I couldn’t give a shit how much you paid tbh, I was just showing where the £55m figure was coming from. It’s obvious you’re initially paying £35m and the rest will be paid in add ons if all targets are met, totalling £55m. I personally hope you only ever pay the £35m as it means you wouldn’t have been successful enough to reach the add on targets.
Fair enough of courseI couldn’t give a shit how much you paid tbh, I was just showing where the £55m figure was coming from. It’s obvious you’re initially paying £35m and the rest will be paid in add ons if all targets are met, totalling £55m. I personally hope you only ever pay the £35m as it means you wouldn’t have been successful enough to reach the add on targets.
Just thought it was a bit dishonest of the other poster to quote £55m, especially given how most (not sure him included) on here are always crying that the media includes all add-ons when mentioning the fee Utd pays for a given player.Comes from Dharmesh Seth. The guy is useless and knows feck all
If all of this is true then word must have got out that Chelsea aren’t upping their bid
Gotta keep that stranglehold of the Bundesliga somehow.
Liverpool weren't outbid for Bellingham. Either he didn't want to go there (or simply preferred RM) or Liverpool weren't willing to pay what Dortmund demanded.
Its not dishonest, all ManUtd signings are reported including add-ons, so why is Liverpool any different?Fair enough of course
For what it's worth I don't think it was lowballing Brighton to pay that amount but they would've gotten more if he didn't have a release clause (albeit he might not have signed a new contract without it so it's a moot point anyway).
Same media, different reporting.
Don't think they are in for Caicedo, it's usual "let's name all the clubs" phase.
Albion’s negotiating style is reported as being more like;
Really doubt it's true but you're not wrong.
The gripe is generally with sky sports and BBC
Tbf no club releases official statement saying they have fixed some transfer figure for a player. It's usually leaked to media by various parties involved in the deal.
Is Andy Naylor not reliable for Brighton news? He’s the one that said Brighton were using Declan Rice as a benchmark and that Brighton view Caicedo as equal to or better than Rice.
Another club that Caicedo has loved since childhood!
I agree in principle, but fans always to put a lot of value in some leaks and not in others, depending on whether it’s news they want to hear. An agent representing a player desperate to get his payday is going to leak one thing - which may be true or not - and a club might have a word saying something entirely different.
See my above post. Naylor may be quoting what a club source have told him, making an obvious deduction, or neither. Naylor is generally one of the more reliable sources because he is old school and checks things before “going to press” but he has been wrong before.
In most cases fee is usually closer to the reported fee. No club or transfer works with 100% media leak proof, like you also mentioned there are so many parties involved that figures will always be leaked.
Just read up on the contract he signed back at the start of 2023 and to be honest that just reads of bad management / agent. But also agreed Brighton should be paying him more if they want to keep players like him.
He isn’t.
What is he on as a number of websites say he went from 3,500 to 15,000 when he signed that new contract up to 2027.
He needs a better agent.
They aren’t correct. They haven’t seen his contract. I’ve covered this in depth previously.
are we back to discussing Caicedos wage?? Doesn't matter. The lower the wage the more it fits the narrative that greedy brighton are holding poor caicedo hostage.
How about you just give me a one or two line summary to help me out?
I’ve also read somewhere that Brighton are demanding £130M-£150M. Disgusting to only pay him so little while demanding obscene money for him.
I think I’ve just seen him at a food bank.
