Bruno Guimarães

[The Prophet]

Firstly a club would have to approach Bruno and his entourage to see if it's worth their time activating the release clause. He isn't going to fuck off to the first club willing to stump up the cash.

 

Secondly, the clause might not be active next season and it might not be active to every club. It could have time, finishing position and buying club particulars in there. It might also be a flat upfront fee which would eliminate a lot of clubs.

 

So many ifs, buts and maybes it isn't worth losing any sleep over.

[PauloGeordio]

Just now, The Prophet said:

Firstly a club would have to approach Bruno and his entourage to see if it's worth their time activating the release clause. He isn't going to fuck off to the first club willing to stump up the cash.

 

Secondly, the clause might not be active next season and it might not be active to every club. It could have time, finishing position and buying club particulars in there. It might also be a flat upfront fee which would eliminate a lot of clubs.

 

So many ifs, buts and maybes it isn't worth losing any sleep over.

He loves us. Enjoy him 

[Gaztoon]

??  only newcastle fans would be worried our best player as signed a new deal 

[TheInfiniteOdyssey]

£100m is a fair valuation for all parties. More than happy with this deal. 
 

We are never going to be the de facto destination for most players, like Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern etc are. This is part of football. 
 

We have needed to get much better at selling players at the right time.

 

 

[wyn davies]

The clause may £100m but that is the starting price I believe, so that's the minimum bid we are willing to take and if PSG offered £110m and Madrid came in at £130m then the £100m is meaningless, someone no doubt will put me right.

[Nobody]

2 minutes ago, wyn davies said:

The clause may £100m but that is the starting price I believe, so that's the minimum bid we are willing to take and if PSG offered £110m and Madrid came in at £130m then the £100m is meaningless, someone no doubt will put me right.

Nah, if a club bids the cause and he wants to leave theres nothing the club can do.

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

The release clause might not even be active until a certain date as well

 

[PauloGeordio]

The joy on his face. Living his dream. Worrying! 

 

 

Edited October 3, 2023 by PauloGeordio

[BlazeT44]

Appreciate all that's been said and happy he's signing a new deal but if we lose Bruno for anything less than Rice (£105m), or Caicedo (£115m) we've been had (especially when you consider annual inflation)

 

 

Edited October 3, 2023 by BlazeT44

[The College Dropout]

1 hour ago, wyn davies said:

The clause may £100m but that is the starting price I believe, so that's the minimum bid we are willing to take and if PSG offered £110m and Madrid came in at £130m then the £100m is meaningless, someone no doubt will put me right.

Why would anyone offer more than the release clause?

[Lish007]

Also, the amount of time if took for this contract to be resolved means that perhaps Bruno said if we are not on CL, I want to go or have the option... and we said only if... x y z...

The club aren't stupid and neither is Bruno and if we are not in CL for 2 years then I wouldn't blame him for wanting to leave - he loves us but he loves football more and wants to play at the highest level. 

 

Also if Liverpool bid for him I would call them absolute hypocrites and I'm unsure if the fanbase would actually accept him because he came to play for an "oil club". He must know this. 

 

If it's Man City, RM, Barcelona, Bayern then fine... we are not there yet. But he knows he's adored here... you don't get this kind of love anywhere else. 

[TheBrownBottle]

5 hours ago, Barnes23 said:

 

 

I agree. We aren't setting out to be Brighton, if there has to be a release clause it should at least be just shy of a "fuck off" price. 

 

As long as our turnover remains where it is, we have no choice but to ‘be Brighton’.  Selling for large profit makes up for those shortfalls 

[madras]

2 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

As long as our turnover remains where it is, we have no choice but to ‘be Brighton’.  Selling for large profit makes up for those shortfalls 

I'll bet you'll find a huge jump in our turnover.

[MrRaspberryJam]

4 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

Why would anyone offer more than the release clause?

I know you can’t see this but Chelsea paid over Enzo Fernandez’s release clause. 
 

The fee, which was £6m higher than Fernandez's release clause, would have been paid across three instalments in equal measures. Such a technique would have allowed the Blues to record the fee across separate financial years however that formula did not proceed.

[PauloGeordio]

 

[Decky]

7 hours ago, SteV said:

For context, there’s been 11 transfers in history over £100m.

 

3 of them have been this year, the game is changing to the point where this kind of money is being easily spent by the top clubs. 

 

 

Edited October 3, 2023 by Decky

[SteV]

9 minutes ago, Decky said:

 

3 of them have been this year, the game is changing to the point where this kind of money is being easily spent by the top clubs. 

 

 

 

Not sure about ‘easily’ like.

 

Ignoring what Chelsea do but because they’re being run by idiots at present, the players that are going for that amount of money are incredible.

 

Even Rice, who you might not say is ‘incredible’, has clearly made Arsenal, who finished second, a better team when he plays.

[TheBrownBottle]

1 hour ago, madras said:

I'll bet you'll find a huge jump in our turnover.

If our turnover doubled it would still be less than Spurs’

[Decky]

2 minutes ago, SteV said:

Not sure about ‘easily’ like.

 

Ignoring what Chelsea do but because they’re being run by idiots at present, the players that are going for that amount of money are incredible.

 

Even Rice, who you might not say is ‘incredible’, has clearly made Arsenal, who finished second, a better team when he plays.

 

What I mean by easily is that if a top club wants him they'll pay it because its not a figure they'd be sweating over. Chelsea, City, Real and PSG would all pay it without thinking twice if they really wanted him, as we have seen with previous transfers. Liverpool also put a £100m bid in for Caicedo so they aren't afraid to spend it. I think if we're to put a release clause on one of our best players then it has to be something so big that its unlikely anyone would trigger it, but this figure is easily attainable for the top clubs. We'll have to wait and see if there's any truth in it anyway. 

[TheBrownBottle]

22 minutes ago, Decky said:

 

3 of them have been this year, the game is changing to the point where this kind of money is being easily spent by the top clubs. 

 

 

 

Real Madrid and Man Utd have never spent that on one footballer.  PSG did twice during their crazy spending days - which are now at an end.  Barcelona have once, but their finances are fucked.  Italian clubs don’t have that sort of money. 

 

If it wasn’t for Chelsea’s insanity, they’d be rarer than hens teeth.  Rice is a superb footballer - and is English, so there is a premium.  If Bruno went for £100m that would be serious money. 

[madras]

5 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

If our turnover doubled it would still be less than Spurs’

And it's growing at a pace, we've only just started.

[Barnes23]

4 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

As long as our turnover remains where it is, we have no choice but to ‘be Brighton’.  Selling for large profit makes up for those shortfalls 

 

I don't agree that selling players who have the potential to be the icons of the team over the next 5-10 years is a necessary part of our journey. Difficult to assess from the outside for anyone on a financial level, though. 

 

Nor is our current position in the game or overall trajectory and ambition comparable to Brighton, really, as much their approach has maximised their potential and rightfully won a lot of plaudits. 

 

 

Edited October 3, 2023 by Barnes23

[Decky]

3 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Real Madrid and Man Utd have never spent that on one footballer.  PSG did twice during their crazy spending days - which are now at an end.  Barcelona have once, but their finances are fucked.  Italian clubs don’t have that sort of money. 

 

If it wasn’t for Chelsea’s insanity, they’d be rarer than hens teeth.  Rice is a superb footballer - and is English, so there is a premium.  If Bruno went for £100m that would be serious money. 

 

20 years ago £40m was an incredible fee, now no one bats an eyelid at it. Theres more money in football than there's ever been and £70m, £80m and even £100m are going to start to become more common. 

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, Barnes23 said:

 

I don't agree that selling players who have the potential to be the icons of the team over the next 5-10 years is a necessary part of our journey. Difficult to assess from the outside for anyone on a financial level, though. 

 

Nor is our current position in the game or overall trajectory and ambition comparable to Brighton, really, as much their approach has maximised their potential and rightfully won a lot of plaudits. 

 

 

 

Don’t think it matters, personally.  The sale of players will go back into the club for more players.  Not arsed about a player becoming an icon if it’s for the good of the club.

 

I agree that where we’re heading is incomparable to Brighton - but it’ll take several years to catch up with the big boys, and until then selling players is likely a requirement.  Every club does it if the money is right. 

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, Decky said:

 

20 years ago £40m was an incredible fee, now no one bats an eyelid at it. Theres more money in football than there's ever been and £70m, £80m and even £100m are going to start to become more common. 

You’re right, but £100m isn’t likely to be Bruno’s current value in the market.  The handful of clubs able to pay aren’t at all likely to pay that figure for him - it’s much worry about nowt.