KaKa

1 minute ago, Doctor Zaius said:

I initially thought 30m for an 18 year old with 12 appearances was steep. Chelsea fans on twitter seem to think it would be ridiculous to let him go for that. A good season and he'll be worth double perhaps. 

 

Then again, he is an 18 year old with 12 appearances. Plenty of players have broke through initially looking great and then turned out not to be. Begs the question, why would Chelsea  let him go for that? 

 

Mind, there might well be a buy back clause involved, in which case, we may as well not go near.

We would never agree to a buy back clause.

£30 million is decent money and a fair price for a really talented young player with potential that so far has played very little.

All these crazy prices have people thinking £30 million is chump change, but it's not. Those Chelsea fans views of fees are completely warped now with their clubs dumb spending, if they think he should be more than that.

8 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

If we want to continue with a left back that stays deep and acts more as a third centre back at times like Dan Burn does, this guy is exactly that profile.

2 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

 

Around £30 million is the price that made sense to me.

Him being up for sale was also what I had heard, as Liverpool had forced them to pay a fair bit more for Caicedo and the Nkunku injury also means they may go more 4-3-3 initially, hence the Lavia deal, which was also expensive.

Regarding Tierney, the injury to Timber has apparently made it MORE likely for Tierney to leave now, as they want to get in someone similar to Timber for this season as he is apparently out for the whole thing. 

Trouble is it has meant they are less likely to agree to a loan as they would prefer the money upfront to do more business of their own.

1 minute ago, Mazzy said:

But differences being rumoured in the Hall saga. Some saying loan with 15M obligation, which seems quite low and others saying 30M up front for him permanently. I wouldn't be surprised to see this drag out until the last couple of days.

Interesting those prices seem to be in line with what I was expecting and mentioned earlier.

Don't forget the initial loan is just a way to defer some of the payment if we are looking to sign him outright, and so it would likely mean an initial loan fee of maybe £10 million and then another £15 million next year and maybe add ons of £5 million or something so it would still be around £30 million.

2 minutes ago, andycap said:

Plus were after hall so if they need to shift someone to balance the books surely it's someone other teams are interested in. 

It's also a position they are very well stocked in, with Chilwell, Cucurella and Maatsen. 

4 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

I think we can sum up your view as if they want to sell him 50m is an absurd price and this is a most reasonable position.

Yes, exactly. That's a price no one is going to pay for him at this stage.

3 minutes ago, Hanshithispantz said:

Like talking to a castle wall.

You either don't understand what I'm saying or you're just looking for an argument.

Very strange.

Just now, r0cafella said:

Nothing wrong with a robust exchange of opinions, let’s see how this plays out. 

Yeah, no problem. Just wasn't sure how else to say what I already had done. 

Let's see what happens.

1 minute ago, Manxst said:

And Hall as been good in every PL game he’s played in- a clear step up from the championship. 

If you believe 11 Premier League cameos trumps a full season doing what Maatsen did at Burnley then fair enough. I disagree.

1 minute ago, Hanshithispantz said:

Becuase you're saying dofferent things.

 

My initial post was:

 

 

You agree with me:

 

 

It is Chelsea, so anything can happen, but any club in their right mind isn't selling an 18 year old with the potential of Hall for £25-30m.

 

Unless they absolutely needed him off the books this year they'd be better off letting his value rise before selling him, he looks a sure thing.

Guys I give up.

This is the last I will say on this.

Chelsea are apparently now open to selling him to recoup money.

My point is that based on that £50 million is not happening for them. A £50 million price means they are not open to selling.

Just now, Manxst said:

“Proven” is a hard one to quantify- Maatsen has played 1 PL game compared to Halls 9. Does that mean Chelsea rate Hall higher? Stats like that are meaningless. 

Maatsen was exceptional for Burnley last year in a Burnley team that romped the Championship.

If you think that is meaningless then that's fine. I disagree.

5 minutes ago, Manxst said:

Maatsen has shown “much more” purely because he’s three years older and had more opportunity to. You’re comparing them as if  Hall was loaned out at 15. 

Bruh ... As big part of player valuations is based on how proven a player is.

Maatsen has shown more because if the opportunity he had last year and so he is rated more highly.

This has nothing to do with how good Hall is or isn't, but he is less proven as of now, and so his valuation cannot be that high IMO.

I don't know why what I'm saying is seemingly so confusing.

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

You’re kind of missing the point no? If they don’t want to sell him we have to offer a price they can’t refuse. The reports suggest they don’t want to let him go and will only consider loans. 
 

I don’t see 30m as a fee they couldn’t refuse. Especially considering all the factors previously written and Chelsea’s distorted view of transfer fees. 

Nah, the point is they are now apparently looking to sell, which wasn't the case before.

2 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Kaka my friend, they can ask for whatever they like, you know like how Brighton asked for 115m for Caicedo? It’s kinda how this works. 

The story is that due to the money they gave just spent on both Caicedo and Lavia that they are now open to selling Hall to try and recoup some money.

If they are open to selling him they aren't going to be asking for £50 million, because that valuation isn't realistic.

If they do insist in that, there'll not be any takers and so they won't get any money back.

£50 million likely gets some of the top left backs out there.

5 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

He won the academy player of the year and he’s only 18 and has already broken into the first team. 
 

I think they view him as a massive talent and from everything I’ve read they don’t particularly want to sell him. 
 

I of course hope I’m wrong and would love us to get him on the cheap but I just don’t see it. 

£30 million would not be getting him on the cheap!

That is around what we paid for both Bruno and Botman. It is what Arsenal paid for Timber.

Just now, Manxst said:

Maatsen is 21, Hall is 18, and like you say, Maatsen went on loan last year for playing time (and it’s now rumoured they want to do the same for Hall this year)- it’s be daft to think Hall would be over him in development terms at the moment. Hall hasn’t played a ton as he’s had senior internationals in his way, yet still managed to get 11 appearances last year. 
 

It has nothing to do with Hall being ahead of him or not.

Asking £50 million for Hall based on last season's 11 games just isn't happening. Maatsen has done and shown much more. Hall might have done just as well too, but he wasn't in the position to do so.

£50 million is close to what we paid for Tonali. If they ask that for Hall then they're basically not interested in selling.

3 minutes ago, Hanshithispantz said:

Maatsen's 3 year older.

I don't understand what that has to do with what I said.

Maatsen is more proven, has shown a greater skill set and has only just turned 21 this year.

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

What makes you think that?

If they thought that highly of him already they'd at least be keeping him as a backup. 

I think he's a big talent but hasn't played a ton and so it's hard to justify that sort of fee.

The other kid they have that was at Burnley playing left back is the one in that £50 million range, as he looked a class above last year for Kompany and he can also play left and right wing.

Hall won't cost more than £25 to £30 million.

Wish people would stop freaking out about how much these guys are spending. The more money they have the worse they spend!

Ironically I think sticking to FFP has sharpened our focus in the market and almost forced us to do a better job with the players we've brought in.

We are dominating player recruitment at the minute.

2 minutes ago, brummie said:

 

It's not that, it's the changing dynamic and language around it. 

 

Putting out through Romano, the fact he "respects West Ham".

 

I dunno, I just don't like it.

 

I also do not like this new thing of players agreeing packages with a new club before fees are agreed. Whatever happened to good old tapping up?

He respects West Ham because he's happy to join them on the condition Man Utd pay out for the loss of wages to join them. The issue is with Man Utd.

1 hour ago, Froggy said:

Maguire wanting £7m payoff to leave. Rot on the bench now my guy. 

Isn't it down to the loss of wages he'd have by moving?

You lot are dumb if you don't pay it tbh. Just take it out if the fee from West Ham and move on.

5 minutes ago, Pancrate1892 said:

Bournemouth will regret letting him go eventually 

The guy they got in is very highly rated so I think they'll be fine, Bournemouth.

O'Neill has got a great opportunity at Wolves though and so hopefully he takes advantage.

Gary O'Neill seems to have something about him. I'm rooting for him. 

Incredible what he got out of this bunch already at such short notice.