Armando Broja

[macca155]

1 hour ago, terraloon said:

There is a delicate line to tread between between reasonable conversations and what looks to me very close to tapping up. The fact is he is a contracted  Chelsea player they will we be in constant dialogue with him so will know exactly how the player feels.

I wouldn't worry too much about that, it is sort of expected if a player goes on loan and does well. As you say Saints made a request, were told to wait and that's that. If he is that good everyone will want him. 16 games left, his goals could dry up or he continues in the same vein. For the moment he plays in red and white and I'm going to enjoy it whilst it lasts.

[Mattster]

5 minutes ago, macca155 said:

For the moment he plays in red and white and I'm going to enjoy it whilst it lasts.

I think that's all we can do. I must admit my hopes did get up earlier this month, after the takeover, a few cryptic tweets that seemed to allude to something being in the offing and the hint of a "statement signing". Those hopes have pretty much faded now, especially with the big upsurge in interest from other clubs as well - I can't see us being able to compete in the summer so it is either now or never, and it doesn't look like it is going to be now. I think the best we can hope for is another loan spell, with maybe outside chance of buy with buy-back clause (really only "loan +" IMO), but how likely is that realistically?

Perhaps more importantly, we need to start thinking about how we are going to replace Broja next season, since AA is not going to cut it.

[Jimmy_D]

1 hour ago, terraloon said:

This is very much how I see it but the concern will be that to date we haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that Chelsea have any intention to sell him  indeed all evidence to the contrary,nor had any of the other clubs like Newcastle like WHU be throwing their caps into the ring if the response to the questions about his future not been met with the nonsense and naive response about trying to buy him.

 The response should and could have been something along the lines of “He is doing well but he is Chelsea player”

I have no idea if Chelsea will even bother to engage in any permanent transfer discussion or indeed whatSaints were told about the player in terms of how Chelsea’s development plans were when they agreed to loan him but the evidence suggests Chelsea see him at their club going forward and to a club like Chelsea the length of his contract for a 20 year old is unique so they clearly rate him.

There is a delicate line to tread between between reasonable conversations and what looks to me very close to tapping up. The fact is he is a contracted  Chelsea player they will we be in constant dialogue with him so will know exactly how the player feels.

But it’s the comments made to the media is the concern because he clearly is a player contracted to Chelsea and whilst tapping up goes on everywhere the consequences if another club, in this instance Chelsea,  made a complaint are quite mind blowing and I wonder if that could include the forced cancellation of a loan .

Tapping up doesn’t really apply in this case, he’s on loan to us and in effect we currently hold his registration, so there’s no unauthorised contact between club and player.

[terraloon]

2 hours ago, Jimmy_D said:

Tapping up doesn’t really apply in this case, he’s on loan to us and in effect we currently hold his registration, so there’s no unauthorised contact between club and player.

It actually does. The key is which club he is contracted to and that’s  Chelsea.

 

Edited 27 January, 2022 by terraloon

[Cartman]

12 minutes ago, terraloon said:

It actually does. The key is which club he is contracted to and that’s  Chelsea.

 

No. The club he is contracted to until the summer is us.

[SuperSAINT]

 

[egg]

3 hours ago, Jimmy_D said:

Tapping up doesn’t really apply in this case, he’s on loan to us and in effect we currently hold his registration, so there’s no unauthorised contact between club and player.

Of course it does. Chelsea don't let us borrow their contracted players only for us to try to talk them into signing permanently. Chelsea are looking after us very well, and pissing them off wouldn't be clever so we need to tread carefully. 

[Jimmy_D]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

Of course it does. Chelsea don't let us borrow their contracted players only for us to try to talk them into signing permanently. Chelsea are looking after us very well, and pissing them off wouldn't be clever so we need to tread carefully. 

What we should do in terms of the club's relationship with Chelsea is one thing, but that has no bearing on the fact that there's zero chance we can be sanctioned for tapping up while the player is contracted to us.

[ErwinK1961]

11 minutes ago, egg said:

Of course it does. Chelsea don't let us borrow their contracted players only for us to try to talk them into signing permanently. Chelsea are looking after us very well, and pissing them off wouldn't be clever so we need to tread carefully. 

It’s hardly sticking him on a private jet to Blackpool to meet the manager though whilst he’s playing for someone else.. 😉

He’s here playing for us, of course there’s going to be comments made to him about signing for us permanently. I suspect we know whether he’s happy to stay here (Ralph seems to suggest he is) and I’m sure we know what financial package he’d want from his agent - none of that matters unless Chelsea want to sell him and we pay what they want (plus I doubt Broja will go on strike either to force a move…) so don’t think tapping up is a thing here.

Edited 27 January, 2022 by ErwinK1961

[egg]

4 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

What we should do in terms of the club's relationship with Chelsea is one thing, but that has no bearing on the fact that there's zero chance we can be sanctioned for tapping up while the player is contracted to us.

All players are sounded out before a bid is made, its a fact of football life. The important part here is not biting the hand of Chelsea that's been feeding us very well. That's the tapping up that is a no no here. 

[Turkish]

7 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

What we should do in terms of the club's relationship with Chelsea is one thing, but that has no bearing on the fact that there's zero chance we can be sanctioned for tapping up while the player is contracted to us.

We may not be sanctioned but it would put Chelsea and any other clubs off dealing with us in this way in the future. 

[Turkish]

8 minutes ago, ErwinK1961 said:

It’s hardly sticking him on a private jet to Blackpool to meet the manager though whilst he’s playing for someone else.. 😉

He’s here playing for us, of course there’s going to be comments made to him about signing for us permanently. I suspect we know whether he’s happy to stay here (Ralph seems to suggest he is) and I’m sure we know what financial package he’d want from his agent - none of that matters unless Chelsea want to sell him and we pay what they want (plus I doubt Broja will go on strike either to force a move…) so don’t think tapping up is a thing here.

I’m the unlikely event that would happen we would make a complaint and that club would officially end their interest in the player 

Edited 27 January, 2022 by Turkish

[Jimmy_D]

6 minutes ago, Turkish said:

We may not be sanctioned but it would put Chelsea and any other clubs off dealing with us in this way in the future. 

Broja is here because we wanted him here, and because Chelsea wanted him here for this loan.

The suggestion that a few comments to the media that he's enjoying it here and might want to stay longer, that they could lead to sanctions such as cancelling the loan, or lead to Chelsea stopping dealing with us... well that sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

[Turkish]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

Broja is here because we wanted him here, and because Chelsea wanted him here for this loan.

The suggestion that a few comments to the media that he's enjoying it here and might want to stay longer, that they could lead to sanctions such as cancelling the loan, or lead to Chelsea stopping dealing with us... well that sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

Yes on loan. If Chelsea do not want to sell him only wanting him here to develop for a year but we’ve been actively doing our best to turn his head then it’s unlikely they will go down the same route with us again. It’s really quite simple. 

[egg]

3 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

Broja is here because we wanted him here, and because Chelsea wanted him here for this loan.

The suggestion that a few comments to the media that he's enjoying it here and might want to stay longer, that they could lead to sanctions such as cancelling the loan, or lead to Chelsea stopping dealing with us... well that sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

Turkish is correct. If clubs lend us their players and we encourage them to sign, and unsettle the player, its pretty obvious that we'll damage our chances of loaning other players. It's a bit like having a crack at your mates hot wife when his back is turned. 

[Sheaf Saint]

4 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

Broja is here because we wanted him here, and because Chelsea wanted him here for this loan.

The suggestion that a few comments to the media that he's enjoying it here and might want to stay longer, that they could lead to sanctions such as cancelling the loan, or lead to Chelsea stopping dealing with us... well that sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

Indeed. Can't imagine Chelsea saying to us "you can have the player on loan for the season but under no circumstances are you to ever even mention the possibility of offering him a permanent deal, otherwise we'll be cross" 

Anyway, "tapping up" surely only relates to bigger clubs trying to poach players from smaller ones that badly want to keep them. 

[Jimmy_D]

Just now, Turkish said:

Yes on loan. If Chelsea do not want to sell him only wanting him here to develop for a year but we’ve been actively doing our best to turn his head then it’s unlikely they will go down the same route with us again. It’s really quite simple. 

Chelsea are already going to refuse to sell us anyone they don't want to.

[Dellman]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

Turkish is correct. If clubs lend us their players and we encourage them to sign, and unsettle the player, its pretty obvious that we'll damage our chances of loaning other players. It's a bit like having a crack at your mates hot wife when his back is turned. 

Do you mean we should make sure they are unhappy, get a bad press and want to go back. That's daft! The happier and the more successful they are, the better for both clubs and for our reputation when it comes to further deals.

[egg]

4 minutes ago, Dellman said:

Do you mean we should make sure they are unhappy, get a bad press and want to go back. That's daft! The happier and the more successful they are, the better for both clubs and for our reputation when it comes to further deals.

Eh? Asking a loan player if he's happy is a wee bit different to asking a loan player if he'd like to sign permanently and floating the idea in the media. 

[Jimmy_D]

9 minutes ago, egg said:

Turkish is correct. If clubs lend us their players and we encourage them to sign, and unsettle the player, its pretty obvious that we'll damage our chances of loaning other players. It's a bit like having a crack at your mates hot wife when his back is turned. 

Chelsea will send us players on loan if they think it'll be good for the player's development, which would obviously seem to be the case for Broja. If they're that worried that Saints are going to turn the players head enough to lose them, and as a result refuse to loan a player to us, that probably means we're doing something right.

[egg]

4 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

Chelsea will send us players on loan if they think it'll be good for the player's development, which would obviously seem to be the case for Broja. If they're that worried that Saints are going to turn the players head enough to lose them, and as a result refuse to loan a player to us, that probably means we're doing something right.

I'm not sure that taking steps to stop a club loaning us players that will improve us amounts to us "doing something right". 

[Jimmy_D]

7 minutes ago, egg said:

I'm not sure that taking steps to stop a club loaning us players that will improve us amounts to us "doing something right". 

I was more angling that the only reason Chelsea would refuse to loan us players would be if they saw us as a threat.

In any case, as good as loaning players from Chelsea has been for us, with the new restrictions coming in on outgoing loans from the end of next season, it's not a route we should rely on for players, regardless of Chelsea's attitude towards us.

EDIT: Doesn't apply to domestic loans.

[Vancouver Saint]

Chelsea's model is the 'cuckoo' strategy. Get lots and lots of promising young players on contract, and then farm them out to smaller clubs to grow in their nests...if they flourish, they have the option to bring him home or sell him at a profit. Maybe only 1 in 10 survives that test, but that one covers the cost for all the others many times over. Broja is such a one.  

So IF Chelsea decide they're okay selling, they won't care who it is they sell to - it'll just be about the money.

The only thing that might change that is relationships. IF Broja really wanted to stay at Saints that would help and IF Chelsea wanted to maintain a good 'train our young talent and/or help us make a profit on them' with us, then it might, might just happen. A few too many IFs and mights to make it anything more than an outside chance.

Still as Jim Carey said in Dumb & Dumber to Holly Hunter - 'You're saying there's a chance!'

[JxgrSaint]

7 hours ago, Vancouver Saint said:

Chelsea's model is the 'cuckoo' strategy. Get lots and lots of promising young players on contract, and then farm them out to smaller clubs to grow in their nests...if they flourish, they have the option to bring him home or sell him at a profit. Maybe only 1 in 10 survives that test, but that one covers the cost for all the others many times over. Broja is such a one.  

So IF Chelsea decide they're okay selling, they won't care who it is they sell to - it'll just be about the money.

The only thing that might change that is relationships. IF Broja really wanted to stay at Saints that would help and IF Chelsea wanted to maintain a good 'train our young talent and/or help us make a profit on them' with us, then it might, might just happen. A few too many IFs and mights to make it anything more than an outside chance.

Still as Jim Carey said in Dumb & Dumber to Holly Hunter - 'You're saying there's a chance!'

They might also want to f**k over Newcastle - given if they go down they definitely won’t be a rival for European places next year

[SuperSAINT]

👀 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

Was Ekitike the guy they wanted £35m for. Newcastle offered £30m with add ons including a bonus if Newcastle won the Champions League?

[Dusic]

How long before a story pops up linking Frank Lampard's Everton with a move for Broja?

Not long, I am sure. Shame their fans kicked off about Pereira.

Edited 29 January, 2022 by Dusic

[beatlesaint]

1 hour ago, Dusic said:

How long before a story pops up linking Frank Lampard's Everton with a move for Broja?

One of the many reasons I don’t think we will get him unless it’s done in this window.

[SuperSAINT]

1 hour ago, Dusic said:

How long before a story pops up linking Frank Lampard's Everton with a move for Broja?

Not long, I am sure. Shame their fans kicked off about Pereira.

I thought exactly this. Let’s hope Moshiri overrules him and signs whoever Kia Joorabchian tells him to sign. 

[Cartman]

4 minutes ago, SuperSAINT said:

I thought exactly this. Let’s hope Moshiri overrules him and signs whoever Kia Joorabchian tells him to sign. 

Why on earth would Broja go to that bin fire instead of here? And that's assuming they avoid relegation.

[ErwinK1961]

Thought Everton were fcked from an FFP perspective? 

[SNSUN]

14 minutes ago, ErwinK1961 said:

Thought Everton were fcked from an FFP perspective? 

That's why they struggled to spend more than a couple of million in the summer so I believe. Although they've sold Digne so perhaps they have sway now. 

 

Reading a Chelsea forum the other day, a Chelsea fan pointed out that the only reason to sell Broja to us this window is that it will help them sign players in the summer because of FFP. Not sure how true that is but...

 

I still can't see it happening (unless we maybe get another year loan) so I'm not getting my hopes up. I will enjoy Broja while he's here. Next season it will be Adams, Armstrong, Tella + new striker IMO.

[steve green]

58 minutes ago, ErwinK1961 said:

Thought Everton were fcked from an FFP perspective? 

 

Digne going has indeed given them a little wriggle room. But unless Broja is actually passionately in love with Lampard, and wants his babies, I can't see anyway he'd even think about going there. It's a footballer's graveyard at present, with a reputation of wrecking the progress of young players while providing retirement options for others.

Their fanbase remains convinced they only have to show a little leg (=money) and he'll walk to Goodison to sign of course. They also really don't seem to understand how a buy-back works, idiots.

[Chris cooper]

So we don’t need to be a tad concerned if lamps get the Toffees job he’s going to attract all the young talent conveyor belt on offer at Chelsea atm then? 🤔ffp has them hamstrung but can he work round that with lots of loan deals ?

[ErwinK1961]

9 minutes ago, Chris cooper said:

So we don’t need to be a tad concerned if lamps get the Toffees job he’s going to attract all the young talent conveyor belt on offer at Chelsea atm then? 🤔ffp has them hamstrung but can he work round that with lots of loan deals ?

Not when you can only loan player from the same club.

[John B]

On 27/01/2022 at 21:33, Vancouver Saint said:

Chelsea's model is the 'cuckoo' strategy. Get lots and lots of promising young players on contract, and then farm them out to smaller clubs to grow in their nests...if they flourish, they have the option to bring him home or sell him at a profit. Maybe only 1 in 10 survives that test, but that one covers the cost for all the others many times over. Broja is such a one.  

So IF Chelsea decide they're okay selling, they won't care who it is they sell to - it'll just be about the money.

The only thing that might change that is relationships. IF Broja really wanted to stay at Saints that would help and IF Chelsea wanted to maintain a good 'train our young talent and/or help us make a profit on them' with us, then it might, might just happen. A few too many IFs and mights to make it anything more than an outside chance.

Still as Jim Carey said in Dumb & Dumber to Holly Hunter - 'You're saying there's a chance!'

Chelsea's model seems to be working well much better than ours they are currently European Champions seem to end up in the top 4 every year.

 

They seem to sell their surplus young players regularly to top teams getting in decent transfer fees whilst we mostly give our surplus players away for nothing

 

If I was Broja at 20 years of age with a five year contract at Chelsea where a few of their fans I have talked to think he is an outstanding talent I would not want to move to southampton

[CB Fry]

13 hours ago, Chris cooper said:

So we don’t need to be a tad concerned if lamps get the Toffees job he’s going to attract all the young talent conveyor belt on offer at Chelsea atm then? 🤔ffp has them hamstrung but can he work round that with lots of loan deals ?

I think the important thing is to look at every single event in football through the lens of how terrible it is going to be for Southampton Football Club.

[terraloon]

17 minutes ago, John B said:

Chelsea's model seems to be working well much better than ours they are currently European Champions seem to end up in the top 4 every year.

 

They seem to sell their surplus young players regularly to top teams getting in decent transfer fees whilst we mostly give our surplus players away for nothing

 

If I was Broja at 20 years of age with a five year contract at Chelsea where a few of their fans I have talked to think he is an outstanding talent I would not want to move to southampton

When I read the post that you responded to I thought it was a naive take on thing so agree pretty much with your take on things.

For me  Chelsea appear to be able to develop a far greater % of players who by and large will get a very decent career in football but just like every PL academy the vast majority ( in excess of 97% ) of those that enter through their doors don’t ever get a contract and even then it’s a very small number of those youngsters who get a contract ever get to play for the first team.

I can’t now find the article but I read somewhere that Chelsea currently have20/ 21 players out on loan that actually isn’t anywhere near as many as I thought it would be but when you think that 4 of those are the likes of Gallagher, Gilmour, Broja, and Ampadu all full internationals and all aged 22 or younger. Then you have others who clearly they and indeed others on here rate like Colwill.

Of course they have some real deadwood in the 15 Drinkwater to name just one but and here’s my main point they really have changed their policy of sending out dozens of youngsters and it seems that they already are complying with the changes that FIFA are planning and that will put certain clubs , particularly in the lower leagues an issue because they won’t be able to tap into the PL loan pool

 

[Mr X]

Newcastle offered Chelsea 40 million reportedly 

[Dman]

10 minutes ago, Mr X said:

Newcastle offered Chelsea 40 million reportedly 

If true, worrying. Would suggest there’s a chance Chelsea can get him out of our loan deal. 
 

Doesn’t bode well for the summer if Newcastle are serious.

[Saint_clark]

4 minutes ago, Dman said:

If true, worrying. Would suggest there’s a chance Chelsea can get him out of our loan deal. 
 

Doesn’t bode well for the summer if Newcastle are serious.

They'll have moved onto someone else by the summer. Just got to hope there is zero recall clause in the loan deal.

[qwertyell]

2 minutes ago, Dman said:

If true, worrying. Would suggest there’s a chance Chelsea can get him out of our loan deal. 

Don't see why Chelsea would be remotely interested in doing Newcastle any favours. They've got a nice little unthreatening, potentially mutually beneficial relationship with us going at the moment - I doubt they'll blow that up for the Saudis.

[Dman]

5 minutes ago, qwertyell said:

Don't see why Chelsea would be remotely interested in doing Newcastle any favours. They've got a nice little unthreatening, potentially mutually beneficial relationship with us going at the moment - I doubt they'll blow that up for the Saudis.

Nice in theory, but in reality it won’t work like that. If they’ve got a £30m offer from us or a £40m offer from Newcastle, then they’re not gonna throw £10m away to spite them. 
 

The only thing is if Newcastle won’t agree to add a buy back clause, that could be a deal breaker. 

[SW5 SAINT]

21 minutes ago, Mr X said:

Newcastle offered Chelsea 40 million reportedly 

Can’t imagine Newcastle would be interested in any buy back clause in the deal though……

[Cartman]

22 minutes ago, Mr X said:

Newcastle offered Chelsea 40 million reportedly 

Fake news from random rumour generating site.

[saint1977]

5 minutes ago, qwertyell said:

Don't see why Chelsea would be remotely interested in doing Newcastle any favours. They've got a nice little unthreatening, potentially mutually beneficial relationship with us going at the moment - I doubt they'll blow that up for the Saudis.

Quite. Man U also not helped the Saudis on bringing in Lingard either, made it too expensive for a loan. If Broja does well for us rest of season and Tuchel there, could well be in their squad next season.

[Badger]

3 minutes ago, saint1977 said:

Quite. Man U also not helped the Saudis on bringing in Lingard either, made it too expensive for a loan. If Broja does well for us rest of season and Tuchel there, could well be in their squad next season.

Utd may have allowed Henderson to go there though, according to some rumours.

As for Chelsea, and Broja, irrespective of him coming to us, and I doubt he will, whether he remains at Chelsea might depend on who else they bring in. Tuchel I read was a fan of Dembele who he worked with at Dortmund, and they were linked with the French wonderkid, Etike (also mentioned with Newcastle and West Ham). If either of those happen it might lead to a decision to release Broja, albeit with a buy back involved.

Whatever the outcome at Chelsea, I hope Saints don't leave this dangling waiting until towards the end of the summer window for a Chelsea decision before bringing in another striker.

[Mr X]

Does anyone think In time AA can get to his level for us? 

[Matthew Le God]

Just now, Mr X said:

Does anyone think In time AA can get to his level for us? 

[S-Clarke]

2 minutes ago, Mr X said:

Does anyone think In time AA can get to his level for us? 

Totally different types of player. If we lost Broja, we'd lose a key component of our game which none of our forwards provide.

When the inevitable happens in the summer we will need to buy a replacement type centre forward, as having someone with his pace and power has really taken our game up a level. It's not just what he does as such, it's how he allows the rest of the team to alter their style.

Edited 30 January, 2022 by S-Clarke