m - the 20% sell on fee. 

Anything over 40m is more than we'll get next year. If we sell for 33m, we'll end up with something like 26m. 

That's not even factoring in that the buy back clause City inserted is a deal to suit them (i.e below the expected market value). We should absolutely be selling for more than 40m to anyone other than City. £45m feels fair to me. 

This boy is going to be a superstar. 

[Fabrice29]

50 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

If they're worried about losing out, then they won't bid at all... your logic is flawed here fabrice IMO. We are the selling club and his value is what we'll do a deal for. He has a long contract and will be a great player for us/someone.

With city we have an agreement in place that was part of our purchase. But with everyone else, if they want to buy him they have to pay what we're happy with or not get him.

And as i said before, the facts remain that if he stays we likely have a far stronger chance of promotion, we would be silly to sell now for the sake of a few million compared to the financial security that comes with promotion. Honestly, the only reason we should be selling him at such a cheap price is if we desperately need the money specifically from his sale.

We are the selling club and we’ve already agreed a deal to sell him next season for a specific price. Put yourself in the buying clubs shoes and ask yourself how delighted you’d be to be quoted a higher price for the same player. ‘Yeah we’ve agreed to sell Grimes to (insert club here) for 10 million, they don’t actually want him but for you it’ll be 20.’  You aren’t going to pay it and if you are you shouldn’t be allowed to make financial decisions in your family. You might pay £15 million now though to get it done a year early.

Anyway, he’s not staying and nobody in their right mind thinks he is so if you want to get worked up over that good luck to you.

Edited 21 June, 2023 by Fabrice29

[egg]

8 minutes ago, Dman said:

That's not true. We'll have to pay City 20% sell on fee regardless of where we sell him. £32m is £40m - the 20% sell on fee. 

Anything over 40m is more than we'll get next year. If we sell for 33m, we'll end up with something like 26m. 

That's not even factoring in that the buy back clause City inserted is a deal to suit them (i.e below the expected market value). We should absolutely be selling for more than 40m to anyone other than City. £45m feels fair to me. 

This boy is going to be a superstar. 

City have a buy back that they may choose to invoke next year. If they do, we get £32m. If we can get a chunk more than that now (say £38m in our pockets) why wouldn't we take it rather than £32m next year? Is that £6m worth it for another year of Lavia? 

[Dman]

1 minute ago, egg said:

City have a buy back that they may choose to invoke next year. If they do, we get £32m. If we can get a chunk more than that now (say £38m in our pockets) why wouldn't we take it rather than £32m next year? Is that £6m worth it for another year of Lavia? 

Because you're miss understanding. If we sell for £38m this year, we'll end up with less than the £32m in our pockets than we would if city brought him back next year. £40m is the benchmark here. 

Ironically, for us to end up with 38m in our pockets, we need to sell for £45m 🙂

[skintsaint]

If he went back to city I doubt we could enforce a sell on fee for his next mega move.

[Bad Wolf]

41 minutes ago, SambaMaverick said:

Around £45m and a 20-25% sell-on clause - that would be fair enough.

We've dug this hole for ourselves by getting relegated - and City would've had him back for £32m next season with presumably no sell-on clause anyway.

Yeah I very much doubt there'd be a sell on clause from a buy back clause. 

[egg]

16 minutes ago, Dman said:

Because you're miss understanding. If we sell for £38m this year, we'll end up with less than the £32m in our pockets than we would if city brought him back next year. £40m is the benchmark here. 

Ironically, for us to end up with 38m in our pockets, we need to sell for £45m 🙂

There's no misunderstanding - I said £38m in our pockets, ie after any sell on so £6m more than we'd see if we sold him to City next year for £40m so £32m in our pockets. Why wouldn't we take that if that was the best offer? As Fabrice has said, why would anyone bid mega money knowing the likely reality that we'll only net £32m next year? Too much fantasy football thinking on here. 

[Dman]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

There's no misunderstanding - I said £38m in our pockets, ie after any sell on so £6m more than we'd see if we sold him to City next year for £40m so £32m in our pockets. Why wouldn't we take that if that was the best offer? As Fabrice has said, why would anyone bid mega money knowing the likely reality that we'll only net £32m next year? Too much fantasy football thinking on here. 

Fair - my misunderstanding then - sounds like we're on the same page where £45m feels like a sensible price point. 

[LaptopSaint]

58 minutes ago, SambaMaverick said:

Around £45m and a 20-25% sell-on clause - that would be fair enough.

We've dug this hole for ourselves by getting relegated - and City would've had him back for £32m next season with presumably no sell-on clause anyway.

This would be an exceedingly good deal. Because if he's as good as some of us think he is, and becomes world class, he'll be off to Madrid (or Jeddah) in three years' time for £120M. 

[OldNick]

22 hours ago, Turkish said:

Lots of my sources are telling me Russell wants to bring Matt Grimes with him 👀👊

I hope he does, Ive been asking for us to get him for about 18months

[Smirking_Saint]

8 hours ago, Fabrice29 said:

 

Just mad that anyone thinks a buying club with any sense next year is going to come along and say ‘nice little clause you’ve got there, let’s offer you £20 million more than that and still maybe lose out’ 😂

I repeat, if Lavia has a preferred bidder and it isn’t City, they would be utterly nuts to go over an already agreed amount with another team.

But anyway, it quite clearly isn’t coming to that. We’ll sell this year because Lavia will want us to and because we can sneak a few more million out of clubs to do it now.  

Well… because its not an ‘agreement’ to sell… in your mind its a pre arranged transfer and its technically not that unless City want to take up the agreement, of which they.. according to reports, don’t want to do

Therefore it shouldn’t really affect anybody else… if it was a global minimum release clause than of course it affects everyone else’s buy price but in this case if Arsenal etc attempted to discuss the 32m fee I’d hope we’d say ‘well it doesn’t apply to you… so give us what we want or walk away’

The lads one of the hottest prospects in world football and if it wasn’t for the fact City have Rodri then the transfer clause will likely have been exercised… to be honest it matters little to them abyway as with the sell on fee they should be able to get a decent return anyway

Imho he is already one of the best No.6’s in the prem, he doesn’t have quite the same impact as Morgan did because he is tasked with everything (where as Morgan usually had an enforcer next to him). But make no mistake the lad looks like he is headed to the top, and the No.6 role is vital to most, if not all modern tactics

[Turkish]

6 hours ago, Dman said:

Keep it coming Turks - good to finally have a genuine ITK on this site!!

Thanks pal. Sometimes I get fed up with it but with your support and others like you I’ll keep sharing 

[UpweySaint]

19 hours ago, egg said:

If city want him next season it's £32m that we get. If we work on the assumption that city will want him back next year, our only hope of getting more is to sell him to the highest bidder now. If £40m is the best offer this year, would the club forego £8m for another year of Lavia? 

I could be wrong but I think City have a 20% sell on clause so £40mil now would in effect be £32mil to us. Unless we're convinced his value would depreciate or he'd be disruptive if he didn't get a move I can't see any value in us selling this summer unless there is an offer that we're not convinced we could get next summer.

He is too good for the championship but that doesn't change that we are (hopefully) in the driving seat to some extent due to the length of contract. Personally I would want to see any fee match or exceed the £50mil hail mary Chelsea threw our way before he'd even proved he could be consistent over a full season.

[egg]

1 minute ago, UpweySaint said:

I could be wrong but I think City have a 20% sell on clause so £40mil now would in effect be £32mil to us. Unless we're convinced his value would depreciate or he'd be disruptive if he didn't get a move I can't see any value in us selling this summer unless there is an offer that we're not convinced we could get next summer.

He is too good for the championship but that doesn't change that we are (hopefully) in the driving seat to some extent due to the length of contract. Personally I would want to see any fee match or exceed the £50mil hail mary Chelsea threw our way before he'd even proved he could be consistent over a full season.

Yes, £40m from City = £32m to us. £48m from someone else = £40m to us. Etc.

What's baffling is the suggestion that any club knowing that city need only give us £40m (£32m after sell on) would come in and offer £60m or whatever. All anyone has to do is outbid the buy back clause and they know it's more attractive to us. 

On the buy back, the assumption is that City can be outbid, rather than they can have him back for £40m less 20% regardless of any other interest or bid. What the correct position is, I don't think has been reported or confirmed. 

[Ken Tone]

Common sense says that it is a 20% sell on OR  a £ 40 million buy back.

If the 20% applied to the 40 million , why call it 40? It would be 32 

[revolution saint]

11 minutes ago, egg said:

Yes, £40m from City = £32m to us. £48m from someone else = £40m to us. Etc.

What's baffling is the suggestion that any club knowing that city need only give us £40m (£32m after sell on) would come in and offer £60m or whatever. All anyone has to do is outbid the buy back clause and they know it's more attractive to us. 

On the buy back, the assumption is that City can be outbid, rather than they can have him back for £40m less 20% regardless of any other interest or bid. What the correct position is, I don't think has been reported or confirmed. 

If they're the only show in town then no, no one would bid more.  If there's a bidding war then the buy back clause is largely irrelevant.  Obviously that's assuming Lavia doesn't dig his heels in and decides there's only one club for him (which is probably what would happen).

[egg]

4 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

If they're the only show in town then no, no one would bid more.  If there's a bidding war then the buy back clause is largely irrelevant.  Obviously that's assuming Lavia doesn't dig his heels in and decides there's only one club for him (which is probably what would happen).

That assumes that the buyback clause isn't a straight buyback 

Edited 21 June, 2023 by egg

[revolution saint]

1 minute ago, egg said:

That assumes that the buyback clause is a straight buyback 

Is there a gay buyback then?  How does that work?

Joking aside I'm not sure I catch your drift but I haven't really been paying attention to all of this thread.  Seems pretty simple to me - in a bidding war clubs will outbid each other until we accept a bid.  Once we've done that then yeah, no other club is going to go over that.

[Alanh]

8 minutes ago, Ken Tone said:

Common sense says that it is a 20% sell on OR  a £ 40 million buy back.

If the 20% applied to the 40 million , why call it 40? It would be 32 

This!!  City are reported to have 3 clauses in the deal - the right to match any bid, a £40M buy back and a 20% sell on.  It's been suggested that the 20% applies to the buy back but that just doesn't make any sense.  The first clause means that if a bidding war breaks out before City's buy back comes into play they just have to match the highest offer, not outbid it.  We would be crazy to accept a net amount less than the £40M, so bidding has to start at £50M this summer.

[Fabrice29]

2 hours ago, Smirking_Saint said:

Well… because its not an ‘agreement’ to sell… in your mind its a pre arranged transfer and its technically not that unless City want to take up the agreement, of which they.. according to reports, don’t want to do

Therefore it shouldn’t really affect anybody else… if it was a global minimum release clause than of course it affects everyone else’s buy price but in this case if Arsenal etc attempted to discuss the 32m fee I’d hope we’d say ‘well it doesn’t apply to you… so give us what we want or walk away’

The lads one of the hottest prospects in world football and if it wasn’t for the fact City have Rodri then the transfer clause will likely have been exercised… to be honest it matters little to them abyway as with the sell on fee they should be able to get a decent return anyway

Imho he is already one of the best No.6’s in the prem, he doesn’t have quite the same impact as Morgan did because he is tasked with everything (where as Morgan usually had an enforcer next to him). But make no mistake the lad looks like he is headed to the top, and the No.6 role is vital to most, if not all modern tactics

And if you do that and Lavia wants to go there, you'll get a knock on the door from Lavia and his team wanting to know why it's been rejected. Player power is huge especially when you set yourself up as a club who wants to attract youngsters by promising them you'll sell them on when the chance arises. So the next youngster through the door will also be asking why Lavia wasn't let go and you'll have to try and convince him to sign. There's knock on effects too. It's obviously not a pre arranged transfer but it's a value Saints agreed to a year ago and I doubt Lavia and his team will be chuffed if we suddenly start doubling that value and pricing people out.

Also your second point is interesting because I'm pretty sure City sold him less than a year ago. They put in a just in case clause and like you say there's no evidence they want to exercise it. City are not in the business of selling the hottest prospects in world football, they sold him for £12 million last year. He's done well in his first season, he's an attractive talent at an attractive age and will likely attract interest because he can be further developed but if we price him out of a move clubs will find another and not only will he want to know why but so will any further young players we're signing that summer. He's done nowhere near enough to be demanding half the price of Rice and Bellingham and a season in the Championship will not change that.

[egg]

19 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

Is there a gay buyback then?  How does that work?

Joking aside I'm not sure I catch your drift but I haven't really been paying attention to all of this thread.  Seems pretty simple to me - in a bidding war clubs will outbid each other until we accept a bid.  Once we've done that then yeah, no other club is going to go over that.

There's apparently a buyback which normally means that they could buy him back for x amount when the trigger date arrives. Others on here seem to believe that the buyback can be outbid by other clubs. No idea what's correct. 

[revolution saint]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

There's apparently a buyback which normally means that they could buy him back for x amount when the trigger date arrives. Others on here seem to believe that the buyback can be outbid by other clubs. No idea what's correct. 

Ah OK, I would have thought that it would be a case of next year, if Man City want him, they can trigger the buyback for 40M (of which we get 32M) and there's nothing we can do regardless of any other higher bids coming in.  If they don't want him then it's irrelevant and highest bidder wins.  This year it should be a case of highest bidder wins regardless.  Who knows though.  A release clause would obviously be different but the buyback only relates to Man City and next year. 

Anyway, apparently we have Russell Martin and only a fool would leave such an upwardly mobile club as ours.  I fully expect Lavia to remain forever and get a job doing car parking for the club once he eventually retires from playing at the ripe old age of 64.

[notnowcato]

Waiting on Fareham to come out… and say that he’s got a feeling Lavia will stay. 

[Chez]

 

 

9 hours ago, Dman said:

Because you're miss understanding. If we sell for £38m this year, we'll end up with less than the £32m in our pockets than we would if city brought him back next year. £40m is the benchmark here. 

Ironically, for us to end up with 38m in our pockets, we need to sell for £45m 🙂

20% of £45m is £9m.

£45-£9m = £36m (not £38m)

If you wanted £38m in you pocket, we'd need to sell for £47.5m.

 

 

[Pamplemousse]

We should include our own buy back clause for £60M or something, just for a laugh.

[Chez]

1 hour ago, Ken Tone said:

Common sense says that it is a 20% sell on OR  a £ 40 million buy back.

If the 20% applied to the 40 million , why call it 40? It would be 32 

I have posted something similar a few times. The Athletic suggested in one article that the clauses combine, but its speculation on their part. As you say. Why not just say £32m buy back and 20% sell on.  

[Chez]

If Arsenal are spending £65m on Hazertz and £100m on Rice, will they still have funds to spent on Lavia? CL money to come I guess. 

[Lee On Solent Saint]

1 minute ago, Chez said:

If Arsenal are spending £65m on Hazertz and £100m on Rice, will they still have funds to spent on Lavia? CL money to come I guess. 

They're trying to get the Rice fee paid over about four installments, not surprising West Ham told them to do one

[Convict Colony]

1 hour ago, revolution saint said:

Is there a gay buyback then?  How does that work?

Joking aside I'm not sure I catch your drift but I haven't really been paying attention to all of this thread.  Seems pretty simple to me - in a bidding war clubs will outbid each other until we accept a bid.  Once we've done that then yeah, no other club is going to go over that.

hahahahahahahahahahahha underrated.

[Chez]

21 minutes ago, Lee On Solent Saint said:

They're trying to get the Rice fee paid over about four installments, not surprising West Ham told them to do one

Have Arsenal still got that £200m slush fund or whatever it was sat in the bank? If so, they would have nerve playing the `poor' card. Wonder if they will pay us that way for Lavia.