You must log in or register to see media
Tell me you support Spurs without telling me you support Spurs
Transfer Rumours transfer thread fact and fiction
- Thread starter remembercolinlee
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Tell me you support Spurs without telling me you support Spurs
If we paid the release clause on the 1st, he’d have been a Spurs player by the 2nd or 3rd. They wouldn’t have been able to string us along as they don’t technically have a say of the clause is met. We just waited and haggled for too long, the clause then (supposedly) expired after 12 days and so they were - and still are - well within their rights to change their minds or demand more money.
Bournemouth closing in on Ilya Zarbanyi, was very briefly linked with us earlier in the season.
Like Gil and Spence, he needs to play some senior football asap to help his development and then come back in the summer
Unless you know the exact wording of the clause you don't know that is true. Apart from anything else the player has to have time to consider the offer and what if two or more clubs pay the money over. It really can't be as simple as that.
Then you have to decide what he's worth to you.
I have always believed it is the buying club that sets the price, if a player is worth it to you to do a specific job or complete a squad you will pay the asking price, if he's just a good player in his position you will move on to others of a similar stamp.
If you had actually read the post I was replying to then you would know why your reply was nonsense.
The exact wording is “€45m release clause” and a release clause means if you pay that you skip negotiations with the club and go straight to the player. If two clubs or ten clubs paid it the player would then have options. As to how long he’d need to make his mind up would be dependent on how long the buying club(s) are willing to wait but seeing as Porro was seemingly keen on the move from the off, we’d have almost certainly wrapped that deal up within the first 72 hours of the window if we paid the clause once it opened.
We will only have ourselves to blame if the move still manages to fall through, thankfully it looks like it’ll happen but it’s ended up costing us even more money, so waiting and haggling has severely backfired.
I did read the post and i will say again, the price depends on how much you want a player.
If two clubs hit the same valuation then it's down to the player to decide dependant on club or contract offer.
Look how innocent he looks, poor guy has no idea the misery that awaits him for the next few years
You must log in or register to see media
So you agree with me that he wouldn't necessarily been our player on 3 Jan if we had paid the release clause on 1 Jan (not that we could have anyway as the banks were closed).
Last edited:
If we take Emerson as an example I think he is quite good at the defensive half of his role and only mediocre at the attacking part. That might well be a better option than someone who does the attacking part well but is inexperienced defensively which is where Conte might think Spence is.
So Gil…
we paid £25 mill to Seville and lamela went the opposite way.
And now Sevilla have Gil.
so Seville have Gil, Lamela and £25m of our money?
we paid £25 mill to Seville and lamela went the opposite way.
And now Sevilla have Gil.
so Seville have Gil, Lamela and £25m of our money?
Think this is a brilliant signing for Bournemouth. Would have loved him at Spurs.
So Gil…
we paid £25 mill to Seville and lamela went the opposite way.
And now Sevilla have Gil.
so Seville have Gil, Lamela and £25m of our money?
In the clusterfuck that has been our transfer business in the last few years (Jan 22 excepted) - and with the wonderful benefit of hindsight this is right up there with the worst business we have done. In the 18 months since this deal was done I have no doubt that Lamela even with his injuries would have played more games, been trusted more and probably done a better job for us than Gil has and that is not a criticism of young Bryan, who I suspect will have a very good career, just the facts as I see them.
Many of us said at the time that the worst part of the signing was the timing of it. In a way, Bryan was damned to struggle from the day he arrived here.
The club was at a really low ebb, in urgent need of ready to go first team players, not promising youngsters. Throwing Lamela into the deal was even dumber as it meant we lost one of the few players left at the club who actually appeared to give a toss who was also popular with the fans and one of our most experienced players.
The problem wasn't really solved until we signed Kulusevski in January and got a player who got immediately slot into the first team.
So Gil…
we paid £25 mill to Seville and lamela went the opposite way.
And now Sevilla have Gil.
so Seville have Gil, Lamela and £25m of our money?
Monchi‘s bent us over the table, easy to see why he’s regarded as one of the best DoFs on the planet.
Although I do feel for Gil, massive talent who right now has the worst manager for developing it. Just as he started playing more and impressing, he gets instantly dropped the moment Richarlison comes back from injury and Danjuma’s arrival.
And now with talk that the deal for Porro involves us relinquishing 15% of Edwards’ sell on clause along with the €45m, it’s like we’ve been gangbanged across Europe these last 18 months, especially when you consider we gave Barcelona £25m for a donkey and Everton £60m for a guy nicknamed the pigeon who’s been just as useful as one so far.
You're right but perhaps this is also symptomatic of what happens (or at least what is meant to happen) when a club enters the top 10 wealthiest in the world and stays there for a prolonged period.
Clubs at that level pay well above the odds the whole time as smaller clubs know that they are a) usually desperate, as the risk of failure carries so much more weight and b) stupidly loaded with cash. It creates the perfect storm for rip offs and overhyped sensationalism.
It isn't just teams like Chelsea, either. Barca do it the whole time. Look at the money United spent on Antony, City on Grealish, Liverpool on Nunez, Atletico on Felix, Arsenal have also done it once or twice in recent years and the fact they're willing to part with £70m for Caceido after 30 PL appearances shows they are more than happy to take that gamble again.
Up at the top table, bargains are extremely difficult to find, which is why the likes of Chelsea and City try to grab and hoard youngsters by offering them their first senior contract, then loan them out for the next 6 years in the hope someone comes good.
Long gone are the days when we could pick up a Berbatov for £12m, a Dawson for £5m, a Carrick for £3m, a Walker for £3m, a Dele for £5m etc. We just aren't in that timezone anymore and tbh the sooner the club executive accepts this as fact, the sooner we will crack the ongoing transfer impasses we continue to encounter, simply because we still expect the world to look at us a little old Totnum from a dilapidated 35,000 seater stadium. Not anymore. The world looks at us, our CL money and our shiny stadium and it sees exactly what it sees when Chelsea, Liverpool, Barca or United pick up the phone.
These teams routinely waste circa £50-80m on duds every single season. We'd best get used to the same thing happening here.