Jump to content

Romeo Lavia - Official: Signs for Not Liverpool

Saint Garrett

By Saint Garrett,
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

beatlesaint

beatlesaint

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, CSA96 said:

https://x.com/jacobsteinberg/status/1691010818349928448?s=46&t=f0hgNyKSvvOD5qjGLJhsXQ

This just gets better and better. So if this is true Liverpool have had to pay an extra £10 million to Southampton all because they were titting around and trying to play the big boys by only offering up to £45 million ! 🤣

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, sfc4prem said:

How much would Man City get from the sale of Lavia?

We've sold both of our starting CMs. If Charles is to be a starting CM, we still need another, even if Smallbone has come in as a starting CM.

20% of the profit isn’t it? So about £9-10m. Leaves us with £50m good deal. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, sfc4prem said:

How much would Man City get from the sale of Lavia?

We've sold both of our starting CMs. If Charles is to be a starting CM, we still need another, even if Smallbone has come in as a starting CM.

If you count AMN we've lost all four of our CMs from last season. Annoyingly our ability to replace them is being hampered by our 400 crap attacking players we're struggling to shift from the wage bill. I'd say we need two more on top of Charles and Smallbone, although one will likely be an emergency/utility/stop gap signing in much the same way as AMN.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
derry

derry

Posted
Posted (edited)

Liverpool were originally saying they'd bid and get him for about £25m, first £37m, second, £41m, third £45m we wanted £50m they wouldn't bid that now it's supposed to be £60m. Snatch their hand off before they realise £60m will buy a host of good players. Come on Chelsea you know you can do it. Just a few more quid. Liverpool surely you're not going to let them get away with that.:mcinnes:

Edited by derry
  • Haha 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Miltonaggro

Miltonaggro

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, St. Neil said:

I wonder what the Chelsea contract offer was like compared to the initial Liverpool one, surely Lavia can say I want you to match it now. Maybe the better chance of first team football and europe at Liverpool will sway it.

But then again living in London and rebuilding with Poch might sway the lad, it beats Toxteth and cuddles from Stephen Merchant's gurning Bavarian uncle.  Good fun isn't it :D  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ted Bates Statue

Ted Bates Statue

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, derry said:

Liverpool were originally saying they'd bid and get him for about £25m, first £37m, second, £41m, third £45m we wanted £50m they wouldn't bid that now it's supposed to be £60m. Snatch their hand off before they realise £60m will by a host of good players. Come on Chelsea you know you can do it. Just a few more quid. Liverpool surely you're not going to let them get away with that.:mcinnes:

It's been going on for a month and they've been bidding in 1M increments every day to get to this point... it's gone on long enough, might as well drag it out for a few more days and see if they can match the VVD transfer fee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Challenger

Challenger

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Miltonaggro said:

But then again living in London and rebuilding with Poch might sway the lad, it beats Toxteth and cuddles from Stephen Merchant's gurning Bavarian uncle.  Good fun isn't it :D  

I wish they would all hurry up. The rubber panties I put on last week to stop me pissing myself are beginning to chaff. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
VectisSaint

VectisSaint

Posted
Posted

I keep expecting Man City to come in and gazump both Chelsea and Liverpool, we could accept a lower sum from them. It does beg the question why did they put a 40m buy-back clause in when they sold him to us that can be invalidated if we sell him before the buy-back comes into effect (next Summer). There is something a bit odd about the buy-back agreement which I don't understand, unless of course City just don't want him any longer. Anyway, this now needs to be sorted pronto, so that we can get replacements in because we currently look very weak in CM without all of last season's players in that area, which was already a weak area in terms of strength in depth if not starters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tdmickey3

tdmickey3

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, david in sweden said:

OK Gentlemen ....I have 55 million..55...now it's 60 million.. do I hear 65 ?

Come along Chelsea.. you've spent over 100 million already, this lad will be a steal at only 65 ..or did I hear 70?  ...hahahahaha

Never mind  Russell and the team  .....give Jason Wilcox the freedom of the City.

Yep credit where it is due to JW and the team but now the focus is on getting the incomings right 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, VectisSaint said:

I keep expecting Man City to come in and gazump both Chelsea and Liverpool, we could accept a lower sum from them. It does beg the question why did they put a 40m buy-back clause in when they sold him to us that can be invalidated if we sell him before the buy-back comes into effect (next Summer). There is something a bit odd about the buy-back agreement which I don't understand, unless of course City just don't want him any longer.

Perhaps our relegation has moved the goalposts. I would think City expected him to play for Saints in the Prem for a couple of seasons as a finishing school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
qwertyell

qwertyell

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, VectisSaint said:

It does beg the question why did they put a 40m buy-back clause in when they sold him to us that can be invalidated if we sell him before the buy-back comes into effect (next Summer). There is something a bit odd about the buy-back agreement which I don't understand, unless of course City just don't want him any longer.

Man City put buy back clauses in loads of their transfers, but how many of those players do they ever end up buying back? Off the top of my head, I can only think of Angelino, who they bought back from PSV only to send out on loan six months later and sell again the following summer.

They won't be buying back Lavia (or Bazunu or Charles or Edozie or Larios; and the Gunn option ended when he left us). They let players leave that they don't want anymore. If they rated Lavia that highly, they wouldn't have blocked his pathway into the team by signing Kalvin Phillips to sit on the bench.

The buy back clause is just a bit of a safety net for City on the off chance that they let a player go and he suddenly turns into a world beater.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Smirking_Saint

Smirking_Saint

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, VectisSaint said:

I keep expecting Man City to come in and gazump both Chelsea and Liverpool, we could accept a lower sum from them. It does beg the question why did they put a 40m buy-back clause in when they sold him to us that can be invalidated if we sell him before the buy-back comes into effect (next Summer). There is something a bit odd about the buy-back agreement which I don't understand, unless of course City just don't want him any longer. Anyway, this now needs to be sorted pronto, so that we can get replacements in because we currently look very weak in CM without all of last season's players in that area, which was already a weak area in terms of strength in depth if not starters.

Buying clubs basically ensure there is a delay to the buy back coming in force to ensure if the player is a success then we can retain them for a couple of seasons, otherwise its just a glorified loan, to an extent

I imagine that City would probably have pushed harder if they’d managed to shift Phillips but realistically they don’t have a spot for Lavia right now

Coincidentally.. nor do Chelsea, but here we are

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Kraken

The Kraken

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

In the immortal words of some Welsh ferret, "Romeo done"?

*shudders*

I’d almost forgotten just how utterly cringeworthy that video was. Players who just looked confused and disinterested at the weird little man barking out nonsense instructions at them. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
derry

derry

Posted
Posted (edited)

Personally I think City think he is not ready to play as a holding midfielder in their team. Liverpool are short, Chelsea are all over the place but they are buying great potential and especially Liverpool gambling that despite their reservations he'll cut the mustard. Is he a big loss for us? I don't think he is, a loss but not a big one. He obviously doesn't want to play in the Championship and as Martin said he didn't consider him because his head was in the wrong place. If he stayed under sufferance we were not going to get the best out of him. In my view the £60m fee will really underwrite our aspirations and allow us to shift the dross we need to shift and be more circumspect about fees etc. I think the £60m giving us north of maybe £170m if we can unload sicknote Bella Kotchap. If the likes of Adams, KWP decide to go we are close to £200m especially if Genk buy the swap for Onuachu with Joseph Paintsil their versatile forward. We are in a marvellous position to really strengthen the team/squad.

Edited by derry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JRM

JRM

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, derry said:

Personally I think City think he is not ready to play as a holding midfielder in their team. Liverpool are short, Chelsea are all over the place but they are buying great potential and especially Liverpool gambling that despite their reservations he'll cut the mustard. Is he a big loss for us? I don't think he is, a loss but not a big one. He obviously doesn't want to play in the Championship and as Martin said he didn't consider him because his head was in the wrong place. If he stayed under sufferance we were not going to get the best out of him. In my view the £60m fee will really underwrite our aspirations and allow us to shift the dross we need to shift and be more circumspect about fees etc. I think the £60m giving us north of maybe £170m if we can unload sicknote Bella Kotchap. If the likes of Adams, KWP decide to go we are close to £200m especially if Genk buy the swap for Onuachu with Joseph Paintsil their versatile forward. We are in a marvellous position to really strengthen the team/squad.

£170M in sales is crazy isn't it, and hardly anyone seems to be mentioning Kamaldeen Sulemana , he's our club record signing isn't he? Seems to go under the radar when discussing moves out or potential line ups. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
derry

derry

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, JRM said:

£170M in sales is crazy isn't it, and hardly anyone seems to be mentioning Kamaldeen Sulemana , he's our club record signing isn't he? Seems to go under the radar when discussing moves out or potential line ups. 

I didn't mention Sulemana because I hope he stays. Everton were sniffing about a loan. It could still happen as we are talking to them about a loan for Mason Holgate. however it looks like they've signed Harrison from Leeds on loan and are in for Gnonto who is kicking off and refusing to play. It seems that nearly all the Leeds players had relegation release clauses and whilst they have transferred/loaned out about 15 players and received comparatively little in fees that has really hit them hard. I think we should keep Sulemana he will be lethal in the Championship. It may well be that as he is away from the club having treatment according to Russell Martin it's going to be a good while before he is match fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
spyinthesky

spyinthesky

Posted
Posted
51 minutes ago, derry said:

I didn't mention Sulemana because I hope he stays. Everton were sniffing about a loan. It could still happen as we are talking to them about a loan for Mason Holgate. however it looks like they've signed Harrison from Leeds on loan and are in for Gnonto who is kicking off and refusing to play. It seems that nearly all the Leeds players had relegation release clauses and whilst they have transferred/loaned out about 15 players and received comparatively little in fees that has really hit them hard. I think we should keep Sulemana he will be lethal in the Championship. It may well be that as he is away from the club having treatment according to Russell Martin it's going to be a good while before he is match fit.

Mason Holgate is apparently on £70k a year at Everton so I doubt we would be willing to pay him that here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Saint_Ash said:

Lolz

All that pissing about playing the big man has screwed Liverpool big time. Can’t wait to see the meltdown from Their fans. Could have been done weeks  ago if they’d stumped up the money

Link to comment
Share on other sites
beatlesaint

beatlesaint

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Turkish said:

All that pissing about playing the big man has screwed Liverpool big time. Can’t wait to see the meltdown from Their fans. Could have been done weeks  ago if they’d stumped up the money

It’s bloody hilarious how they’ve screwed this up on top of Caicedo turning them down after old Klippity more or less announced his arrival in his press conference last week 🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites
S-Clarke

S-Clarke

Posted
Posted

I think Liverpool have been played on this in the best way we could have ever imagined.

Feels like karma after how they pissed around with the VVD deal.

Going by the weekend, they certainly need a 6, otherwise they are in the shitter this year in terms of any top 4 hopes. 

But from our clubs point of view I feel we've played this brilliantly, to get between 50-60m for him and pocket most of the cash up front is great business. This is exactly what our model is all about, buying young players or promoting young academy players, giving them an opportunity and then allowing them to make the step up - with us making a tidy profit in the process.

The key here is that we reinvest the JWP and Lavia fee's correctly, we cannot blow it - if we do, we'll be stuck in the Champ and that's it for us for many years. This is such a crucial few weeks.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

I think Liverpool have been played on this in the best way we could have ever imagined.

Feels like karma after how they pissed around with the VVD deal.

Going by the weekend, they certainly need a 6, otherwise they are in the shitter this year in terms of any top 4 hopes. 

But from our clubs point of view I feel we've played this brilliantly, to get between 50-60m for him and pocket most of the cash up front is great business. This is exactly what our model is all about, buying young players or promoting young academy players, giving them an opportunity and then allowing them to make the step up - with us making a tidy profit in the process.

The key here is that we reinvest the JWP and Lavia fee's correctly, we cannot blow it - if we do, we'll be stuck in the Champ and that's it for us for many years. This is such a crucial few weeks.

How did Luton get promoted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Block41 Saint

Block41 Saint

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

I think Liverpool have been played on this in the best way we could have ever imagined.

Feels like karma after how they pissed around with the VVD deal.

Going by the weekend, they certainly need a 6, otherwise they are in the shitter this year in terms of any top 4 hopes. 

But from our clubs point of view I feel we've played this brilliantly, to get between 50-60m for him and pocket most of the cash up front is great business. This is exactly what our model is all about, buying young players or promoting young academy players, giving them an opportunity and then allowing them to make the step up - with us making a tidy profit in the process.

The key here is that we reinvest the JWP and Lavia fee's correctly, we cannot blow it - if we do, we'll be stuck in the Champ and that's it for us for many years. This is such a crucial few weeks.

If we reinvest this money and fail to go up then it means the ownership have had another shocker in the transfer market and RM will probably pay the price for that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Lighthouse changed the title to Romeo Lavia - Official: Signs for Not Liverpool

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...