Harvey Elliott

[Aventus]

8 minutes ago, John102 said:

Didn't we make about 15 million profit on Solanke in a couple of years? Not sure about being screwed over. 

 

They always seem criminally low these tribunal fees. 

The tribunals aren't about what the player is worth apparently, they're about how much compensation a club deserves for developing that player. 

 

If you have a kid on your books from the age of 6 to 16 then they leave on a free because they want to sign a pro contract elsewhere, then the club that had them as kids lose out massively. A lot of time and effort into developing them into a professional footballer and nothing to show for it at the end. 

[sir roger]

1 hour ago, Dave D said:

Did Someone mention Solanke??

 

 

I read an article saying he was playing well on the Championship and was getting valued bsck around the price they paid , but that was before the recent slump and manager sacking.

[dockers_strike]

5 hours ago, VladimirIlyich said:

Danny Ings fee went to a tribunal,I think.

yes, that's the other one I was thinking of.

2 hours ago, John102 said:

Didn't we make about 15 million profit on Solanke in a couple of years? Not sure about being screwed over. 

 

They always seem criminally low these tribunal fees. 

How does us selling a player on the open market equate to buying one where the fee is set by a tribunal and not being screwed over?

 

Thanks to the tribunal, if we sell Elliot at any stage in the future, they get 20% of the fee. So in say 4 years time, why should Fulham get 20% of the fee? 4 years development at Anfield or 4 years development at Fulham. Hmmm, tough question!

[Dave D]

37 minutes ago, sir roger said:

I read an article saying he was playing well on the Championship and was getting valued bsck around the price they paid , but that was before the recent slump and manager sacking.

Id prefer him to Origi to be fair.

 

..........And Firmino at the moment

[No2]

4 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

yes, that's the other one I was thinking of.

How does us selling a player on the open market equate to buying one where the fee is set by a tribunal and not being screwed over?

 

Thanks to the tribunal, if we sell Elliot at any stage in the future, they get 20% of the fee. So in say 4 years time, why should Fulham get 20% of the fee? 4 years development at Anfield or 4 years development at Fulham. Hmmm, tough question!

Im fairly sure there is 10% sell on fee guaranteed at FIFA level to reward clubs that produce young players. Which is absolutely fair, particularly for smaller leagues and clubs. I know Robbie Keane was a gravy train that just kept on going.

[dockers_strike]

3 minutes ago, No2 said:

Im fairly sure there is 10% sell on fee guaranteed at FIFA level to reward clubs that produce young players. Which is absolutely fair, particularly for smaller leagues and clubs. I know Robbie Keane was a gravy train that just kept on going.

Im not aware a sell on fee is mandatory for any young players. When did that come in? Even if FIFA set a 10% sell on, how come this tribunal decided to double that to 20%?

[aws]

The fee is only £1.5m guaranteed , the rest is supposedly performance related. Games for us, capped by England etc. So cheap for a great prospect. 

[SlugTrail]

7 minutes ago, aws said:

The fee is only £1.5m guaranteed , the rest is supposedly performance related. Games for us, capped by England etc. So cheap for a great prospect. 

Didn't Van den Berg cost more than that?

[No2]

36 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

Im not aware a sell on fee is mandatory for any young players. When did that come in? Even if FIFA set a 10% sell on, how come this tribunal decided to double that to 20%?

Its actually 5% as per link below. I'd imagine in scenarios like yesterday we are trying to pay as much as possible now and remove any sell on where as Fulham want it the other way around. Depending on the player this will differ each time.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishexaminer.com/sport/soccer/arid-40046225.html%3ftype=amp

[John102]

1 hour ago, dockers_strike said:

yes, that's the other one I was thinking of.

How does us selling a player on the open market equate to buying one where the fee is set by a tribunal and not being screwed over?

 

Thanks to the tribunal, if we sell Elliot at any stage in the future, they get 20% of the fee. So in say 4 years time, why should Fulham get 20% of the fee? 4 years development at Anfield or 4 years development at Fulham. Hmmm, tough question!

I just can't view it as being screwed over when the buying club invariably flips these young players for significant profits. 

[aws]

2 hours ago, SlugTrail said:

Didn't Van den Berg cost more than that?

About £2m I think. 

[an tha]

Don't worry, folks - i am sure FSG are working on selling someone as we speak to recoup this massive spend.

[ZonkoVille77]

Man bun cunt

[Paulie Dangerously]

Scored again today. 

 

[dockers_strike]

Nice one Harvey, lad.

[Barrington Womble]

On 11/02/2021 at 14:19, John102 said:

I just can't view it as being screwed over when the buying club invariably flips these young players for significant profits. 

It's just panic setting in that it undermines the fsg sell to buy model. The only people arsed about a sell on clause are those dreaming of one day selling him on and moneyballing it in the next transfer window. Everybody slightly normal would be thinking 

1. He's a bargain

2. We want him to play his career here. So we don't need to care about sell on clauses. 

3. If he wants to go to some mega rich club somewhere down the line, it means we've had a wonder talent on our hands and enjoyed his success for a initial tiny fee. 

4. If he doesn't go on to hit the heights we all hope, it's still a tiny fee and we'll clearly still make a profit. It reduces the risk of the transfer should some of the fee today be linked to future sell on. 

5. It's only right the club that develops him gets a reasonable fee for developing a talent that we thought was good enough to play in our 1st team squad at 16! 

 

Bottom line, surely all anyone wants is him to be fucking brilliant and spend his career here? Who's arsed about a sell on?

[Scott_M]

Jesus Christ.

 

[SlugTrail]

As much as I would love him to come in next season i think we are being unrealistic and putting way too much pressure on a 17 year old. He needs a season in a low to mid table prem team or as someone suggested maybe a move to a good German team to learn about different styles of play.

 

He does look like he has the tools to make it but he needs time out of the spotlight and without the pressure of playing for us in the short term.

[aws]

Just had a quick look at one of the Blackburn forums and the consensus seems to be that he's the most talented player at the club but he's inconsistent which is unsurprising at his age. I'd leave him at Blackburn for another year rather than risk him being mostly on the bench at a Prem club. 

[Barrington Womble]

2 hours ago, aws said:

Just had a quick look at one of the Blackburn forums and the consensus seems to be that he's the most talented player at the club but he's inconsistent which is unsurprising at his age. I'd leave him at Blackburn for another year rather than risk him being mostly on the bench at a Prem club. 

Yeah we want him playing and being involved in games (sides that attack), that's what'll work for us. I also think it's no surprise he's consistent in a team that's as shit as Blackburn. I'd be backing a side that looks like they could come up if klopp doesn't want him here yet. Here's my guess, we've been linked with plenty of attacking players, if we make the CL we'll get one and Elliot will go back out on loan as near to Liverpool as possible while giving him game time with a team that will try to dominate games. That might mean not playing in this country. He maybe goes to Germany or Holland where there'll likely be a few lads who can speak English. Or maybe even join Stevie at rangers. If we don't make the CL, he'll come back and be a regular in the EL team till at least the midseason break. 

[aws]

Rangers is a good shout.  Going abroad is a big ask for a young lad although the language issue might be just as bad in Glasgow.  

[Jairzinho]

2 hours ago, aws said:

Rangers is a good shout.  Going abroad is a big ask for a young lad although the language issue might be just as bad in Glasgow.  

Don't see the point in him wasting a year in a worse league than the one he's in now. 

[3 Stacks]

If he's actually a top talent, he'll be back in the first team next year and contributing. 

[Megadrive Man]

Can't wait to see him tearing up the European Super League in a few years.

[Barrington Womble]

9 hours ago, Jairzinho said:

Don't see the point in him wasting a year in a worse league than the one he's in now. 

Because he'll be in a team at the top of the league expected to win and perform everyweek as opposed a team that struggle to finish top half and it's ok if he barely has a kick. He'd also get some CL experience, although that is likely to involve getting turned over every week, but he will at least start learning about how these games are reffed differently and learning to cope with the demands of a weekend game, followed by a trip abroad midweek and back for another Saturday. There are large parts of what he would need to do at rangers that would aid his development.