Its an impossible question to answer, without knowing how much chasing we have actually done or being involved in the negotiaions.
We are all just guessing.
I’m just trying to point out there is more to this than meets the eye, I don’t think it is just a deal for Lavia, I think the Lavia deal impacts on what else we do.
We are waiting around to see if they soften, or if other players become available. Maybe the club are confident they have Lavia wrapped up and can pull the trigger whenever they want, but if they get the right price it means we can do more business.
Maybe the fact Bayern and now spunking 95m on Kane, suddenly they need to offload players to raise money and we value Gravenbirch as a better option.
Who knows.
I am fairly certain we will do something, all though we never replaced Gini when I thught we should have, but the club are not that dense that we can go into the season as we are. A DM and a CB are vital, all though I would take a top class DM and go with what we have if we have to.
So if we sign him for less than they were asking for or on terms that are more agreeable then you’ll agree we were right to take this approach then?
And if we sign him for exactly what Southampton want then we were also right to take this approach because we couldn’t be sure they wouldn’t budge or the player wouldn’t push for the move. If anything, signing him on at a price above and beyond what we wanted only validates our approach even further. We had to be sure Southampton weren’t budging.
Because Messi won the cup, he was just someone from the same nation, Messi is the goat and would have won it on his own if he was allowed to represent Argentina alone .
But if you don’t believe that, then redwhippet’s answer may suffice .
How likely does this look if we’re having £46m rejected within hours (as reported by all the so called ITK’s)
Mmmh not exactly. The approach to go after him yes maybe because it’d have meant we got the player we wanted in the end massive sigh, but it’d have still been weeks wasted over nothing? Playing all these games of one up with Chelsea and their targets just so “we can be sure of Southampton’s stance & wouldn’t budge” aren’t tactics we’d resort to if negotiations were done properly. Just an observation of course.
Depends what the terms are and who wanted what to begin with.
It’s not weeks wasted over nothing. It’s a couple of weeks spent trying to get the best deal for ourselves. It’s perfectly normal behaviour.
Maybe in our recent past we’ve done better at hiding these things from public view but having bids rejected isn’t uncommon or a sign that things aren’t being done properly. Arsenal had it with Rice. Chelsea are having it with Caicedo. City are having it now with Paqueta and how long did it take them to wrap up Gvardiol? Hell West Ham had it with Ward-Prowse and Southampton came down on their valuation.
It’s great when deals come out the blue and are for a great price and everyone is happy. Sometimes they don’t happen that way. We’re not in control of every aspect or person who is privy to the deal.
You seem more concerned about how we do business than who we do business for.
Cba to run back through and find the tweets as they’re probably scattered over a few different threads, but links below from BBC, Echo and Athletic all confirming the news.
Some people just wanna sound like they know stuff.
Why anyone cares 2 jots about the negotiating taking place on a transfer is beyond me. As long as we’re not negotiating ourselves into bankruptcy who cares?
For all we know… The payment terms for Lavia against £50m might be 75% up-front…
The payment terms for Caicedo against £100m might only be 33% up-front…
Takes longer to pay the monies, but stretched over a few years might be more favourable
Thats scandalous thinking because every true fans knows its like Football Manager where the lump sump is coughed up on one go so that team can win the net spend championship.
That’s all true but years and years ago fans never would’ve even brought up the discussion surrounding the terms for that very reason - it’s unbeknownst to us all , clubs want to keep this aspect of the financials confidential and rarely if ever gets published. It’s only in recent years once transfer fees really started to go through the roof did we hear anything about structure of payment. That’s why we, as fans, the media and most journo’s who aren’t “club insiders” stick to £50m for Lavia 100k a week on a 5 year deal or £100m for Caicedo 140k a week on a 5 year deal or whatever it may be.
As a few have said, we don’t know the inner working of making the deal, so we are guessing. Some of the guesswork seems more plausible.
The financial aspect rings true to me. We want two players, but need to spread the money and do less up front. If that is not possible, due to the selling club holding firm even as we negotiate, we will go for a bigger fish and do one more signing, and come back to the other position next time.
We will know soon enough what way the wind is blowing here.
Surely doesn’t matter to the young boy, somehow humanity is totally left out of this business, as if he were just some commodity sold on a market and not a real human being. I do not like it tbh.
