Armando Broja

[Toadhall Saint]

Just now, Dellman said:

Too much praise seems to be even more damaging than too much criticism....Remember the fuss about Skacel and that guy who scored three when we got six against Wolves away, we gave him a big contract and he never did anything, I can't erven remember his name now.. 

or can’t spell it? 😉

[Saint Garrett]

1 hour ago, Ivan Katalinic's 'tache said:

Since when was Broja possibly heading back to Chelsea a thing (snippet from Sky transfer feed)? I'm hoping they mean at the end of the season not in January!!

They're trying to recall Emerson to play left back, and offered something like £5m to get him back early and break the deal, but Lyon said no. I'm guessing there is a possiblity that could happen for us, but I can't see that being beneficial for the player or either club tbh.

[Give it to Ron]

36 minutes ago, Dellman said:

Too much praise seems to be even more damaging than too much criticism....Remember the fuss about Skacel and that guy who scored three when we got six against Wolves away, we gave him a big contract and he never did anything, I can't erven remember his name now.. 

saganowski

[pimpin4rizeal]

Quite frustrating this broja situation.

ralph lauds him in interviews like we pulled off some massive coup but at the end of the day he’s not our player.

surely we must have had some talks and know by now if we have any chance of getting him permanently ?

if not I think banging in a bid for delap could be a good alternative..

I think broja is the real deal for what it’s worth but at the same time I’m not really happy to just develop another’s clubs player 

[Dusic]

Its a simple situation. For him to sign for us permanently four things need to happen:

1. Saints need to want to sign him permanently, and be able to afford to do so.

2. Broja needs to want to permanently leave Chelsea, who he has represented for a long time and is probably now the closest he has ever been to getting in their first team squad.

3. Chelsea need to agree to sell a player who is clearly developing well at his loan club (as was the whole point) and looks like he could do a good job in their squad for next year and ehose value is rapidly increasing. 

4. Broja needs to prefer to join Saints over any other team who is interested in him. We can be sure that if the price were to be one Saints can afford then half the PL will show an interest.

Of these four things, I would say about 0.5 of them are clear, which is that Saints would like to sign him (#1).

I can't see there being a rush for #2 or #3 as no need for either Broja or Chelsea to act now.

Ultimately, the chances of it falling into place are pretty low and thats what you get when the deal is a loan with no option or obligation to buy. 

A second loan is far more likely.

Edited 14 January, 2022 by Dusic

[benjii]

Maybe we can do a similar deal as Tino where they have a buy-back clause. Benefits everyone. They get money now. Broja gets certainty over his future for the next couple of years. If he progresses well they get him back without having to compete with other clubs for him. We get a player that we wouldn't keep for long anyway, regardless of any buy-back, if he continues to do well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dusic]

31 minutes ago, benjii said:

Maybe we can do a similar deal as Tino where they have a buy-back clause. Benefits everyone. They get money now. Broja gets certainty over his future for the next couple of years. If he progresses well they get him back without having to compete with other clubs for him. We get a player that we wouldn't keep for long anyway, regardless of any buy-back, if he continues to do well.

In theory works well but Tino was £5m, I would imagine Broja at the least would be £25m.

So then what is an acceptable buy back? Saints would surely want it set at £50m or so which then is pricy for Chelsea when they could just loan him out for another season, or use him themselves.

[southamptonfc]

Not a chance that we'll sign Broja. I wish it wasn't true but he's too good. I think he would score goals, probably lots of goals at every level in any of the top 6 clubs.

We can't afford the transfer fee or the wages.

 

 

 

 

Edited 14 January, 2022 by southamptonfc
typo

[Verbal]

We could just enjoy watching him play - and hopefully score a hatful - while he's here.

[stknowle]

1 hour ago, benjii said:

Maybe we can do a similar deal as Tino where they have a buy-back clause. Benefits everyone. They get money now. Broja gets certainty over his future for the next couple of years. If he progresses well they get him back without having to compete with other clubs for him. We get a player that we wouldn't keep for long anyway, regardless of any buy-back, if he continues to do well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tino style deal is the best feasible way forward here, and I would be more than happy with that. I think it's probably more likely that they'll loan him to us for 1 more season and see how he develops from there. I get all the 'we're getting carried away remember Saganowski' sentiments but this guy looks the real deal to me and I can see him making a Chelsea regular within a couple of years.

PS - why the long space Benji?

 

[trousers]

4 hours ago, Dellman said:

Remember the fuss about Skacel

Shame he never signed 

[Harry_SFC]

48 minutes ago, Verbal said:

We could just enjoy watching him play - and hopefully score a hatful - while he's here.

This really. I'm sure the club are doing everything they can to sign him permanently. If it doesn't happen then fair enough. 

[Toadhall Saint]

2 hours ago, benjii said:

Maybe we can do a similar deal as Tino where they have a buy-back clause. Benefits everyone. They get money now. Broja gets certainty over his future for the next couple of years. If he progresses well they get him back without having to compete with other clubs for him. We get a player that we wouldn't keep for long anyway, regardless of any buy-back, if he continues to do well.

Just couldn’t deal with the massive space in your post. 😉

[Matthew Le God]

23 minutes ago, stknowle said:

Tino style deal is the best feasible way forward here

No it isn't.

Livramento only had 1 year left of his Chelsea contract and didn't want to sign a new one. That left Saints in a strong position to get him relatively cheap with a big buy back clause.

Broja signed a 5 year contract a few weeks before he joined Saints on loan. That reduces the pressure on Chelsea to sell him cheaply.

Edited 14 January, 2022 by Matthew Le God

[Turkish]

5 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

No it isn't.

Livramento only had 1 year left of his Chelsea contract and didn't want to sign a new one. That left Saints in a strong position to get him relatively cheap with a big buy back clause.

Broja signed a 5 year contract a few weeks before he joined Saints on loan. That reduces the pressure on Chelsea to sell him cheaply.

What point are you making? That doesn’t mean that a deal the same style as the one we have for Tino isn’t the best way to get a deal for Broja. If anything it makes it even more likely for us to give Chelsea a buy back/first refusal agreement.

[stknowle]

12 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

No it isn't.

Livramento only had 1 year left of his Chelsea contract and didn't want to sign a new one. That left Saints in a strong position to get him relatively cheap with a big buy back clause.

Broja signed a 5 year contract a few weeks before he joined Saints on loan. That reduces the pressure on Chelsea to sell him cheaply.

I normally refrain from joining in with the abuse you receive on here reasoning that you aren't quite all there in one form or another but please - kindly - fuck off.

[Turkish]

6 minutes ago, stknowle said:

I normally refrain from joining in with the abuse you receive on here reasoning that you aren't quite all there in one form or another but please - kindly - fuck off.

It was indeed a strange response. You’re quite right on what you say, all did was bang on about how long their contracts were. The fact Broja has longer left makes the Tino style deal even more likely IMO. 

[stknowle]

15 minutes ago, Turkish said:

It was indeed a strange response. You’re quite right on what you say, all did was bang on about how long their contracts were. The fact Broja has longer left makes the Tino style deal even more likely IMO. 

Exactly. But in MLG's world to suggest such a thing is justifiable cause to opine the opposite with the rude opening gambit "No it isn't". Can imagine him sitting down with his cup of herbal tea, opening the laptop and thinking "Right, who am I going to annoy tonight..............."

[Chris cooper]

11 minutes ago, stknowle said:

Exactly. But in MLG's world to suggest such a thing is justifiable cause to opine the opposite with the rude opening gambit "No it isn't". Can imagine him sitting down with his cup of herbal tea, opening the laptop and thinking "Right, who am I going to annoy tonight..............."

Bet if you bumped into him .. he’d look like Adrian mole 😂

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

3 hours ago, Dusic said:

Its a simple situation. For him to sign for us permanently four things need to happen:

1. Saints need to want to sign him permanently, and be able to afford to do so.

2. Broja needs to want to permanently leave Chelsea, who he has represented for a long time and is probably now the closest he has ever been to getting in their first team squad.

3. Chelsea need to agree to sell a player who is clearly developing well at his loan club (as was the whole point) and looks like he could do a good job in their squad for next year and ehose value is rapidly increasing. 

4. Broja needs to prefer to join Saints over any other team who is interested in him. We can be sure that if the price were to be one Saints can afford then half the PL will show an interest.

Of these four things, I would say about 0.5 of them are clear, which is that Saints would like to sign him (#1).

I can't see there being a rush for #2 or #3 as no need for either Broja or Chelsea to act now.

Ultimately, the chances of it falling into place are pretty low and thats what you get when the deal is a loan with no option or obligation to buy. 

A second loan is far more likely.

Miserable assessment but I cannot contest it! 

[southamptonfc]

55 minutes ago, Turkish said:

It was indeed a strange response. You’re quite right on what you say, all did was bang on about how long their contracts were. The fact Broja has longer left makes the Tino style deal even more likely IMO. 

Twice as likely as 0 chance is still 0 chance.

 

 

[Matthew Le God]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

The fact Broja has longer left makes the Tino style deal even more likely IMO. 

Why does it make it more likely?

[Turkish]

7 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Why does it make it more likely?

If a club want to sell two players one has 4 years left on their contract the other has 1 year, for which one are the selling club in a stronger position to negotiate the terms they want?

[Sarisbury Saint]

2 hours ago, stknowle said:

Tino style deal is the best feasible way forward here, and I would be more than happy with that. I think it's probably more likely that they'll loan him to us for 1 more season and see how he develops from there. I get all the 'we're getting carried away remember Saganowski' sentiments but this guy looks the real deal to me and I can see him making a Chelsea regular within a couple of years.

PS - why the long space Benji?

 

 

2 hours ago, Matthew Le God said:

No it isn't.

Livramento only had 1 year left of his Chelsea contract and didn't want to sign a new one. That left Saints in a strong position to get him relatively cheap with a big buy back clause.

Broja signed a 5 year contract a few weeks before he joined Saints on loan. That reduces the pressure on Chelsea to sell him cheaply.

Why wouldn’t it be good for Saints if we miraculously got a similar deal ?

[Matthew Le God]

49 minutes ago, Turkish said:

If a club want to sell two players one has 4 years left on their contract the other has 1 year, for which one are the selling club in a stronger position to negotiate the terms they want?

The one with 4 years left. Because there isn't the looming risk of the contract running out and value decreasing. Yet you appear to be saying otherwise. 

[Matthew Le God]

25 minutes ago, Sarisbury Saint said:

 

Why wouldn’t it be good for Saints if we miraculously got a similar deal ?

I did not say it wouldn't be good for Saints, I was saying it wasn't feasible. 

[Turkish]

6 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

The one with 4 years left. Because there isn't the looming risk of the contract running out and value decreasing. Yet you appear to be saying otherwise. 

Err, no I’m not. If Chelsea want to sell the player with 4 years left with a buy back or first refusal deal then they are in a much stronger negotiating position to insert that clause than with a player with only one year left. It’s you who appears to be saying otherwise as it was you who started going on about contract length left.

Edited 14 January, 2022 by Turkish

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, Turkish said:

Err, no I’m not. If Chelsea want to sell the player with you years left with a buy back or first refusal deal then they are in a much stronger negotiating position to insert that clause than a player with only one year left. It’s you who appears to be saying otherwise as it was you who started going on about contract length left.

My point about contract length was to highlight the situations were different. So a Livramento £5m deal won't be possible for Broja. 

[Turkish]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

My point about contract length was to highlight the situations were different. So a Livramento £5m deal won't be possible for Broja. 

No one said a £5m deal was. They were talking about a buy back clause that we have for the Liveamento deal and this could be a good way to get a deal struck for Broja. Once again you’ve waded into a discussion without understanding it and made yourself like a silly billy. 

[S-Clarke]

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

My point about contract length was to highlight the situations were different. So a Livramento £5m deal won't be possible for Broja. 

I don't think people are expecting to get him for £5m, but the same deal is still a possibility in the sense of a buy back or first refusal. 

I think it's all academic chat anyway, I don't think we have a sniff of getting him. Best chance is a loan for a 2nd year.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

I would think it is realistic to value Broja at between £25m and £30m

[stknowle]

55 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

I did not say it wouldn't be good for Saints, I was saying it wasn't feasible. 

It is feasible though. Most feasible - another loan for a year. Less feasible but STILL feasible and better - Tino style deal. Feasible but very unlikely - Chelsea sell Broja to us at a fee we can afford. Beyond the realms of all conceivable possibilities - you not being a complete and utter tw@t at any point ever.

[southamptonfc]

22 minutes ago, stknowle said:

It is feasible though. Most feasible - another loan for a year. Less feasible but STILL feasible and better - Tino style deal. Feasible but very unlikely - Chelsea sell Broja to us at a fee we can afford. Beyond the realms of all conceivable possibilities - you not being a complete and utter tw@t at any point ever.

He wasn't talking about a loan.

Us buying Broja with 4 years left of his contract is a fantasy. It is not feasible.

Feasible: adjective

1. capable of being done, effected, or accomplished: a feasible plan.

2. probable; likely: a feasible theory.

 

Edited 14 January, 2022 by southamptonfc
typos

[stknowle]

1 minute ago, southamptonfc said:

He wasn't talking about a loan.

Us buying Broja with 4 years left of his contract is a fantasy. It is not feasable.

Feasable: adjective

1. capable of being done, effected, or accomplished: a feasible plan.

2. probable; likely: a feasible theory.

 

Read the original post he responded to. Also when quoting definitions of words to try and make a point, you’re best spelling said word correctly. 
 

[Verbal]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

No one said a £5m deal was. They were talking about a buy back clause that we have for the Liveamento deal and this could be a good way to get a deal struck for Broja. Once again you’ve waded into a discussion without understanding it and made yourself like a silly billy. 

Forum posting is a simple game.  Turkish furiously chases an argument over five pages, and at the end MLG always wins.

[SuperSAINT]

 

[Turkish]

11 minutes ago, Verbal said:

Forum posting is a simple game.  Turkish furiously chases an argument over five pages, and at the end MLG always wins.

A bloke of your age following around a much younger man on an Internet forum.  🤔 Has she left you verbal?

Edited 14 January, 2022 by Turkish

[Toadhall Saint]

3 minutes ago, SuperSAINT said:

 

Interesting 🤔 

[S-Clarke]

30 minutes ago, SuperSAINT said:

 

Just read that article, sounds like they're trying to setup a second year loan to me. I don't think Chelsea will want to sell as there's no rush, even after the end of a 2nd year loan he'll still have huge value, potentially worth even more than he is today. I could see him as a Lukaku replacement at that point or still a huge source of income if they decide to still sell. Chelsea are in the driving seat really, shame he had to sign that 5 year deal!

Edited 14 January, 2022 by S-Clarke

[Saint Scott]

https://twitter.com/TheSecretScout_/status/1478363729171566596?s=20

The Secret Scout just retweeted... 👀

 

 

Edited 14 January, 2022 by Saint Scott

[austsaint]

36 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

Just read that article, sounds like they're trying to setup a second year loan to me. I don't think Chelsea will want to sell as there's no rush, even after the end of a 2nd year loan he'll still have huge value, potentially worth even more than he is today. I could see him as a Lukaku replacement at that point or still a huge source of income if they decide to still sell. Chelsea are in the driving seat really, shame he had to sign that 5 year deal!

You are probably right, don't forget though Chelsea have plenty of "form" around selling players who prove to be outstanding.  Admittedly, many of those sold or let go were done under Mourinho's watch.

[Turkish]

38 minutes ago, Saint Scott said:

https://twitter.com/TheSecretScout_/status/1478363729171566596?s=20

The Secret Scout just retweeted... 👀

 

 

The source for this is very very dubious but….

Has anyone ever seen Ralph so open about transfer news before? Wonder if something is going on…

Edited 14 January, 2022 by Turkish

[HarvSFC]

Chelsea would be making a ridiculous decision if they were to sell Broja. He has pace, power and the ability to pull a goal from nothing. Similar to Lukaku, but Lukaku has had four attempts at reputably major clubs and has only been successful at one of them, Inter, where the slower game suits him more. I think Broja has much better technical ability than Lukaku and is better on the ball. If we were to sign Broja and avoiding any buy back clauses, which there probably will be, I reckon we could sell him for £100m+ if his trajectory continues and the timing is right for contracts.

Please let it happen and not another Alderweireld!

[CylonKing]

44 minutes ago, HarvSFC said:

I think Broja has much better technical ability than Lukaku and is better on the ball.

Utter rubbish, Broja is just a new Ormerod, running around hoping to score one off his arse every so often. There is no way he would improve our squad at all. A complete waste of money. We should be looking elsewhere for a new player, not a chance that Broja is right for us.

Psst, that's knocked them off of the scent, why are we bigging up a player we want to buy, everyone knows all transfers are done via club web forums these days, he's shocking 😉

Just to clarify, Ormerod is a club legend in my eyes who never scored one off of his arse but was a great foil for Beattie.

Come on you Saints!

 

Love supporting this club. 😁

[pimpin4rizeal]

It’s a bit strange that Ralph keeps talking up the possibility of signing broja., surely it’s gonna build disappointment in the fan base with his comments if he doesn’t stay.

Fingers crossed there is something in it 

[tajjuk]

I'd say the family comment hints at a loan extension more than anything, still struggling to see Chelsea sell. But clearly the family have seen him be very happy here and improve a lot, and are worried about him just wasting away in the reserves becoming another Lewis Baker or similar, lots of Chelsea youngsters have signed big contracts had hype, had good loan spells and have just faded away over the years through lack of opportunities. 

Another year would leave the striker situation sorted out for next season allowing us to work on other areas that need improving, gives the scouting team another year to find a striker gem we can get permanently, plus you never know we keep progressing and he might really push to stay. 

[nta786]

10 hours ago, Matthew Le God said:

My point about contract length was to highlight the situations were different. So a Livramento £5m deal won't be possible for Broja. 

What difference is there is for example Chelsea sell to us for £5m and put a buyback clause in for £30m, versus selling to us for £25m and putting in a buyback clause for £50m?

Both net us a £25m profit/costs Chelsea £25m.

The only things I can think of is either for cashflow purposes, or for accounting purposes where you can inflate the asset/player registrations in the financial accounts.

But then as I write the above, I think it just makes little business sense for Chelsea to accept a buy-back deal for a prospect who has 4/5 years on his contract... 

Why would Chelsea want to pay £25m for him in 2 years when they already have him? If they do recall him after this season and he has a terrible 2 years, Chelsea will definitely be able to fetch £20m anyway.

Consider the likes of Solanke, Brewster, Ibe etc etc who all roughly went for those amounts and had done very little in the PL to justify those fees. 
 

Conclusion = I think best we can hope for is another loan?

 

Edited 15 January, 2022 by nta786

[Sarisbury Saint]

9 hours ago, SuperSAINT said:

 

Sounds quite feasible 😂

[egg]

27 minutes ago, pimpin4rizeal said:

It’s a bit strange that Ralph keeps talking up the possibility of signing broja., surely it’s gonna build disappointment in the fan base with his comments if he doesn’t stay.

Fingers crossed there is something in it 

I think the public talk is about Ralph pumping up Broja to push for a stay. I think most sensible fans accept that he's hear for 1 season only, and  if we can keep him somehow, then that's a bonus. 

[Talker_CFC]

I always liked Southampton, so I hope you will not be offended, but I am CFC fan and my perspective on the topic:

The situation is completely different from Tino - his contract was ending, so Chelsea was forced to sell, Broja has 4.5 more years of contract. This alone is completely changing the picture here, as Chelsea is not forced to do anything. Best case scenario - one more year on loan, becomes superstar and fights for position in team. Worst case scenario - he will be loaned for 3 more years and will be still sold for decent money.

So yeah, there is no reason to sell, unless there comes completely insane deal in a way of 25m to buy and 35m buyback. There is just no other reason to sell now, as the contract is so long. Other option is that Broja would decide one year after signing new contract to completely change his mind and decide he will not go back - hard to do with long-term contract here.