Jump to content

Kaide Gordon - signed for Liverpool

rynny

By rynny
in Transfer Forum

 Share

Recommended Posts

ossieram

ossieram

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Footymum2017 said:

I don’t think £3million is a paltry fee for a 16 year old who hasn’t done anything yet! I’m sure there are add ons aswell based on future performance.

If it's £3million up front with add ons, that's a very good deal for a youngster that hasn't made a start for the 1st team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 524
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Most active in this topic

Popular Days

Most active in this topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

CBRammette
CBRammette

I think a few posters should just have a look at their comments about a young 16 year old boy. I have a 16 year old and know how I would feel to read some of the posts on here. However fed up you are

VulcanRam
VulcanRam

I don't see what all the fuss is here. Our business model is to use the academy, nurture players, and sell them. This is a great example. In fact its a perfect example, as we're getting money for a pl

chewbacca
chewbacca

Good luck to him, don't get the animosity towards him at all. Hope he does well!

Posted Images

RoyMac5

RoyMac5

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

Per the original post mate, thats basically what i was saying.  We can't risk a tribunal.

Don't know what particularly you're quoting but obviously we can't risk letting him go for peanuts if he won't sign up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Comrade 86

Comrade 86

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

Liverpool have press ganged Derby into taking a paltry fee for a young player, who decided a 200 k signing on fee would be nice. The fee will be less than they pay there reserve goalie for a month with no adds on as Derby were desperate and couldn't risk a tribunal. 

Where has all this been reported buddy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gee SCREAMER !!

Gee SCREAMER !!

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Where has all this been reported buddy?

Just a play on the journalists words mate .  I hate the way these things are reported. It's put across like we had any choice.  regarding the 200k I posted last week that as a 16 year old, a fee of around the base limit there required to pay will give him a nice signing on fee with the normal performance related additions. That would turn your head not unreasonably. We will have had too take a pants fee at the lowest rate possible rather than risk tribunal due to our position.

i have seen on here that as he's not 17 till October he can't sign a pro contract.  That begs the question why they wouldn't wait and pay nothing in October.  

Theres always been a food chain in football- up to Madrid and Barcelona at the top.  If this lad came into the team, was brilliant and went to Liverpool for twenty million, fair enough.  If we were 4th in the premier league and Liverpool came in a player will normally go today.  The days of handshake agreements where Goddard and Seth Johnson rejected moves to Liverpool as they gave there word they were coming here are gone.

I think our club is worth more than becoming a feeder club of talent for those who click there fingers though, we may as well call our academy Premier league take your pick.   There should be a minimum 25% sell on set in stone with these things, probably a 25 % of any loan fees as well as Liverpool can't lose.  If he's brilliant they've got a steal on player we've helped develop for years, ifs he's good but not quite good enough - 5 million in championship/ lower prem loan fees- if he's as good as he gets and they let him go in a few years it's pocket change lost. 

A lot gets said about add ons/ sell ons  as well.  There generally rubbish. Logically if he's good for Liverpool where else is he going.  Most likely nowhere.  If he isn't great he get's let go- no extras. If he goes on loan we get nothing extra other than he might score against us on his Wolves debut like Huddlestone. We most likely get the base minimum from this and that's your lot.

 I find the whole thing, how we are being cherry picked and how it's been reported truly repugnant.

 

Edited by Gee SCREAMER !!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Footymum2017

Footymum2017

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

Just a play on the journalists words mate .  I hate the way these things are reported. It's put across like we had any choice.  regarding the 200k I posted last week that as a 16 year old, a fee of around the base limit there required to pay will give him a nice signing on fee with the normal performance related additions. That would turn your head not unreasonably. We will have had too take a pants fee at the lowest rate possible rather than risk tribunal due to our position.

i have seen on here that as he's not 17 till October he can't sign a pro contract.  That begs the question why they wouldn't wait and pay nothing in October.  

Theres always been a food chain in football- up to Madrid and Barcelona at the top.  If this lad came into the team, was brilliant and went to Liverpool for twenty million, fair enough.  If we were 4th in the premier league and Liverpool came in a player will normally go today.  The days of handshake agreements where Goddard and Seth Johnson rejected moves to Liverpool as they gave there word they were coming here are gone.

I think our club is worth more than becoming a feeder club of talent for those who click there fingers though, we may as well call our academy Premier league take your pick.   There should be a minimum 25% sell on set in stone with these things, probably a 25 % of any loan fees as well as Liverpool can't lose.  If he's brilliant they've got a steal on player we've helped develop for years, ifs he's good but not quite good enough - 5 million in championship/ lower prem loan fees- if he's as good as he gets and they let him go in a few years it's pocket change lost. 

A lot gets said about add ons/ sell ons  as well.  There generally rubbish. Logically if he's good for Liverpool where else is he going.  Most likely nowhere.  If he isn't great he get's let go- no extras. If he goes on loan we get nothing extra other than he might score against us on his Wolves debut like Huddlestone. We most likely get the base minimum from this and that's your lot.

 I find the whole thing, how we are being cherry picked and how it's been reported truly repugnant.

 

Derby put him in the shop window and invited the offers so I don’t know how you can say that he’s been poached!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gee SCREAMER !!

Gee SCREAMER !!

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

I understand we did the same to Swindon with Bogle?

No. Bogle was released by Reading and had only been at Swindon for about six months. Nowhere near the same outlay and work and interest. I believe they got the fee they wanted at the time as well - could be mistaken on that, it was a while ago.  They also had a decent fee from the sell on as opposed to to this lad who if he play's for Liverpool as a regular will probably not go elsewhere unless he's Barcelona bound. They were always likely to get the 20% extra if he did well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Footymum2017

Footymum2017

Posted
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

So Derby have supposedly one of the shining lights in European football in his age group and wait till Liverpool show an interest to look at giving him a contract.   

It was United initially. He’s contracted for the next 2 years as a scholar. It was a pre agreement for a pro that was offered.

Edited by Footymum2017
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gee SCREAMER !!

Gee SCREAMER !!

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Footymum2017 said:

It was United initially. He’s contracted for the next 2 and a half years as a scholar. It was a pre agreement for a pro that was offered.

Ok United then.  Still the same scenario though. I assume this pre agreement is all because of his age leading to a pro contract at 17. Why would we wait based on his potential for Man utd to come in.  Offering him a contract to put him in the shop window makes no sense, you only lose out long term .  You offer a contract and get it signed, then put him in the shop window by him being round the first team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Donnyram

Donnyram

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

Ok United then.  Still the same scenario though. I assume this pre agreement is all because of his age leading to a pro contract at 17. Why would we wait based on his potential for Man utd to come in.  Offering him a contract to put him in the shop window makes no sense, you only lose out long term .  You offer a contract and get it signed, then put him in the shop window by him being round the first team. 

My understanding is that you cannot sign a pro contract until you’re 17.  Kaide is 17 in October so will be on an academy contract until then.  Nothing to stop him going if he wants to go and if clubs don’t agree a compensation fee it goes to tribunal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BIllyD

BIllyD

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

That has been the whole point of most of this thread - why wouldn't he sign it? So we had to make sure we got some return on our investment - as opposed to standard tribunal compensation.

Based on what footymum said, why would he sign it ? What benefit is it to the lad if we are already touting him around in the first place ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RoyMac5

RoyMac5

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, BIllyD said:

Based on what footymum said, why would he sign it ? What benefit is it to the lad if we are already touting him around in the first place ?

We didn't start touting him until he wouldn't sign - that's what I took @Footymum2017's original statement way back when on the Academy thread, when she erroneously wrote 'he didn't want to stay' but meant to put 'he didn't want to sign'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...