So the last bid we know about was from chelsea at 48mp which was rejected.Why have we decided to up that to 60mp(from our 46mp) when we were struggling to justify 50mp last week.
My theory - complete guesswork - is that we’re hoping Chelsea, having had to work financial miracles to be able to afford Caicedo, won’t be able to match that bid, or if they can on paper it’s so weighted with add-ons that Southampton will reject it.
1 Like
I don’t think we can trust the reports, TBH. It could be we are putting this out to put pressure on Chelshite and Romeo just like what they did with the player/agent BS.
It’s not so much a bid of 60mp,it’s that last week we wouldn’t pay 50 for him as that was supposed to be seen as too much.But now 60mp is not too much?
Does anyone know if Lavia has a good agent or a bellend like Caicedo?
Yeah but then we hadn’t lost out on Caicedo and thought we might have better options available. Now we apparently believe that’s no longer the case, so change of circumstances.
2 Likes
Structure of proposed deal? - who is reporting that figure to the media may be using different interpretations of the same or similar numbers to get a bigger figure out there?
But in this instance that lad is a few months older than Bajcetic and has played less football than him too.
I’m all for some clever recruitment but we are trying to do some of that. Elliott, Carvalho, Ramsey, Doak, Clarke, Frauendorf, etc.
We do it but we tend to do it at the next level down when they’re younger and then try and nurture them through rather than buying them with the expectation of a season on loan somewhere and then drop them into the first team.
It’s Brighton’s model but it doesn’t mean we should be copying it. They are partly doing it to raise funds to compete but the likes of Mitoma and Caicedo and Estupinian would barely have seen first team action if we’d bought them, let alone sustained runs in the side.
1 Like
It’s hard to believe that, out of the thousands of players worldwide, we haven’t been actively scouting a range of options for the past 2-3 years
1 Like
I would assume Caciedo wasn’t just done on the fly.
60m will be the add ons included otherwise you’d just match the 55m quoted then again that seems not to have been accepted anyhow if it ever existed.
Effectively if our remaining business comes to around 90-100m evidently we’ve been working on that Caciedo on an all in.
Now it’s likely we may do business elsewhere eg: defender.
1 Like
Yes, but when you break down that list to meet the ‘minimum specs’ in terms of how they play, their quality, price and availability etc how many are we left with? We will have put together a short list to work on and a strategy to get the best permutation we can.
I’m sure we have, in which case we seem to have identified Lavia as the next best option after Caicedo.
1 Like
But evidently we hadn’t been putting any groundwork in on Caicedo until last minute. And had Lavia valued under 50m. So on to the next option? I find it hard to fathom there aren’t more out there beyond a kid that did ok for relegated Southampton
One thing that can be said at least on this is though we may be paying more he was someone we have wanted.
No idea, but I’m not employed to find out
I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if we end up signing an older DM to help ease Lavia into things (probably the role we’d originally earmarked for Fabinho this season!), so I’d say keep an eye on the links to Palhinha and Sangare that have started appearing this morning.
But with Chelsea’s advanced interest in Lavia, that’s clearly the priority right now.
I don’t think it should be dismissed just how much Saudi Arabia threw a massive spanner in the works of our planning for this season.
1 Like
While i understand we didn’t get Caicedo so that has changed things,before we went in for Caicedo we weren’t willing to pay 50mp inclusive of add ons for Lavia,but now that’s gone up to 60 we are willing to pay that.
What has changed to make us now think he is worth 60 when last week we didn’t feel he was worth 50.Are we just going to overpay because it’s getting late in the day and if we want Lavia then we have to?
We only have the word of ITKs that we didn’t value Lavia any higher than our last bid. Quite possibly we were just relaxed about taking time to negotiate the best fee for ourselves, until Chelsea jumped into the mix. We’d apparently already agreed terms with the player so had that in our favour as well in terms of waiting.
But also, we got humiliated in the Caicedo business. It’s entirely possible bruised billionaire egos are playing into this increased bid as well, and the need to pacify fans.
1 Like
Perhaps the jump isn’t as much as it initially appears.
For example, if we include a sell on fee does the source of this news story consider that a % of his current fee or using a different fee?
Are we including a lot more in add ons that require winning trophies to reach?
Is Southampton accepting a lower upfront or spread over a longer period.
Someone will be putting out this figure, we don’t yet know who or how it is calculated.
I feel if Chelsea hadn’t moved we would probably have done the deal sometime next week for around 50m.
Probably just ended up going early and matching what Soton exactly wanted with this bid.
I don’t think the fee in itself will be much more than 50m that they suggested but with add ons it probably takes it to 60m.
2 Likes