Tommy Doyle | Signs for Wolves | will be confirmed Jul 1st

[117 M34]

You're reasoning is still flawed. Why do you think Chelsea sold Mount or City sold Palmer? They cost nothing let alone £5m and yet they've both gone despite being £60m & £42.5m players. Why didn't we hold on to them? Why have Brighton sold so many good players that cost them relatively little? You're stuck on this 50% figure, it's still a good profit for them.

Besides which they've sold around £150m of players this summer alone.

Do you think City would have sold Palmer if we had to give half of the £40m to someone else?

 

[Centurions]

Do you think City would have sold Palmer if we had to give half of the £40m to someone else?

Yes, since he wanted to go and had evidently pissed Pep off. It would still be £20m profit on the books regardless. It's a business, not playschool.

 

[WallyA]

Yes, since he wanted to go and had evidently pissed Pep off. It would still be £20m profit on the books regardless. It's a business, not playschool.

Not a chance we would.

We wont budge on this difference imo, as it cant be proven.

But I dont see how any club sells a 50m player to make 25m. Only way is if the buying club massively overpays to make up for it.

Why do you think Lavia went for so much? And his was only 20%.

I bet his price would be lower if city didnt have that.

Anyway, Im not sure this discussion about the 50% sell on is worth a long discussion, I just find it odd.

 

[waspish]

Didn't even make the bench

 

[Xhavenjoe]

You're reasoning is still flawed. Why do you think Chelsea sold Mount or City sold Palmer?

I'm with @wally on this one.

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Didn't even make the bench

To be fair Nunes was only on our bench as we'd run out of goalies to put on it.

I'd expect & hope he'll be involved after the international break.

 

[Wanderingwolf]

Didn't even make the bench

Had a slight injury so he wasn’t risked

 

[kun]

Not a chance we would.

We wont budge on this difference imo, as it cant be proven.

But I dont see how any club sells a 50m player to make 25m. Only way is if the buying club massively overpays to make up for it.

Why do you think Lavia went for so much? And his was only 20%.

I bet his price would be lower if city didnt have that.

Anyway, Im not sure this discussion about the 50% sell on is worth a long discussion, I just find it odd.

In the current market, Lavia's fee was reasonable to say the least.

Caicedo would have been a much better example but the point remains you can't just keep a player indefinitely.

If he wants to move up at some point Wolves will have to sell to protect the value of their asset.

 

[Wanderingwolf]

 

[FantasyIreland]

How did he get on in the Cup defeat?