Marc Cucurella

[Boo or Boo-urns]

Yanks, overpaid, over-indebted and over here!

 

[Sibierskii]

62 big ones damn, bet you if he didn't have that haircut he'd be half the price

 

[5 Hit Gibbon]

As others have said the fee was far too high. Move on to the next target.

 

[Coatigan]

Even The Athletic’s Chelsea correspondent has said “Cucurella is costing considerably more than £52.5m”.

Hope it sticks out there as much and as quickly as it has here. Was just surprised, given Romano was the only one with those numbers. And also found it a bit hypocritical of BM, that's all.

 

[argyle]

As others have said the fee was far too high. Move on to the next target.

...if there is a next target this summer.

 

[johnnytapia]

It really isn’t.

If it weren’t, they (Brighton) wouldn’t have got it . It is. And they did.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Doesn't matter what Chelsea paid, what City thought he was worth is all that matters and I'm satisfied that Pep decided he was worth no more than £40m to our team.

Lets be honest Pep knows more about football and our team than all of us on here combined.

 

[DMA's]

I was one of the biggest fans of cucurella but even I can accept that the price Chelsea have paid is too high. Wow

 

[Coatigan]

A claimed £62m, plus a player on loan. Chelsea not holding out.

The scenes, when we sell them Ake for a mere £41m next week.

And the clappers argue it is a great deal.

 

[Ric]

Hope it sticks out there as much and as quickly as it has here. Was just surprised, given Romano was the only one with those numbers. And also found it a bit hypocritical of BM, that's all.

I haven’t really seen any journalists still saying £52.5m tonight?

 

[TheThirdDeano]

The issue we’ve got, that football has, is that once again the selling club demanding an outlandish fee is vindicated and can do it again in the future as can any other club.

Transfer fees will only get worse from here!

 

[oddfellows]

Who?

Theo Hernandez

 

[Ric]

If it weren’t, they (Brighton) wouldn’t have got it . It is. And they did.

That’s a bit over simplistic. A club paying a certain fee for a player doesn’t make it “the going rate”.

 

[Coatigan]

If it weren’t, they (Brighton) wouldn’t have got it . It is. And they did.

It isn't. The price/value of that player, fine. The going rate? nope. We sold zinch for 32m, is that the going rate too?

 

[wolviedinho]

I don’t care if he cost the chavs £100m. I am happy we have people at the club who can still make astute financial decisions. Football is supposed to be coming out of covid losses and this fee is distorting the market. We go to buy a lb now and the fee will be stupid.

Can’t blame us for walking away. The club is working hard on erasing the moneybags narrative created by the media. We even explained how we managed to generate the funds to buy Jack.

I wonder who is next on the list? City will probably pull a rabbit out the hat.

 

[Chappie]

That’s a bit over simplistic. A club paying a certain fee doesn’t make it “the going rate”.

It could be,from now

 

[Ric]

A claimed £62m, plus a player on loan. Chelsea not holding out.

The scenes, when we sell them Ake for a mere £41m next week.

And the clappers argue it is a great deal.

One positive from this is that Chelsea sure as hell aren’t coming back in for Ake this window.

 

[cjn]

I think some people here owe Bloom an apology.

 

[kun]

£62m + Colwill on loan for Cucurella.

And people were saying we should “just pay it”.

Madness.

 

[5 Hit Gibbon]

...if there is a next target this summer.

If not, we will adapt.