chelseabootboy Posted January 14, 2010 Posted January 14, 2010 today we will finally get this case sorted they want 10 mill we want to pay about 2-3 mill so lets hope we dont get ripped off like we have in the past i recon we'll pay 4.
chelseabootboy Posted January 14, 2010 Author Posted January 14, 2010 it prob will be 5 or 6 but i'd only pay 4, he's good got lots of ability but is still raw, also this is not a transfer fee he was out of contract compo so 4 is a good price if you ask me bet we end up getting ripped off and pay 8-9. :)
Tim Posted January 14, 2010 Posted January 14, 2010 With both this and the Kakuta case, i really have no no hope that we will get the judgements that we deserve, and so fully expect us to be slightly shafted by both. My faith in any of the governing bodies to administer with good sense and impartiality is pretty much non existant.
fester Posted January 14, 2010 Posted January 14, 2010 With both this and the Kakuta case, i really have no no hope that we will get the judgements that we deserve, and so fully expect us to be slightly shafted by both.My faith in any of the governing bodies to administer with good sense and impartiality is pretty much non existant. Kakuta case is different because it's going to CAS which is independant of FIFA, and has backed us before in the Mutu case. I suspect we'll end up paying closer to Citeh's valuation on Sturridge though.
sexelk Posted January 14, 2010 Posted January 14, 2010 I don't think we'll be forced into paying over the odds here. It's not like we poached Studge behind Citeh's back. He didn't want to sign the contract they were offering
The Machine Posted January 14, 2010 Posted January 14, 2010 It will probably be five million. Mind you I do not know why Manchester City are bothered. After all they are the richest club in England at the moment and surely do not need any more cash.
kibz Posted January 14, 2010 Posted January 14, 2010 Apparently it's £3.5m, rising to a possible £6.5m based on appearances for us and the senior England team. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/ja...manchester-city
dkw Posted January 14, 2010 Posted January 14, 2010 Apparently it's £3.5m, rising to a possible £6.5m based on appearances for us and the senior England team.http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/ja...manchester-city thats not a bad fee really.
abramovich Posted January 14, 2010 Posted January 14, 2010 This is a decent fee considering his age and potential. http://www.premierleague.com/page/Headline...1932749,00.html Let's put it this way: if he comes good and reaches those figures while playing with us, paying 6.5 max for a young English striker of top quality is a steal by today's standards. If he doesn't, we won't have to pay that much in the end,anyway.
kalpitv Posted January 14, 2010 Posted January 14, 2010 thats not a bad fee really. Yeah. Agreed. A very good one actually at a time when a transgendered striker with a permanently damaged hamstring is valued at 120 million pounds.
dkw Posted January 14, 2010 Posted January 14, 2010 cue Bluemoon telling us how its a great fee for city because they got rid of the "big head"
TheWestwayWonder Posted January 14, 2010 Posted January 14, 2010 Let's put it this way: if he comes good and reaches those figures while playing with us, paying 6.5 max for a young English striker of top quality is a steal by today's standards. Exactly. What a steal, great bit of luck in our favor. Now that his future is sorted and starting spot is within sight, hopefully he takes the bull by the horns!
BlueDay Posted January 14, 2010 Posted January 14, 2010 £6.5m is peanuts if he fulfills his potential. Especially for an English player where the prices are always inflated these days. Cant see City being that bothered. Its not like they need the money.
Barry Bridges Posted January 14, 2010 Posted January 14, 2010 I wish the performance fee was related to goals scored and not appearances made. It also said their was a 1million add on if Sturridge maeks a full international start. At what age does this condition expire ?
KrazyTea Posted January 14, 2010 Posted January 14, 2010 Pretty good figure for us actually, consider it was us, I figured we'd get the short end of the stick on this one.
geezer Posted January 14, 2010 Posted January 14, 2010 Fair hearing and a fair result. Now show us we got a bargain young Daniel
bluemoon Posted January 14, 2010 Posted January 14, 2010 cue Bluemoon telling us how its a great fee for city because they got rid of the "big head" Oh dear, the tribunal is over and all you can think of is me. xx Anyhow its good that its over, money is irrelevant in a way, good fee for both though and we get a sell on fee. I wish him luck now its all settled.
dkw Posted January 15, 2010 Posted January 15, 2010 (edited) Oh dear, the tribunal is over and all you can think of is me. xxAnyhow its good that its over, money is irrelevant in a way, good fee for both though and we get a sell on fee. I wish him luck now its all settled. oh you are still here. i thought maybe you were busy elsewhere after not involving yourself in the debate we had over your signing of and ageing Viera, and the fun we had over you being turned down by Veron. nice to see our friends in the media still maange to make it look like a bad thing for chelsea. sky reported it as "Chelsea pay upto £6.5 million for a player yet to score in the prem for them". and the mirror today has City scoring a small victory over us. and the guardian takes it that little bit further, saying this "Chelsea have been left to digest the cost of signing Daniel Sturridge from Manchester City last summer, and it could be as much as £18.5m over the course of the striker's four-year contract." even though the club have said they are happy with the decision. i love the way they try and turn it all to make it look like a bad thing for Chelsea. Edited January 15, 2010 by dkw
bluemoon Posted January 15, 2010 Posted January 15, 2010 oh you are still here. i thought maybe you were busy elsewhere after not involving yourself in the debate we had over your signing of and ageing Viera, and the fun we had over you being turned down by Veron.nice to see our friends in the media still maange to make it look like a bad thing for chelsea. sky reported it as "Chelsea pay upto �6.5 million for a player yet to score in the prem for them". and the mirror today has City scoring a small victory over us. and the guardian takes it that little bit further, saying this "Chelsea have been left to digest the cost of signing Daniel Sturridge from Manchester City last summer, and it could be as much as �18.5m over the course of the striker's four-year contract." even though the club have said they are happy with the decision. i love the way they try and turn it all to make it look like a bad thing for Chelsea. Point me in the direction of said debates then. I saw your transfer thread and thought that was it. Ah well Vieira cant be as sh*t as Ballack and its good to see we are concerning you enough to have to debate our signings. As for Veron, how im gutted he turned down the offer that was banter between two friends. At least we didnt spunk 20 million on the sh*t house.
dkw Posted January 15, 2010 Posted January 15, 2010 http://www.theshedend.com/index.php?showtopic=13849 the veron one, very amusing. how did you feel about seeing Adebayor wearing his arsenal shirt on sky?
Cam Posted January 15, 2010 Posted January 15, 2010 Would the clauses be cancelled if he moves on, either for free or sold? Like if he is sold, and eventually plays for England, we wouldn't have to pay the fee would we?
Tim Posted January 15, 2010 Posted January 15, 2010 'Vieira cant be as sh*t as Ballack.' Dear oh dear, have you ever actually watched him play? Consistently one of our best players? probably not, but he has had many good games for Chels, and I would wager a considerble amount that he brings more to the team than an old and past it Veira will to yours. There was a reason Jose didn't play him that much, and a reason he was happy to let him go. Sounding a tad tetchy now bluemoon!
dkw Posted January 15, 2010 Posted January 15, 2010 Would the clauses be cancelled if he moves on, either for free or sold?Like if he is sold, and eventually plays for England, we wouldn't have to pay the fee would we? i presume if he doesnt hit a target whilst signed to us then we wont have to pay it.
Recommended Posts