Romeo Lavia - Official: Signs for Not Liverpool

[egg]

8 hours ago, Verbal said:

If he goes to a club other than City we get market rate. Not since Bosman has it been possible to compel a player to re-sign for their previous club.

I don't think we'll need to compel the lad, the buyback and his market value will likely make it worth his while to go back to City. Eg, if the buyback is £40m, and someone else is offering £60m, he'll doubtless be able to negotiate a huge signing on fee to return to City. 

[CB Fry]

9 minutes ago, egg said:

I don't think we'll need to compel the lad, the buyback and his market value will likely make it worth his while to go back to City. Eg, if the buyback is £40m, and someone else is offering £60m, he'll doubtless be able to negotiate a huge signing on fee to return to City. 

Exactly.

I don't get where people think other clubs are going to be chucking £80m about and Man City just sit there and let it happen while we magically trot off to the bank with wheelbarrows full of cash. It won't play out like that.

 

[saintwbu]

1 hour ago, CB Fry said:

Exactly.

I don't get where people think other clubs are going to be chucking £80m about and Man City just sit there and let it happen while we magically trot off to the bank with wheelbarrows full of cash. It won't play out like that.

 

But it can, or they can just decide not to buy him, like Chelsea did with Ake when he was at Bournemouth. It all depends on the makeup of City’s squad at the time, and what their other outlays will have been in that particular window. Buybacks aren’t guarantees, plenty of them have never been utilised. 

[hypochondriac]

2 hours ago, CB Fry said:

Exactly.

I don't get where people think other clubs are going to be chucking £80m about and Man City just sit there and let it happen while we magically trot off to the bank with wheelbarrows full of cash. It won't play out like that.

 

Indeed. Also it's in our interest to cooperate with them so we can benefit from future deals like this. It wouldn't surprise me with someone like Lavia if we have already agreed to sell him back and it's just a case of activating it in a summer or two. Essentially a form of a loan. 

[CB Fry]

14 minutes ago, saintwbu said:

But it can, or they can just decide not to buy him, like Chelsea did with Ake when he was at Bournemouth. It all depends on the makeup of City’s squad at the time, and what their other outlays will have been in that particular window. Buybacks aren’t guarantees, plenty of them have never been utilised. 

You'll have to remind me of the bidding war of clubs smashing over the buy back fee for him. 

The point is Ake has not become a world beating megastar.

If Lavia turns out just okay and Spurs and Arsenal fight over him and Man City aren't bothered, then Spurs/Arsenal pay about £40m. Buy back not activated, fine. Perfectly possible.

If he becomes a world beater at 19-20 or whatever and the price is £60-£80m, on what planet are Man City walking away from that and just letting it happen.

The scenario people are trying to build here is not going to play out.

Edited 14 September, 2022 by CB Fry

[Dusic]

21 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

It wouldn't surprise me with someone like Lavia if we have already agreed to sell him back and it's just a case of activating it in a summer or two. Essentially a form of a loan. 

Well yes, what you are describing is the buy-back option, which we already know exists.

The very fact that there is one shows we have an outline agreement to sell him back at a specific price should Man City wish to activate it.

Essentially they have a first refusal to take him back. Up to them if they want to, which is clearly more nuanced than simply how good he is.

[egg]

10 minutes ago, Dusic said:

Well yes, what you are describing is the buy-back option, which we already know exists.

The very fact that there is one shows we have an outline agreement to sell him back at a specific price should Man City wish to activate it.

Essentially they have a first refusal to take him back. Up to them if they want to, which is clearly more nuanced than simply how good he is.

It's not first refusal. Someone can offer more than the buyback. City can then offer the buyback, and if they do that, the player becomes the main beneficiary, ie "I'll come to you for £40mil but I'll need £5mil, my agent £2mil, and a few hundred thousand a week in wages please". The buyback puts the kid in the driving seat if he fulfils his potential. 

[Dusic]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

It's not first refusal. Someone can offer more than the buyback. City can then offer the buyback, and if they do that, the player becomes the main beneficiary, ie "I'll come to you for £40mil but I'll need £5mil, my agent £2mil, and a few hundred thousand a week in wages please". The buyback puts the kid in the driving seat if he fulfils his potential. 

The transfer fee is largely irrelevant for the player and wouldnt make a difference to the package he is offered as he wouldnt receive any of the fee anyway.

Any team can bid what they want for him but if City offer whatever the agreed price is then that will certainly be accepted. Of course he may wish to move elsewhere but thats up to him. With regards agreeing a fee, City have already done that so will always have an option to sign him should anyone else move for him.

What we don't know is clauses like when the buy back kicks in, are City obligated to keep him for 12 months after buying back (to stop them selling onto someone else straight away) etc.

[egg]

2 hours ago, Dusic said:

The transfer fee is largely irrelevant for the player and wouldnt make a difference to the package he is offered as he wouldnt receive any of the fee anyway.

Any team can bid what they want for him but if City offer whatever the agreed price is then that will certainly be accepted. Of course he may wish to move elsewhere but thats up to him. With regards agreeing a fee, City have already done that so will always have an option to sign him should anyone else move for him.

What we don't know is clauses like when the buy back kicks in, are City obligated to keep him for 12 months after buying back (to stop them selling onto someone else straight away) etc.

We're on different pages.

My understanding on the buyback is that is that we must accept a City offer that matches the figure, but that the player doesn't have to go there, and that anyone else can bid for the lad. If I'm correct, I go back to my point that if City offer the £40mil and another club offers say £60m, the lad can tell City he ain't going there unless they look after him very well. Thus, the buyback figure only governs what we get from the deal if the player wants to go back to City, but not the what the player can seek from City if he's in demand.  

 

 

[Alanh]

5 hours ago, Dusic said:

 

What we don't know is clauses like when the buy back kicks in, are City obligated to keep him for 12 months after buying back (to stop them selling onto someone else straight away) etc.

There are a bunch of things we don't know.  As you rightly point out, when the clause can be activated, but also if it is time limited.  It might be that City can buy him for the agreed clause during a specified number of transfer windows.  If they don't do that then the clause could lapse and we are just in an open market situation with everyone, including City from then on.

[Dusic]

6 hours ago, egg said:

We're on different pages.

My understanding on the buyback is that is that we must accept a City offer that matches the figure, but that the player doesn't have to go there, and that anyone else can bid for the lad. If I'm correct, I go back to my point that if City offer the £40mil and another club offers say £60m, the lad can tell City he ain't going there unless they look after him very well. Thus, the buyback figure only governs what we get from the deal if the player wants to go back to City, but not the what the player can seek from City if he's in demand.  

 

 

IMO the buyback has little to no impact on any personal terms negotiation, certainly not from Saints perspective. Thats for Lavia's reps to sort out, and if it got to the stage of City triggering the buy back then I am fairly sure they would have already agreed that anyway.

[saintquin]

There's can lots of conditions we don't know about this deal.

How long buy back goes on for, when it starts from, has he got any choice if they do initiate it and one I haven't seen mentioned yet is can they include a sell on fee as well as a buy back.

[Ted Bates Statue]

Any word on his return?

It must be nearly six weeks by now, and also six weeks since we took any points from a game. Too bad our other three regular midfielders don't seem to be up to it unless they're playing alongside someone with a fraction of their experience.

[Convict Colony]

24 minutes ago, Ted Bates Statue said:

Any word on his return?

It must be nearly six weeks by now, and also six weeks since we took any points from a game. Too bad our other three regular midfielders don't seem to be up to it unless they're playing alongside someone with a fraction of their experience.

O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?

[SNSUN]

 

1 hour ago, Ted Bates Statue said:

Any word on his return?

It must be nearly six weeks by now, and also six weeks since we took any points from a game. Too bad our other three regular midfielders don't seem to be up to it unless they're playing alongside someone with a fraction of their experience.

TransferMrkt have it as 14th - this Friday. PremierInjuries have it as 16th. Fantasy Football Scout have it as the 19th. So who knows... but looks possible it could be by the end of the month if not before.

 

 

Hamstring Injury
Return expected on Oct 14, 2022

[Convict Colony]

Its really sad that I think our current most crucial player is a 18yr old whose only played a few games, he's a proper player, lets hope he can play next game.

[Saint_clark]

10 hours ago, Convict Colony said:

Its really sad that I think our current most crucial player is a 18yr old whose only played a few games, he's a proper player, lets hope he can play next game.

It's also infuriating that we let the only other player who can play that role go. 

[wild-saint]

17 hours ago, Convict Colony said:

Its really sad that I think our current most crucial player is a 18yr old whose only played a few games, he's a proper player, lets hope he can play next game.

Incredible really but with  a fit Lavia playing every game and i think we have enough to stay up. The only caveat is that he maintains the quality that we have seen so far.

Without him we look effing terrible and I'm just really glad we signed him. Without that injury i think its fair to say we would probably have at least another 4 points.

 

[Turkish]

17 hours ago, Convict Colony said:

Its really sad that I think our current most crucial player is a 18yr old whose only played a few games, he's a proper player, lets hope he can play next game.

Is he? Or is it the classic of having his best games when he's not playing.  He's obviously a very good player but he's only played 4 games and 60 minutes, one was a heavy loss, one was a loss against a rubbish Man United team who hadn't won away for ages, another was a terrible first 60 minutes where we were 2-0 down against a poor Leeds side. You could easily agree we've been pretty crap when he's played as well. I hope some of our fans dont think things are going to magically improve when an 18 year old who has only ever played 4 full premier league games is available again

[The Kraken]

^^ this

Lavia is a definite prospect, but having him back isn’t suddenly going to change the whole way the team plays. We’ll still be creating a shockingly low number of chances per game. He will hopefully give us a bit more grit in the midfield, but the sum total of our problems are nowhere near being fixed just by getting Lavia back.

[egg]

It's fair to say that allowing Romeu to leave and pinning our midfield hopes on this kid was a moronic decision. 

[Saint86]

19 hours ago, Convict Colony said:

Its really sad that I think our current most crucial player is a 18yr old whose only played a few games, he's a proper player, lets hope he can play next game.

And yet people think more sports Republic is the answer... Failed to buy a striker, and left us weak in central midfield with no cover. It could well prove the 2 key reasons for us getting relegated in May. 

[saintwbu]

He might not be our best player but the drop off in quality in his position is definitely a problem, and i’m sure we’d have had more control in that Villa game if he’d been playing, and the first half against Everton. So it will be a boost to have him back.

[DRAGONZ_RULE]

On 11/10/2022 at 20:44, saintwbu said:

He might not be our best player but the drop off in quality in his position is definitely a problem, and i’m sure we’d have had more control in that Villa game if he’d been playing, and the first half against Everton. So it will be a boost to have him back.

Four months later, but I would say it is odds on that he definitely is the best player in the squad.

This kid is going right to the top of world football, be it in England or overseas for Madrid or some other club of that calibre.

Main thing standing in his way at the moment is his manager 🤪

[maysie]

Been called up to Belgium senior squad

[Ball boy]

Deserved. Kid is bullet proof. 

[Barsiem]

So any predictions as to how much we get for this kid in the summer?  He's far too good for us

[trousers]

Just now, Barsiem said:

So any predictions as to how much we get for this kid in the summer?  He's far too good for us

£50m

[Dman]

18 minutes ago, Barsiem said:

So any predictions as to how much we get for this kid in the summer?  He's far too good for us

He’s far too good for everyone but 5or6 clubs. Fantastic player. Him and Alcaraz only ones with a bit of quality, the rest are a bunch of cart horses 

[S-Clarke]

50 min minimum I'd have thought?

[RedArmy]

Said in the match thread but it’s worth saying again. He in the best player we’ve had in a good 5 years. 
 

Crazy to think he’s only 19. His calmness on the ball is something we haven’t seen since Van Dijk. 

[Whitey Grandad]

18 minutes ago, RedArmy said:

Said in the match thread but it’s worth saying again. He in the best player we’ve had in a good 5 years. 
 

Crazy to think he’s only 19. His calmness on the ball is something we haven’t seen since Van Dijk. 

He is outstanding. Is his young age the reason that he picks up injuries?

[davefizzy14]

He is absolutely outstanding 

Edited 21 April, 2023 by davefizzy14

[Saint Matty 76]

£50m for sure.

It is a true shame he didn't come along when we were any better. I think he'll go Chelsea, and I hated the idea of it until it now it seems like Pochettino will come in. A truly excellent footballer.

[Dusic]

In reality he is worth more than £50m given age, potential and length of contact.

Ben White cost £50m.

Is Caicedo is supposedly £80m then £50m for Lavia is cheap as he is potentially a generational talent.

City should buy him back for £40m and sell Phillips to West Ham for the same.

[Saint Matty 76]

Just now, Dusic said:

In reality he is worth more than £50m given age, potential and length of contact.

Ben White cost £50m.

Is Caicedo is supposedly £80m then £50m for Lavia is cheap as he is potentially a generational talent.

City should buy him back for £40m and sell Phillips to West Ham for the same.

Thankfully City's £40m doesn't come in until next year, which is why I assume we'll cash in this Summer.

I'm expecting £50m, but like you say, he could easily be valued at more. Our relegation unfortunately may take a little away.

He will be an absolutely fantastic signing for whichever team he goes to.

[allsa001]

Could easily become one of the world’s best and reach that at a young age too. I have never seen a player just shrug players off with complete calmness.

He just seems to do everything right, and makes it look effortless.

No chance we will have him with us next season, unless we stay up (Mathematically it is still possible I suppose). Far too good to be playing in the championship, and I think he would pick up so many injuries too.

I have enjoyed watching his class for us, wish it could be for another season though. I will wish him nothing but stardom.

[Saint Garrett]

17 minutes ago, Saint Matty 76 said:

Thankfully City's £40m doesn't come in until next year, which is why I assume we'll cash in this Summer.

I'm expecting £50m, but like you say, he could easily be valued at more. Our relegation unfortunately may take a little away.

He will be an absolutely fantastic signing for whichever team he goes to.

Surely we’d be better off flogging him this summer before City can exercise their buy back? Whether that’s to city or alternative. I do wonder whether City might “pay” us to keep him another season, he’s absolutely ready to move up the table though. 

[austsaint]

47 minutes ago, Saint Matty 76 said:

£50m for sure.

It is a true shame he didn't come along when we were any better. I think he'll go Chelsea, and I hated the idea of it until it now it seems like Pochettino will come in. A truly excellent footballer.

Pochettino would be a perfect manager/coach for Lavia.    What makes his season with us so good is he's done it in a struggling side with a clapped out Ralph, a fraudulent Jones and not ready/may never be ready Selles.    It's going to be a joy following his career - even if the next part of it is with Chelsea.

[Barsiem]

Even if we staynup he's going to leave I'm sure.  I reckon it'll be a minimum of £60m we sell him for, quite possibly pushing £80m if we get a bidding war.

[rooney]

A  joy to watch last night.

[WALK DMC]

33 minutes ago, Barsiem said:

Even if we staynup he's going to leave I'm sure.  I reckon it'll be a minimum of £60m we sell him for, quite possibly pushing £80m if we get a bidding war.

I believe that Man City have a buyback for £40m from Summer 2024, but also a 20% sell-on clause effective immediately.  It basically means that if we sell him for £50m this summer, we'd still only receive £40m, so little incentive to sell him for that amount now.  £80m may be pushing up, but £60m would only bring us £48m, so lets hope that there is a bidding war. 

With a guaranteed £40m in 2024 and the 20% clause reducing any sale this summer, we have very little reason to sell him for a lowish figure. Of course, this assumes that he hasn't been promised a move, or if he decides to throw his toys out of the pram to get the move. 

[Stu Man Do]

This kid is so good. Dominated Partey and kept Odegard quiet all game. At one point he dropped a shoulder and took the ball pass Partey, before doing it again just to take the piss. Rolls Royce footballer. Just awful when we take him off! Diallo is such a drop off!

[skintsaint]

One thing that may affect his selling price is if he qualifies as a 'home grown' player?

[Badger]

On 21/04/2023 at 23:28, Saint Garrett said:

Surely we’d be better off flogging him this summer before City can exercise their buy back? Whether that’s to city or alternative. I do wonder whether City might “pay” us to keep him another season, he’s absolutely ready to move up the table though. 

Interesting thought.

I think we’ve all realised from early season that he’d be unlikely to stay, and could be off as soon as after one season. 
 

Although a great talent, I’m a little wary of how he needs to be protected and how many games (EPL or Championship) w could rely on him for.

I’m resigned to him going at the end of the season, anything else would be a major surprise. (Just hope we spend anything wisely …. That’s not a given!!).
 

Probably alone in this but if we go down I’d be more concerned over keeping Alcarez to be honest (accepting that RL will be on his way).

 

[Whitey Grandad]

A great player now. Could be one of the world’s greatest. Can’t last 90 minutes. Apparently.

[Fabrice29]

30 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

A great player now. Could be one of the world’s greatest. Can’t last 90 minutes. Apparently.

He's 19. He's putting his body through an intensity it's not been through before at a complex and delicate age. He's lasted 90 minutes at times but bearing in mind his importance to the squad, the least the club could do is manage him properly and not force him to do it every few days. He's also had one serious injury this season already. Just wondering how many 19 year old's are currently delivering the physical output he is?

[UpweySaint]

On 21/04/2023 at 23:28, Saint Garrett said:

Surely we’d be better off flogging him this summer before City can exercise their buy back? Whether that’s to city or alternative. I do wonder whether City might “pay” us to keep him another season, he’s absolutely ready to move up the table though. 

Something like, we agree to City activating their clause early with agreement for a 1 year loan? We lost out on being able to hold a bidding war but we keep Lavia for one more season.

I think he's already too good for the championship but would have to start as a squad player at best in the type of sides who realistically would be going for him (top five/six clubs). I anticipate there is a valid question about what could be better for development - consistent games in the championship or training with top quality players and coaches with hit and miss game time.

[AlexLaw76]

7 minutes ago, UpweySaint said:

Something like, we agree to City activating their clause early with agreement for a 1 year loan? We lost out on being able to hold a bidding war but we keep Lavia for one more season.

I think he's already too good for the championship but would have to start as a squad player at best in the type of sides who realistically would be going for him (top five/six clubs). I anticipate there is a valid question about what could be better for development - consistent games in the championship or training with top quality players and coaches with hit and miss game time.

You honestly think Lavia will be playing in the Championship next season? Or even a remote possibility?

[UpweySaint]

11 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

You honestly think Lavia will be playing in the Championship next season? Or even a remote possibility?

Very very unlikely. Willing to admit I'm clutching at straws - I think I have been for most of the season to be honest! 😆

Lavia has everything about him to be world class. In the spirit of frantic straw clutching he is only 19 and has had one season of men's football. A second in a well coached (don't laugh), familiar side in a decent standard of competition (even ignoring Rasmus bullsh*t metrics) could be better for his development than a season potentially bench warming. Really depends on development pathways etc - the counter argument is somebody like Foden who has benefitted from a gradual introduction into a top side.