Marc Cucurella

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nicholas van Whatsisface said:
I think this situation has got to the stage where it’s now more important for our Club long-term not to pay what Brighton are asking for the player, so I struggle to see this one happening now.

Shame, because I think he’d have been a good fit for our team, and he’s clearly damaged his relationship with Brighton (far from irreparably, so this isn’t is a biggie) to try and push the move through - but our Club are nothing if not strategic planners, and I don’t think they have the appetite to prioritise short-term benefit for long-term damage.

There are a number of factors at play here, of which the need of the team is clearly significant but not the only consideration.

The example we set on how our Club is run is very important to our board and owners. We’ve worked hard to shift the perception that we can easily be pushed beyond our valuation for a player - which was undoubtedly the picture during those first couple of post-takeover years.

I know we care less about all that stuff as fans - we just want the best team possible out there - but we have to accept that perception in some cases takes precedent over the immediate needs of the first team.

I think you’ll see us move on from this deal next week, and bring in an alternative target.

Part of me hopes I’m wrong - but I do support our board in what they’re trying to do for our Club.
Click to expand...

Think this is correct. I think Bloom has backed himself into a corner and we are not going to play to his rules…. Move on, there’s plenty of left backs out there. Cucurella is technically good but we have no idea how he’ll react when he steps up a few levels…. all signings are a risk but it’s not like he’s a proven international or a proven CL performer or he’s got experience of cup finals or title deciders etc… he represents a risk but Brighton value him as an absolute real deal - which he may be but we are not certain. Time to look elsewhere.
 
Bluewonder said:
The whole premise that our behaviour in securing a new player acts as a principle for future selling clubs is nonsense.

Tony Bloom isn't looking at us walking away from the Kane deal and thinking he'd better lower his price anymore than he's looking at our Grealish deal and thinking he needs to raise it.

Every selling club has a price, and if they don't want to lose their player we will have to pay a premium.

Each transfer is down to individual circumstance and nothing more. We are not making a 'rod for our back' anymore than we are 'sending a message'.

If we want Cucurella we pay what Brighton want, with room for a bit of strategic negotiation.
Click to expand...
Not true
There is no way imo that we would have got the price we did for Torres if we hadn’t played hardball with Barca over Garcia. Put them on notice
 
Bluewonder said:
The whole premise that our behaviour in securing a new player acts as a principle for future selling clubs is nonsense.

Tony Bloom isn't looking at us walking away from the Kane deal and thinking he'd better lower his price anymore than he's looking at our Grealish deal and thinking he needs to raise it.

Every selling club has a price, and if they don't want to lose their player we will have to pay a premium.

Each transfer is down to individual circumstance and nothing more. We are not making a 'rod for our back' anymore than we are 'sending a message'.

If we want Cucurella we pay what Brighton want, with room for a bit of strategic negotiation.
Click to expand...

Your logic works for a sack of spuds… but where people are concerned - it will depend to some extent on how much the player and agent push it… Kane didn’t but as we saw with Lescott - players can force a move.
 
Bluewonder said:
The whole premise that our behaviour in securing a new player acts as a principle for future selling clubs is nonsense.

Tony Bloom isn't looking at us walking away from the Kane deal and thinking he'd better lower his price anymore than he's looking at our Grealish deal and thinking he needs to raise it.

Every selling club has a price, and if they don't want to lose their player we will have to pay a premium.

Each transfer is down to individual circumstance and nothing more. We are not making a 'rod for our back' anymore than we are 'sending a message'.

If we want Cucurella we pay what Brighton want, with room for a bit of strategic negotiation.
Click to expand...
Disagree. City had to pay whatever clubs wanted when we were growing and we just had to accept it. That could not carry on forever and we moved to a position of sustainability. City have a lot to offer now and virtually every player wants to come here. We have no need to overpay anymore so now we move on. We have done this a lot recently and reputation is important in transfer dealings.
 
Bluewonder said:
The whole premise that our behaviour in securing a new player acts as a principle for future selling clubs is nonsense.

Tony Bloom isn't looking at us walking away from the Kane deal and thinking he'd better lower his price anymore than he's looking at our Grealish deal and thinking he needs to raise it.

Every selling club has a price, and if they don't want to lose their player we will have to pay a premium.

Each transfer is down to individual circumstance and nothing more. We are not making a 'rod for our back' anymore than we are 'sending a message'.

If we want Cucurella we pay what Brighton want, with room for a bit of strategic negotiation.
Click to expand...

Mate - if you don’t think an analysis of previous buyer behaviour is a huge factor in any complex negotiation then you’re being very naive.

You’re talking about this in a case by case basis - in which I can see your logic - but the point I was making was reputational, which is cumulative and based on perception.

And that is absolutely part of the thinking in a seller setting their price.

Arguably we have created this problem for ourselves by paying £50m for Walker and Mendy. That’s created a perception that we’ll go to that level for a fullback.

So when Bloom set his price - I’d be amazed if he didn’t absolutely have our previous on paying for fullbacks in his thinking.

Brighton’s position seems to be citing the Ben White transfer as a precedent - which clearly demonstrates the central role previous behaviour plays in setting a price.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.