Nah feck Madrid he wants us.
Mateus Fernandes | Spurs player
- Thread starter Fortitude
- Start date
-
Hello, Guest! We have a new competition (with tagline and award as prizes) starting.
A new Odds or Evens competition is starting now. Click here to enter to submit your predictions. Submissions will be open for the next 3 days, 9 hours, 44 minutes, 56 seconds, and will close on Sep 12, 2026 at 15:00.
- Status
Why do Madrid even want him? They have already got lots of midfielders and signed Bernardo Silva.
I would agree generally but they're a bit of a mess at the minute. Depends on how well Mourinho sells the project and playing time to him.
He's a reliable source I can't deny that, however always felt Bruno's relationship would be trump card for us. Mind you that was before Mourinho decided to go back to Real so that's the wildcard with this
This midfielder search is turning into a bit of a nightmare. If Madrid come knocking, thats where he will end up, regardless if we are in for him or his relationship with Bruno.
The best we can hope for is that he see's more playing opportunities here with us due to less competition. But i really dont know where we go from here..... Ederson is already a bit underwhelming to say the least.
The best we can hope for is that he see's more playing opportunities here with us due to less competition. But i really dont know where we go from here..... Ederson is already a bit underwhelming to say the least.
We'd go to Alex Scott from the sounds of it. Which is not one I'd be keen on but that's very much what the noises have suggested.
Yeah miss out on him and we have to sign a Tonali or Wharton that's for absolutely certain, maybe even both
So Manuel Fernandes will follow Mourinho as coach at Fenerbahce? Or Benfica?
I wouldn't be too worried on the Madrid links.
As has been mentioned before, the Mourinho stuff just feels like Mendes (who is the agent of both), using him to help drive Fernandes' fee and wages up for United.
Not until they make a midfield sale
That's reassured me.
Also, does Jose still prefer experience over potential or was that a myth
The Fernandes links just don’t feel very Jose to me. Especially all of this dream target stuff.
No me neither. If he was 27 and in the last year of a contract I'd be more worried
We can go for mamadou sangare then
Knowing Jose, we should be more worried about our Fernandes than this
Exactly
Yeah, for sure, but the not wanting to overpay is irrelevant to those details. You surely have to agree on the overall figure to get to discus how it should be structured. I think this will rumble on until someone blinks, be it us or West Ham. I'm not sure there's really any clue as to who that is right now, when we get later in the window, we'll understand how desperate we are for him or West ham for the cash. We'll both be pretty calm at the moment and not give much away.
Different players , Fernandes ceiling also much higher imo.
I'm fully expecting that bid at some point. They will offer the grant Mateus' wish to play with Bruno and bring them both to Real.
What does "ideally closer to £100m" mean?
I mean for West Ham 'ideally' we would sell the club and give them the few billion.
I have to say I disagree. I would rather have X immediately, than X + 10% spread over five years, if I was selling a valuable asset.
The structure and overall fee are fundamentally linked to one another in these cases.
This would depend on what West Ham need cash for. Is it for booking profit or cash to pay obligations. I agree in pretty much every other walk of life, you'd want the money now - time value of money and all that. FFP/PSR changes that.
Definitely. It’s all about the specific circumstances, and the example I gave was a bit extreme to make a point.
I hope we are advancing and in the nitty gritty of it, I'm just not so sure we'd be that far along here when we're still posturing about valuation of the player and playing silly agent games.
Now being reported Enzo Fernandez is Jose’s chief target and Mateus is back up:
https://www.marca.com/futbol/real-m...numero-real-madrid-reforzar-centro-campo.html
https://www.marca.com/futbol/real-m...numero-real-madrid-reforzar-centro-campo.html
That makes more sense. Chelsea desperately need the profit on him too.
Yes, West Ham's needs are two-fold.
One is cash to meet ongoing financial obligations such as transfer fee payments. This is the backdrop to the much quoted £100m-£150m. The ownership have pledged to meet any shortfall, so it seems much less of an issue than was imagined three weeks ago.
The other is accounting profit to enable West Ham to comply with the squad cost rules in the championship for next season. Guesswork suggests a net profit of £50m-£60m is required on player trading.
Like others caught in this situation, it sometimes makes sense to sell youth products or those whose amortisation cost is close to nothing to book large profits.
I don’t think it’s as simple as agreeing on an overall figure and then figuring out the rest - I suspect you need to make headway on the other major factors - wages, structure and other associated fees - in order to figure out the overall figure. This relates to an interesting post from @simonhch on overall budget and affordability and how important wages and structure are to them:
So does it make sense to say we just need to agree a set amount - say £65 million - and then negotiate the rest from there? I don’t think it does. Happy to be corrected if someone knows more than me.
Fans are so hungry for transfers and constantly refreshing their feeds for "updates" that it makes days feel like months.
I'd love to know who the people making loads of moves are. It's still super early in the window.
Vitek will/should be more than 10m. I saw a report the other day with Hull City owner apparently saying they have a 250m budget to attack the PL. Collyer has been on loan there, they may well buy him for 6 or 7m.
As for Greenwood, his deal is different to usual sell-on clauses I believe. Similar to Antony, we still own a large percentage of his economic rights and the deal is not limited to profit only. I think it’s 40-50% of the whole fee. I think it’s about 40% now because Marseille’s chairman said some time ago that they had bought some of it off from United - which in itself sort of confirms it is the larger share as they probably wouldn’t bother if it was profit only.
I want us to have both, then we can run a controller destroyer pairing in some of our tougher games, and then one of them alongside a B2B in less difficult games.
Ederson, Fernandes, and Sangare is my hope.
He is not that good on the ball.
Greenwood deal is specifically a percentage of the profit only not the whole fee. There was some misreporting at the time of the original deal but it has been clarified by a number of reliable sources, such as the Athletic, that the sell on applies to profit only.
The percentage stuff is a bit tougher to figure. We started at 50% but it has been widely reported that Marseille exercised some clause following their return to the CL to reduce that to 40% with presumably some cash changing hands at that time, not sure if that showed up in the accounts anywhere and been confirmed by any of those that do deep dive into our financials.
The real kicker is that we also apparantly agreed as part of this whole deal to give Getafe 20% of whatever we eventually make from the sell on clause. I personally didn't believe this when I first saw it reported but it has been repeated by a number of different sources over the last couple of years and so may well be true but I hope not.
The upshot of all of this could see the following scenario;
Mason sells for 40M (based on the only known bid to date from Roma)
Deduct the original 26M = 14M
Divide 14M by 40% = 5.6M
Reduce 5.6M by 20% = 4.48M
I appreciate this is the worst case scenario but it does underline that we are not going to see any significant windfall from the Greenwood sell on, in context we made twice as much just from Ruben getting another job.
No, I think you get a general idea of the figure needed, though. If they value him at 70m, they're not going to take less because you don't want to pay that and similarly your not going to pay more over a longer term or bonuses if you don't want to "overpay". Unless you structure the short fall in performance related pay, but I'm not sure how that would work for PSR/FFP purposes, because it may never be realised. Someone far more informed than me will have to educate me on that.
OK interesting. Be interesting how much of the shortfall they'd be willing to plug to push the transfer later into the window and try to maximize the profit.
Do you have any youth products that would go for decent cash? Scarles is the only one I can really think of right now.
That’s the point though - they would take less with more favourable payment terms just like we might pay more with payment terms which are more favourable to us. So you don’t agree the price at the outset beyond a very vague ballpark - you negotiate it as you negotiate all the other complicated details. Which is why transfers can take a while to figure out.
If it’s not in CAPS it don’t mean NOTHING
Well not quite sure what you mean but my point was the the value and affordability is determined by the overall cost including all fees and wages. It’s as much how we pay as what we pay. How much is performance related (both fees and wages), what is the structure etc. 65m, for example, can have a small impact on this years budget if it had performance clauses, reasonable wages and a 4 year payment structure, or a massive impact if it is all guaranteed, moderate to high wages, and heavily front loaded.
Lash was saying surely you agree the overall figure and then move on to discuss how it’s structured. I countered saying that those negotiations would likely take place together because one affects the other. A team may be willing to take less overall if the payment structure is more favourable and vice versa.
- Status