elbee909 Posted October 19 Share Posted October 19 49 minutes ago, 80 said: Keith Downie claiming the reason he didn't sign was he wanted a fee release clause in his deal, which we didn't want to get into the habit of offering. Supposedly the wage he's getting from Chelsea is basically the same as what we'd agreed, but they gave him the clause too, which is a new story. The rest of our summer transfer window spiralled from there. I'm sure there was no agent-side coercing there whatsoever Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Spaceman Posted October 19 Share Posted October 19 Surely it was a win/win for us either way? Unless of course the release clauses was set at something daft like 10 million. You'd like to think it was at least 40 million. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbydazzla Posted October 19 Share Posted October 19 (edited) As predicted, he’s hardly playing at Chelsea. And the only reason he chose them over us is because we wouldn’t give him the release clause he wanted ? Happy to swerve signing players who think like that Edited October 19 by bobbydazzla Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbandit Posted October 19 Share Posted October 19 He started off not playing much but I think he’s almost nailed down a starting spot hasn’t he? He’s looked very good for them in the three matches I’ve watched him play annoyingly. It’ll all go sour probably as I have every confidence that Chelsea will shoot themselves in the cock but it’s extremely annoying that our window fell to pieces because of this Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shak Posted October 19 Share Posted October 19 Seems to have started one game in the league and come on as a sub twice, one of those appearances lasting one minute. Has played all their Conference League games. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbydazzla Posted October 19 Share Posted October 19 (edited) in the 7 league games so far: 1 x 30 mins 1 x 90 mins 1 x 1 mins And it’s claimed we were after him as our priority target and only have 1 x fit CB Even Cautious Eddie would have given him more starts than Chelsea have Edited October 19 by bobbydazzla Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbandit Posted October 19 Share Posted October 19 From what I’ve seen I’d be surprised if he doesn’t nail down a starting spot. He’s a really good player and far less error prone than Badiashile or Disasi. Anyway, don’t care anymore as there’s nothing that can be done now Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geordie Ahmed Posted October 19 Share Posted October 19 Fofana and Colwill are first choice CB's but he's seemingly next in line, so if one is injured/suspended he'll start Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcmk Posted October 19 Share Posted October 19 1 hour ago, bobbydazzla said: As predicted, he’s hardly playing at Chelsea. And the only reason he chose them over us is because we wouldn’t give him the release clause he wanted ? Happy to swerve signing players who think like that Would imagine the location as well being a huge factor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledGeordie Posted October 19 Share Posted October 19 1 hour ago, gbandit said: He started off not playing much but I think he’s almost nailed down a starting spot hasn’t he? He’s looked very good for them in the three matches I’ve watched him play annoyingly. It’ll all go sour probably as I have every confidence that Chelsea will shoot themselves in the cock but it’s extremely annoying that our window fell to pieces because of this He’s already settled in London too though isn’t he, that probably came into it. Agree that everything went south when we couldn’t complete this deal especially as it seemed nailed on at one point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
healthyaddiction Posted October 19 Share Posted October 19 17 minutes ago, Geordie Ahmed said: Fofana and Colwill are first choice CB's but he's seemingly next in line, so if one is injured/suspended he'll start And let's be honest, Fofana will be injured soon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbydazzla Posted October 19 Share Posted October 19 16 minutes ago, dcmk said: Would imagine the location as well being a huge factor. Aye, totally. I said at the time that from a personal point of view the Chelsea move was ideal for him but from a footballing perspective it was a poor choice. But Downie’s article that’s mentioned above claims it was the release clause that put Chelsea ahead of us Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JigsawGoesToPieces Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 Booked after 6 minutes, clumsy tbh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 On 19/10/2024 at 08:44, bobbydazzla said: Aye, totally. I said at the time that from a personal point of view the Chelsea move was ideal for him but from a footballing perspective it was a poor choice. But Downie’s article that’s mentioned above claims it was the release clause that put Chelsea ahead of us Even footballing it makes sense for him. The 2 players ahead of him are injury prone. And Chelsea would expect to qualify for Europe every season and go deep. 3rd choice CBs at successful clubs tend to play a lot. The biggest risk was the Chelsea project combusting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCOCOL Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 On 19/10/2024 at 08:24, dcmk said: Would imagine the location as well being a huge factor. he was brought up in Manchester but you might be right. If I was a footballer I’d think there’s nowhere better to ply your trade than here but I’m biased Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 On 19/10/2024 at 06:55, Dr.Spaceman said: Surely it was a win/win for us either way? Unless of course the release clauses was set at something daft like 10 million. You'd like to think it was at least 40 million. If we missed out because we refused to add a release clause that was a really poor decision. He was coming in on a free. Like you say it would be a clause of at least £40 million. If he did well enough for someone to come in and meet that and he opted to leave, that would have been pure profit I believe, and would have had us in a strong position to go and spend. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanj Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 14 minutes ago, KaKa said: If we missed out because we refused to add a release clause that was a really poor decision. He was coming in on a free. Like you say it would be a clause of at least £40 million. If he did well enough for someone to come in and meet that and he opted to leave, that would have been pure profit I believe, and would have had us in a strong position to go and spend. im sure if it was that simple we’d have done the deal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Kanji said: im sure if it was that simple we’d have done the deal. Just going off the latest reports that we refused the clause while Chelsea didn't, which seems pretty simple and straightforward a decision. Edited October 20 by KaKa Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanj Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 16 minutes ago, KaKa said: Just going off the latest reports that we refused the clause while Chelsea didn't, which seems pretty simple and straightforward a decision. But what were the terms of the clause? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 4 minutes ago, Kanji said: But what were the terms of the clause? Whatever they were, Chelsea agreed and we didn't, and we missed out on what was supposedly a key target to allow us to spend on other areas of the team. He was coming in on a free. I don't see the downside in agreeing to the clause. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanj Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 3 minutes ago, KaKa said: Whatever they were, Chelsea agreed and we didn't, and we missed out on what was supposedly a key target to allow us to spend on other areas of the team. He was coming in on a free. I don't see the downside in agreeing to the clause. Well you don’t know the terms. And you know Chelsea are aggressive. So no, you don’t agree to anything and everything if it doesn’t make sense. Just because free does not mean there’s no downside. It’s overly simplistic to suggest that and you know it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 Just now, Kanji said: Well you don’t know the terms. And you know Chelsea are aggressive. So no, you don’t agree to anything and everything if it doesn’t make sense. Just because free does not mean there’s no downside. It’s overly simplistic to suggest that and you know it. But you don't know the terms either. What kind of release clause could he realistically have been requesting that would be a non starter? Concessions have to be made with free transfers to some extent. The risk would have been worth it for the impact it would have had on our ability to spend elsewhere. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanj Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 (edited) 11 minutes ago, KaKa said: But you don't know the terms either. What kind of release clause could he realistically have been requesting that would be a non starter? Concessions have to be made with free transfers to some extent. The risk would have been worth it for the impact it would have had on our ability to spend elsewhere. right so you can’t just keep painting a one sided argument bro. We don’t know why he signed for Chelsea over us. He does live in London, and Chelsea did offer a deal that met whatever he wanted to stay in London. He did have to relocate his family. So maybe there’s that? Why can’t anyone simply accept a high jack? Why is it always someone’s fault? Edited October 20 by Kanji Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fak Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 Surely there’s better things to do on a Sunday night than argue about missing out on a freebie from Fulham 3 months ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 30 minutes ago, KaKa said: Whatever they were, Chelsea agreed and we didn't, and we missed out on what was supposedly a key target to allow us to spend on other areas of the team. He was coming in on a free. I don't see the downside in agreeing to the clause. But you don’t know what the clause was? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now