Summer Transfer Window 2023

[revolution saint]

Couldn't care less where he goes as long as we get the most we possibly can for him.  If Chelsea offered 50M last year for him then I wouldn't be looking for anything less than that.  It's got to be one of the easiest sells we'll ever have - all the top six should be looking at him.

[beatlesaint]

32 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

Arsenal is a great move for Lavia, he'll actually get genuine game time there and develop.

I imagine we'll get around £40m, can't see us getting any more than that.

Well given his buy back from City for summer 2024 is £40 million I would be very disappointed with "only" getting that from another club. 

[Osvaldorama]

I think even 50m is a bargain for him. He’s so young and so talented. So I agree we need to sit and wait for a bidding war. 
 

I can’t think of many central midfielders in world football as good as him at such a young age. It’s a position where normally you benefit from age & experience. This lad is dominating top six midfields at 19. He has such a high ceiling 

[malcolm waldron]

11 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

I think even 50m is a bargain for him. He’s so young and so talented. So I agree we need to sit and wait for a bidding war. 
 

I can’t think of many central midfielders in world football as good as him at such a young age. It’s a position where normally you benefit from age & experience. This lad is dominating top six midfields at 19. He has such a high ceiling 

But not as high a ceiling as Adam Armstrong reportedly (or am I mangling the Broja / AA comparison from about 18 months ago??).

[Barsiem]

Reading between the lines with how transfer fees tend to be leaked, I'm guessing Lavias fee will be £40-45m guaranteed, with £10-15m in add-ons

[Doctoroncall]

1 hour ago, Sussex_saint said:

40m is 40m - could help fund wages to keep sully, Alcaraz and JWP and will get us some top level championship players.

Isn’t there a 20% sell on clause to City so 40m isn’t 40m for Saints. 

[SuperSAINT]

2 minutes ago, Doctoroncall said:

Isn’t there a 20% sell on clause to City so 40m isn’t 40m for Saints. 

Yeah, they effectively get a discount 

[saint lard]

Ok so Lavia goes for say £40m…we will get that over how many years?…it genuinely means nothing in the here and now. 
All this raving about how much for so and so means root all as it stands. 
Its all fictional numbers to us fans. 
some saying that will save us so many ££’s in wages…bollix. 
It doesn’t work that way.

All that matters is the quality of the squad…and just because we will sell someone for ‘a great fee’ or ‘ that should start a bidding war’ is again bollix. 
If you genuinely think what we sell will equate to who we might buy is delusional. 
it won’t. 
if you trust them to spend what we have…on what we need….or equivalent talent and necessity… .again delusional.

forget the money coming in on the sales…it won’t make us stronger…just weaker as a side that takes to the pitch when we need a result  

 

[SuperSAINT]

#LaviaWatch #JWP_watch

 

[Saint86]

12 minutes ago, SuperSAINT said:

#LaviaWatch #JWP_watch

 

Need to be asking for £50-60M for lavia.

[hypochondriac]

34 minutes ago, saint lard said:

Ok so Lavia goes for say £40m…we will get that over how many years?…it genuinely means nothing in the here and now. 
All this raving about how much for so and so means root all as it stands. 
Its all fictional numbers to us fans. 
some saying that will save us so many ££’s in wages…bollix. 
It doesn’t work that way.

All that matters is the quality of the squad…and just because we will sell someone for ‘a great fee’ or ‘ that should start a bidding war’ is again bollix. 
If you genuinely think what we sell will equate to who we might buy is delusional. 
it won’t. 
if you trust them to spend what we have…on what we need….or equivalent talent and necessity… .again delusional.

forget the money coming in on the sales…it won’t make us stronger…just weaker as a side that takes to the pitch when we need a result  

 

We need to sell to ensure we have enough money for the next few years and to cover the drop in revenue of relegation as well as allowing us to buy players that will be competitive in the league. 

[Give it to Ron]

33 minutes ago, saint lard said:

Ok so Lavia goes for say £40m…we will get that over how many years?…it genuinely means nothing in the here and now. 
All this raving about how much for so and so means root all as it stands. 
Its all fictional numbers to us fans. 
some saying that will save us so many ££’s in wages…bollix. 
It doesn’t work that way.

All that matters is the quality of the squad…and just because we will sell someone for ‘a great fee’ or ‘ that should start a bidding war’ is again bollix. 
If you genuinely think what we sell will equate to who we might buy is delusional. 
it won’t. 
if you trust them to spend what we have…on what we need….or equivalent talent and necessity… .again delusional.

forget the money coming in on the sales…it won’t make us stronger…just weaker as a side that takes to the pitch when we need a result  

 

So let me get this right we sell players but don’t get the money for a number of years but we buy them and pay now?

Do you think Lavia will play in Championship think you are deluded but knew that from your Adkin’s rants.

[Saint Matty 76]

Express reporting that they're unwilling to reach our valuation of £45m, bit disappointing if that's our number and we don't even get it.

[saint lard]

19 minutes ago, Give it to Ron said:

So let me get this right we sell players but don’t get the money for a number of years but we buy them and pay now?

Do you think Lavia will play in Championship think you are deluded but knew that from your Adkin’s rants.

And I was right about Adkins. Give it a rest ‘give it to ron’

no I don’t think he will play in the Championship…that’s not up for dispute. 
And deals work both ways on payment/instalments…your point being?

Edited 20 June, 2023 by saint lard

[Saintscummer]

53 minutes ago, saint lard said:

Ok so Lavia goes for say £40m…we will get that over how many years?…it genuinely means nothing in the here and now. 
All this raving about how much for so and so means root all as it stands. 
Its all fictional numbers to us fans. 
some saying that will save us so many ££’s in wages…bollix. 
It doesn’t work that way.

All that matters is the quality of the squad…and just because we will sell someone for ‘a great fee’ or ‘ that should start a bidding war’ is again bollix. 
If you genuinely think what we sell will equate to who we might buy is delusional. 
it won’t. 
if you trust them to spend what we have…on what we need….or equivalent talent and necessity… .again delusional.

forget the money coming in on the sales…it won’t make us stronger…just weaker as a side that takes to the pitch when we need a result  

 

I get your point bout we won’t get the exact figure in one hit on a sell but isn’t it the same regards who we buy ? Therefore it all levels itself out. 
 

Also, if we get high earners off of our wage bill how can that not be a good economic thing ?

[Bad Wolf]

1 minute ago, saint lard said:

And I was right about Adkins. Give it a rest ‘give it to ron’

Were you the one who claimed Adkins was a failure at Saints? I still don't believe you were being serious if so. 

[Doctoroncall]

3 minutes ago, saint lard said:

Ok so Lavia goes for say £40m…we will get that over how many years?…it genuinely means nothing in the here and now. 
All this raving about how much for so and so means root all as it stands. 
Its all fictional numbers to us fans. 
some saying that will save us so many ££’s in wages…bollix. 
It doesn’t work that way.

All that matters is the quality of the squad…and just because we will sell someone for ‘a great fee’ or ‘ that should start a bidding war’ is again bollix. 
If you genuinely think what we sell will equate to who we might buy is delusional. 
it won’t. 
if you trust them to spend what we have…on what we need….or equivalent talent and necessity… .again delusional.

forget the money coming in on the sales…it won’t make us stronger…just weaker as a side that takes to the pitch when we need a result  

 

I see what you’re getting at - that the squad is the important factor not the cash balance, however there are a few caveats to it. There is no point holding on to a useful player that doesn’t want to be here under any circumstances and cannot be persuaded otherwise. I’d hope Wilcox has a plan for recruiting the right character of player, not just on ability. As last season illustrated we need a cohesive squad not a collective of individual players who shy away in their own cliques. 

[Chez]

56 minutes ago, saint lard said:

Ok so Lavia goes for say £40m…we will get that over how many years?…it genuinely means nothing in the here and now. 
All this raving about how much for so and so means root all as it stands. 
Its all fictional numbers to us fans. 
some saying that will save us so many ££’s in wages…bollix. 
It doesn’t work that way.

All that matters is the quality of the squad…and just because we will sell someone for ‘a great fee’ or ‘ that should start a bidding war’ is again bollix. 
If you genuinely think what we sell will equate to who we might buy is delusional. 
it won’t. 
if you trust them to spend what we have…on what we need….or equivalent talent and necessity… .again delusional.

forget the money coming in on the sales…it won’t make us stronger…just weaker as a side that takes to the pitch when we need a result  

OK. So, what are you suggesting? Not to sell anyone that is good because it will make us weaker?

[SW11_Saint]

1 hour ago, Saint Matty 76 said:

Express reporting that they're unwilling to reach our valuation of £45m, bit disappointing if that's our number and we don't even get it.

Well we keep him then, or someone else buys him. They shouldn’t dictate the price to us. 

Brighton are holding out for £80m for Caicedo. 

[Dman]

Just now, SW11_Saint said:

Well we keep him then, or someone else buys him. They shouldn’t dictate the price to us. 

Brighton are holding out for £80m for Caicedo. 

Brighton are a PL, European club. We're not. They're in the position to keep hold of a player and keep them relatively happy. We;re not. 

[saint lard]

27 minutes ago, Chez said:

OK. So, what are you suggesting? Not to sell anyone that is good because it will make us weaker?

I’m suggesting that we,as fans,stop trying to focus on how much we might get for him, or whoever,how much wages we might save…”oh that might subsidise so and so’s wages”….

because it’s all made up,pie in the sky bollix. 
what matters is the fecking squad that goes out across that white line. 
yes we need to balance the books….but I’ll tell you what…football is so much more fun with trying to be forensic about stuff that is complete guesswork by us. 
when I went to footie,days of Boyer,Channon even Keegan I couldn’t give a toss about guessing the wage structure. 
yes football has changed…but not the objective…to be the best you can. 
waffling on and trying to be clever with how much ££ in and how much ££out means sod all. 
we have no control. We are fed bollix from whoever owns the club. 
Lavia will go…shame,but will go. My main concern is how we set up on the first day. Not how his sale now subsidises the prospective wages of another…especially when they won’t be as good. 
 

[igsey]

If I'm Lavia, the one thing I don't want to do is go to the same club that's about to buy Declan Rice.

[SuperSAINT]

 

[Saint86]

15 minutes ago, SuperSAINT said:

 

Would fit tbf. Arsenal buy Havertz before end of the month to meet Chelsea's FFP / accounts deadline on 30th June. Chelsea then use a large portion of that money to buy lavia under next year's accounts. Meanwhile Arsenal overpay for havertz, and then overpay for / miss out on Rice 😄

Edited 20 June, 2023 by Saint86

[Convict Colony]

2 hours ago, Saint Matty 76 said:

Express reporting that they're unwilling to reach our valuation of £45m, bit disappointing if that's our number and we don't even get it.

If they can't afford go shop somewhere else

[Saint86]

Can someone please tell me why we would sell one of the best prospects we've had for years, a clear talent at 19years old kid, on a long contract, and subject to huge interest from 3-4 top clubs, for only £45M.... And when we have to give 20% off that money away?!?! makes no sense at all.

Edited 20 June, 2023 by Saint86

[Give it to Ron]

1 minute ago, Saint86 said:

Can someone please tell me why we would sell one of the best prospects we've had for years, a 19year old kid, one a long contract, and subject to huge interest from 3-4 top clubs, for only £45M.... And when we have to give 20% off that money away?!?! makes no sense at all.

Relegation and he is 19

Edited 20 June, 2023 by Give it to Ron

[Turkish]

Lots of my sources are telling me Russell wants to bring Matt Grimes with him 👀👊

[Toussaint]

My source is telling me Russell wants to bring Grimes with him.

I can’t divulge my source, what I can say he posts on here a lot and his username would imply he’s a Delight, a cigarette, a non EU citizen or a bath house. 

Edited 20 June, 2023 by Toussaint

[Fabrice29]

2 hours ago, Saint86 said:

Can someone please tell me why we would sell one of the best prospects we've had for years, a clear talent at 19years old kid, on a long contract, and subject to huge interest from 3-4 top clubs, for only £45M.... And when we have to give 20% off that money away?!?! makes no sense at all.

Because he will want to leave and it’s only going to get less each season we don’t sell him. 

[Convict Colony]

Aside from the entire Swansea first team have we seen any links to any other players.

I remember the danish guy who plays in Italy could be a possibility but all quiet really. 

Probably waiting until Wilcox is official so he can use his proprietary database that he definitely did not take from city.

[Convict Colony]

Highlight of this transfer window so far

 

[Badger]

Wrong thread

Edited 20 June, 2023 by Badger

[revolution saint]

16 minutes ago, Convict Colony said:

Highlight of this transfer window so far

 

Thread killer.

[SuperSAINT]

38 minutes ago, Convict Colony said:

I remember the danish guy who plays in Italy could be a possibility but all quiet really. 

Was linked with AC Milan the other day…..

[SW11_Saint]

5 hours ago, Dman said:

Brighton are a PL, European club. We're not. They're in the position to keep hold of a player and keep them relatively happy. We;re not. 

Yeah, I get that - though when those same attributes were true of us it didn’t stop us being raided. Caicedo will still go, regardless. 

My point really is that it’s the quality of the player which determines their value, not the state of the club (when involving the top two divisions at least). If we’ve put a value on him, we should stick to it. If they or someone else doesn’t want to buy him due to feeling he’s overpriced then fine. We’re not skint, he’s under contract, we don’t need to sell him. He and his agent will be mightily pissed off of course, but we need to hard ball this, not roll over and let our tummy be tickled (we will of course). 

With any luck there will be a bidding war. 

[SotonianWill]

3 hours ago, Turkish said:

Lots of my sources are telling me Russell wants to bring Matt Grimes with him 👀👊

🚨 aspiring journalist 🚨

[Holmes_and_Watson]

My source is tight lipped

... well, tight lidded, anyway.

[Chez]

5 hours ago, saint lard said:

I’m suggesting that we,as fans,stop trying to focus on how much we might get for him, or whoever,how much wages we might save…”oh that might subsidise so and so’s wages”….

because it’s all made up,pie in the sky bollix. 
what matters is the fecking squad that goes out across that white line. 
yes we need to balance the books….but I’ll tell you what…football is so much more fun with trying to be forensic about stuff that is complete guesswork by us. 
when I went to footie,days of Boyer,Channon even Keegan I couldn’t give a toss about guessing the wage structure. 
yes football has changed…but not the objective…to be the best you can. 
waffling on and trying to be clever with how much ££ in and how much ££out means sod all. 
we have no control. We are fed bollix from whoever owns the club. 
Lavia will go…shame,but will go. My main concern is how we set up on the first day. Not how his sale now subsidises the prospective wages of another…especially when they won’t be as good. 
 

I've no idea who your post was aimed at, but whoever it was is probably making some reasonable points, because how much we sell Lavia for will directly impact how we line up on the first day. An extra £10m will make a big difference to the overall budget and available funds to sign and pay players.

How much money you have to spend on players (that will actually play for us) will have a major bearing on results.

Obviously we need to spend well, coach them well, play well...but `money in and money out' is not `made up, pie in the sky bollix', it's just the business side of football. If that's not something you give a fuck about, fine, maybe come back on here when preseason starts and then you can discuss the squad, line ups and tactics. You'll then have eight or nine months to go into intrinsic detail.

 

[SW5 SAINT]

Just hearing that Leicester value Maddison at £50m despite only having a year left on his contract, and won’t budge on their valuation. We can but hope that we grow a pair and don’t let the big 6 push us around. We can but hope……!

[skintsaint]

3 minutes ago, SW5 SAINT said:

Leicester value Maddison at £50m despite only having a year left on his contract,

Seeing as we got 25m for Ings with a year left I would imaging they might get 35m'ish realistically at most.

[Saint Garrett]

Just me who thinks £45m for Lavia is derogatory? The guy is already phenomenal, let alone being 19 and a long contract. We’re somewhat hampered by City deal next year, but I’d be wanting £60m for him, especially given we lose 20% back to city, 

[Fabrice29]

14 minutes ago, Saint Garrett said:

Just me who thinks £45m for Lavia is derogatory? The guy is already phenomenal, let alone being 19 and a long contract. We’re somewhat hampered by City deal next year, but I’d be wanting £60m for him, especially given we lose 20% back to city, 

We've effectively accepted a £32 million bid next year for him already. Even if City don't come in for him next year (Which I suspect they won't) any other team would be mad to go above that next season. Nobody is paying near double for him this year. £40 million for a kid with one season behind him is very good and all parties will know that.

[Saint Garrett]

2 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

We've effectively accepted a £32 million bid next year for him already. Even if City don't come in for him next year (Which I suspect they won't) any other team would be mad to go above that next season. Nobody is paying near double for him this year. £40 million for a kid with one season behind him is very good and all parties will know that.

It’s pretty irrelevant next years price though. We’re talking about a top top youngster now, who could be the future midfielder for the next 15 years. 

I understand we have to balance our income but if United, City, Liverpool, Chelsea, Newcastle and Arsenal are all keen then we shouldn’t be flogging him for £40m this summer IMO. I don’t see him going anywhere else in the UK, 

[Fabrice29]

4 minutes ago, Saint Garrett said:

It’s pretty irrelevant next years price though. We’re talking about a top top youngster now, who could be the future midfielder for the next 15 years. 

I understand we have to balance our income but if United, City, Liverpool, Chelsea, Newcastle and Arsenal are all keen then we shouldn’t be flogging him for £40m this summer IMO. I don’t see him going anywhere else in the UK, 

Why is next years price irrelevant? If you wanted something from a shop and it was set at a price in a years time but open to negotiation now how much more would you pay for it a year earlier? Maybe a bit more to ensure you got it over someone else. I doubt you would be paying double.

Edited 20 June, 2023 by Fabrice29

[Saint Garrett]

Just now, Fabrice29 said:

Why is next years price irrelevant? If you wanted something from a shop and it was set at a price in a years time but open to negotiation now how much more would you pay for it a year earlier? Maybe a bit more to ensure you got it over someone else. I doubt you would be paying double.

Because they’re buying him this year, not next year. And there is multiple interested parties. If it was only city interested then your point would be valid, but given city have the option next year, but none this year, makes it a free for all, 

[Smirking_Saint]

6 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

Why is next years price irrelevant? If you wanted something from a shop and it was set at a price in a years time but open to negotiation now how much more would you pay for it a year earlier? Maybe a bit more to ensure you got it over someone else. I doubt you would be paying double.

That price is only for City though, and if they don’t want to accept it then its irrelevant

Fact is they don’t need another No.6, they already have probably the worlds best

Theres not many good young No.6’s, certainly not At reasonable prices… it’s basically Lavia or Ugarte and the latter will pitch up at PSG I suspect

I always assumed we’d get north of £50m for Lavia, especially considering the 10-20% sell on fee and especially considering the team’s interested… I am surprised in Arsenals interest considering they seem to be pushing for Rice but I imagine Lavia also fits the HG qoutas required and is likely cheaper by a good 40m+

Edited 20 June, 2023 by Smirking_Saint

[egg]

11 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

We've effectively accepted a £32 million bid next year for him already. Even if City don't come in for him next year (Which I suspect they won't) any other team would be mad to go above that next season. Nobody is paying near double for him this year. £40 million for a kid with one season behind him is very good and all parties will know that.

I see it the same as you. He's a kid who's played 1 season. Yes he's very good, but he's been a tad overhyped imo. Any buyers will know that he'll probably want the bright lights and money one of the big boys will pay, and that anything over £32m is more than we'll get  next year. Out only hope for a massive fee is a bidding war. 

[Fabrice29]

Just now, Saint Garrett said:

Because they’re buying him this year, not next year. And there is multiple interested parties. If it was only city interested then your point would be valid, but given city have the option next year, but none this year, makes it a free for all, 

It's not a free for all if he has a preferred option, which is normally why clubs do their work with the player first so they can go to the club and say "Unlucky lads, he only wants to play for us so here's our offer and we'll pay you a bit extra this year than we would next year"

They'll all be sniffing around trying to convince him to signal his intent to join them. 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

SR's model rests on maximising the sell on value of, not just young players but, young players on the verge of making the break through, with us giving them their first season or so. Lavia is the poster boy for that model.

So, it's a test for SR. It's got the wrinkle of Man City's clauses, but it's a great test of their model, with Lavia on a long contract. We're going to get lots of bid rumours, leaks to test the waters in addition to a shed load of expectations, rumour and clickbait, from all sides of people ITK and mainly not.

If nothing else, it's going to show our owner the outcome of that model. If we accept too low an offer, say based on getting some relegation offset money, then that's going to have a knock on later. Other clubs will be quick to use that as leverage for other deals. A bit of resolve may be a good thing at this stage, bit it's all part of the usual window brinkmanship.