A lot of posts describing Conor as a "decent squad option" and that's the issue in a nut shell.  Conor wants to play ! If he can't break into our starting XI on a consistent basis then I think he'll be off of his own volition.

1 hour ago, Argo said:

Ey? Gilmour barely played for Brighton and if he did it would been Caicedo's game allowing him freedom not the other way round.

https://www.whoscored.com/Players/381255/Fixtures/Billy-Gilmour

Look at the results when he does come into the side. Wins against wolves, Manc United, Arsenal, Southampton and a draw against Manc City. some notable loses in there to but against the top sides, that's called raising your game. Rather sign Gilmour back than Caciedo offers far more playing out from the back. 

Pointless spending 100 million on a midfield player who can't score or assist goals. 100 million on a deschamp type player, don't see the hype. 

32 minutes ago, olderschoolcfc said:

https://www.whoscored.com/Players/381255/Fixtures/Billy-Gilmour

Look at the results when he does come into the side. Wins against wolves, Manc United, Arsenal, Southampton and a draw against Manc City. some notable loses in there to but against the top sides, that's called raising your game. Rather sign Gilmour back than Caciedo offers far more playing out from the back. 

Pointless spending 100 million on a midfield player who can't score or assist goals. 100 million on a deschamp type player, don't see the hype. 

Gilmour has got 0 goals and 3 assists in 85 career games. If he gets to the point he's playing consistently enough to be back on our radar good luck paying significantly less than what they want for Caicedo.

Consistently being the key word, never seen such a massive disparity between a players best and worst in my whole life.

Conor is really making hard for Chelsea to decide what to do with him. In pivot he is not optimal, maybe at 10. However he showed he is a constant danger in and around the box. His chance that was saved by Pope is something we don't get from our midfield too much. He wants to score. If he went to a side that he'd fit in he would be on double figures in the Prem. As he did at Palace. 

Against Brighton he took his goal excellently. Looks kind of simple but from the squad last season you maybe see Mount doing that same. 

His goal against Wrexham was also a statement of him finding the net albeit their keeper letting it in a bit easy.

I love his attitude but playing him at pivot he is wasted. Would love if Pochettino starts him at 10 against Fulham or Dortmund. Feel he won't as we need Nkunku firing.

2 hours ago, olderschoolcfc said:

https://www.whoscored.com/Players/381255/Fixtures/Billy-Gilmour

Look at the results when he does come into the side. Wins against wolves, Manc United, Arsenal, Southampton and a draw against Manc City. some notable loses in there to but against the top sides, that's called raising your game. Rather sign Gilmour back than Caciedo offers far more playing out from the back. 

Pointless spending 100 million on a midfield player who can't score or assist goals. 100 million on a deschamp type player, don't see the hype. 

Entirely the wrong profile of player. We need a player who offers a good engine, with a defensive nouse. We've already got Enzo to control the game, but the Argentine is only average at best physically and defensively, hence the need for a more defensive player. Gilmour is worse physically than Enzo (weaker and also not quick) and also not great defensively, so getting him makes no sense.

Also as @Argo said: Caicedo was wanted by us and Arsenal long before Gilmour broke into the side, so the comment about him making Caicedo look good, because he frees him up is nonsense. Also from the type of players they are, it's Caicedo giving Gilmour freedom, not the other way round. The fact Brighton had good results with Gilmour in the side doesn't necessarily make him the right kind of player for us, even if we didn't already have a superior player of the same ilk. As you might remember Inter had good results with Lukaku up top, and I don't think I need to remind anybody how that worked out...

I mean this is the third match where we changed from a 4231 to a 433, with Gallagher being the most advanced in the midfield 3. 

It's becoming clear he may have a role here and the club will only sell him if a club offer something mad, IE 50m. 

True blue. We sold Gilmour last summer for 7 million. 

Cacieado has played one season in the Premiership. 

We only showed our interest in the player in January, he decided to sign improved terms with Brighton instead of talking to us. He didnt want to come in January, Brighton didnt want to sell. 

Anyone wanting us to sign 1 player worth 100 million pounds, simply ask yourself this, with Caceido in the team, do we become title challengers again. What does he bring to the side that two players with different skillsets bring?

I think he just looks like Ramires, I'd wait and see if he maintains decent form this season before spunking 100 million on another player from Brighton. let me remind you.... 100 million pounds.... that's 1 followed by eight zeros for a player with a worse return in front of goal than Kovacic and Jorginho combined. Remember Essien, he could twat a ball into the back of the net, yet to see what makes him better than three man kante. We signed him for 35 million form the league title winners. Better cheaper players available. need to stop this nonsense...

and again... 

100,000,000 million pounds. Where's Doctor Evil? 

 

 

27 minutes ago, olderschoolcfc said:

True blue. We sold Gilmour last summer for 7 million. 

Cacieado has played one season in the Premiership. 

We only showed our interest in the player in January, he decided to sign improved terms with Brighton instead of talking to us. He didnt want to come in January, Brighton didnt want to sell. 

Anyone wanting us to sign 1 player worth 100 million pounds, simply ask yourself this, with Caceido in the team, do we become title challengers again. What does he bring to the side that two players with different skillsets bring?

I think he just looks like Ramires, I'd wait and see if he maintains decent form this season before spunking 100 million on another player from Brighton. let me remind you.... 100 million pounds.... that's 1 followed by eight zeros for a player with a worse return in front of goal than Kovacic and Jorginho combined. Remember Essien, he could twat a ball into the back of the net, yet to see what makes him better than three man kante. We signed him for 35 million form the league title winners. Better cheaper players available. need to stop this nonsense...

and again... 

100,000,000 million pounds. Where's Doctor Evil? 

 

 

I think the Ramires comparison isn't bad, but I think he looks a bit calmer and more accomplished in possession, but also slower with less of an engine and doesn't provide the attacking threat the brazilian did. 

I agree that the fee is excessive and so does our board apparantly, that's why a deal hasn't been struck yet. There are definetely cheaper players out there, but I think profile and quality wise Caicedo is the best option from those I know (not a scout though), so now we have to weigh up if we try and get a cheaper option in the hopes that it's a good fit, or if we persist and either try and get the price for Caicedo down or pay up. In my opinion there are good arguments for both courses of action.

So not necessarily disagreeing with you a lot on that front, but what you wrote about Gilmour being a better option and Caicedo looking good because of being freed up by Gilmour was nonsense. Also comparing Kantes tranfer fee, who had a clause and swapped Leicester for Chelsea in the summer of 2016, when transfer sums in general where still significantly lower, than today is nonsense. The 35 million from back then would be closer to 50 or 60 million today. And if you can point out a player of Kantes profile and quality for 50 or 60 million, then we should be all over him. Unfortunately there's no such player on the market.

Edited July 27, 20232 yr by True Blue23

I called the idea of signing a player who has one season in the Premiership, who was signed for 4.3 million, being signed by Chelsea 12 months later for 100 million nonsense. It is... if you think CFC should be blackmailed by Brighton for the second season in a row... please bare in mind that we signed Cucurella for 60 Million, paid 20 million to the club for the Taskmaster presenter/ manager and now you want to hand the same sh*tty sound coast club another 100 million... We could have probably bought Brighton for 180 Million and turned it into a feeder club. 

You answered yourself. if there's no such player on the market then why are we prepared to spend 100 million on a player who isn't as good as Kante? 

It's besides the point, Conor Gallagher bangs in 15 goals you and others will be very quiet about this guy. 

5 minutes ago, olderschoolcfc said:

Iplease bare in mind that we signed Cucurella for 60 Million, paid 20 million to the club for the Taskmaster presenter/ manager and now you want to hand the same sh*tty sound coast club another 100 million...

By that same logic we shouldn't have got Chilwell because we got f**ked over by the same club for Drinkwater. 

1 hour ago, olderschoolcfc said:

Anyone wanting us to sign 1 player worth 100 million pounds, simply ask yourself this, with Caceido in the team, do we become title challengers again. What does he bring to the side that two players with different skillsets bring?

I think you hit the nail with this pertinent question as to our challenger status. 

Sometimes it seems we just want the new big shiny toy at all costs without a thorough appraisal as to how it fits in with the broad view. 

Long term FFP compliance, market activity, squad composition and integration, etc. 

We might well be a dark horse but for me I don't think we should expect anything like a challenge from this team till 2 seasons from now at an accelerated pace. 

If that's the case why spend a £100m when you can take a further season at least to assess the player further as well as give a chance to some of the "potential future stars" we have spent big on to see what they can offer. 

It's a wrong move at the wrong time in my opinion. I'm not a huge fan of Connor but with the boundless energy he has I'd wager that a good manager can turn him into an effective B2B player and will rather give that a try than buy a player from a team whose previous "POTY" came to us and has been so below expectations some are even wanting us to get rid at whatever amount even though he cost us £60m. Not to talk of their best manager of all time until last season coming to us and absolutely crapping the bed. 

Too many red flags all over this one for me. 

1 hour ago, olderschoolcfc said:

Anyone wanting us to sign 1 player worth 100 million pounds, simply ask yourself this, with Caceido in the team, do we become title challengers again. What does he bring to the side that two players with different skillsets bring?

Enzo + Caicedo provides a stable balance in midfield for the next 10 years, both of which have the potential to become the best CMs in the world.  You then have Santos and Casadei, also very good young players, waiting in the wing for that injection of quality to keep us competitive.

I think people are looking at this the wrong way. This £100m isn't just towards one player, it's towards providing the club long term sustainability in midfield. We've tried the cheaper alternative route when missing out on a target, and 9 times out of 10 it's taken the club backwards. We likely are better off working with what we have, but it is clear that Pochettino/the recruitment both see eye to eye that more polished quality is needed in midfield. You can make the argument that Caicedo is inexperienced, but his metrics in the build up, defensive phase, ball retention, and expected threats dwarf any other alternative transfer target you can think of. 

 

8 minutes ago, Argo said:

By that same logic we shouldn't have got Chilwell because we got f**ked over by the same club for Drinkwater. 

What? Chilwell didnt cost 100 million after playing 37 games of premiership football (one season, signed for 4.5 million 12 months before and you want us to hand out 100 million) Brighton are blackmailing us. 

6 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Enzo + Caicedo provides a stable balance in midfield for the next 10 years, both of which have the potential to become the best CMs in the world.  You then have Santos and Casadei, also very good young players, waiting in the wing for that injection of quality to keep us competitive.

I think people are looking at this the wrong way. This £100m isn't just towards one player, it's towards providing the club long term sustainability in midfield. We've tried the cheaper alternative route when missing out on a target, and 9 times out of 10 it's taken the club backwards. We likely are better off working with what we have, but it is clear that Pochettino/the recruitment both see eye to eye that more polished quality is needed in midfield. You can make the argument that Caicedo is inexperienced, but his metrics in the build up, defensive phase, ball retention, and expected threats dwarf any other alternative transfer target you can think of. 

 

What metrics does a player who cost 4.5 million last season suddenly make him worth 100 million 37 games later? Its a club who don't want to sell putting a stupid price on a player of questionable quality. How much did Mbappe cost PSG? Your telling me Caciedo is worth similar sums? 

1 minute ago, olderschoolcfc said:

What? Chilwell didnt cost 100 million after playing 37 games of premiership football (one season, signed for 4.5 million 12 months before and you want us to hand out 100 million) Brighton are blackmailing us. 

Firstly, he was signed 18 months ago and Potter starting to play him coincided with an instant and spectacular upturn in results which Brighton have by in large sustained to this day.

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/moises-caicedo/leistungsdaten/spieler/687626/saison/2021/plus/1

Secondly, it's not a binary as you're making it out, he'll be overpriced but he'll also be an excellent signing who will significantly improve the team, both can be true.

5 minutes ago, olderschoolcfc said:

Its a club who don't want to sell putting a stupid price on a player of questionable quality. How much did Mbappe cost PSG? 

£200m after 60 games (buying from a club who got him for free or next to nothing) and one full season playing mens football.

Edited July 27, 20232 yr by Argo

2 minutes ago, olderschoolcfc said:

What metrics does a player who cost 4.5 million last season suddenly make him worth 100 million 37 games later? Its a club who don't want to sell putting a stupid price on a player of questionable quality. How much did Mbappe cost PSG? Your telling me Caciedo is worth similar sums? 

"The market's belief dictates the market's truth".

This is the same market where Mason Mount, who's been dreadful for 20 months and 1 year remaining on his contract, goes for £60m. The same market where Kai Havertz who's been utter dross goes for £65m and we make a substantial book value profit on. Paulinha, the one everyone is telling us to get over Caicedo, is quoted at £90m and Rice, who is limited to what he can do on the ball, is £105m. You can make the case that these players have experience/proved their capability to justify their absurd price, but we are now in a market where there is a lack of real quality at CM compared to Caicedo.

Caicedo is a player who again, excels in almost everything you want in a midfielder in both the defensive, build up, and attacking phases (xT). 

7 minutes ago, Argo said:

Firstly, he was signed 18 months ago and Potter starting to play him coincided with an instant and spectacular upturn in results which Brighton have by in large sustained to this day.

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/moises-caicedo/leistungsdaten/spieler/687626/saison/2021/plus/1

Secondly, it's not a binary as you're making it out, he'll be overpriced but he'll also be an excellent signing who will significantly improve the team, both can be true.

I really want the fella, the only thing that's putting me off is the precedent. I'm concerned that if we keep meeting the demands of our seller we're going to keep getting rinsed on transfers, time to a bit more savvy and say no. 

 

1 minute ago, Victor90 said:

I really want the fella, the only thing that's putting me off is the precedent. I'm concerned that if we keep meeting the demands of our seller we're going to keep getting rinsed on transfers, time to a bit more savvy and say no. 

 

Tbh CM is really the only position we desperately need to have a squad we can build on. 

GK we simply need a stop gap that is better than Kepa until Slonina develops. 

Just now, Sconnie Blue said:

Tbh CM is really the only position we desperately need to have a squad we can build on. 

GK we simply need a stop gap that is better than Kepa until Slonina develops. 

I'm still a bit in the middle, but I very much agree. the midfield situation has been the most pressing for years, especially this window. That's always been a priority for me, even over striker and keeper. 

We're going to have a torrid season no matter what if we don't find a good enough engine there. That's not me being negative, that's just a fact. I'm not as negative with the board as many others are, I do think they'll sort it out, it's just a matter of when and who. 

7 minutes ago, Victor90 said:

I really want the fella, the only thing that's putting me off is the precedent. I'm concerned that if we keep meeting the demands of our seller we're going to keep getting rinsed on transfers, time to a bit more savvy and say no. 

If Caicedo succeeds (which I think he will) it will do the opposite.

Precedents are only really set when the signing is a poor one, and even at a lesser price the alternatives are much more likely to flop in my eyes.

18 hours ago, olderschoolcfc said:

 

We only showed our interest in the player in January, he decided to sign improved terms with Brighton instead of talking to us. He didnt want to come in January, Brighton didnt want to sell. 

 

 

 

He definitely did want to leave in January.

Brighton refused to sell, he was only on £3k a week at the time and a career ending injury can happen at any time in football, hence the contract extension with significant pay rise. Brighton told him to stick with them until summer and they'll let him leave then. Sadly, their valuation has risen significantly in that time and he's now being kept hostage. I imagine this will just drag on and Caicedo will force the move.

21 hours ago, Sexyfootball said:

A lot of posts describing Conor as a "decent squad option" and that's the issue in a nut shell.  Conor wants to play ! If he can't break into our starting XI on a consistent basis then I think he'll be off of his own volition.

Who says that he can't? He's one of the rare midfielders that not only works hard in the final third but that isn't shy when it comes down to taking shots and making runs.

He scored 3 goals last season and the one before that 8 goals for Palace. And he turned 23 just a few months back. If Caicedo is worth more than 80m, our own Gallagher should be worth more than 40m and as such we should keep him.

For the little that I have seen so far in preseason, I think that Gallagher has been more effective than Nkunku. Though they've played in different positions, but I can see Connor being more effective when played more advanced, in a similar area as Nkunku against Newcastle. Why sell him when he can provide with goals and assists?

Cheers for the replies all. Nice to debate with you all. 

Im all for players who improve us, just don't think this one will get over the line this summer and Im really astonished, seriously astonished at the price Brighton are asking and the fact we're looking to pay it. 

Think Conor is going to have a big season for us, hope his form negates the need to spend 100 million and we uncover a gem from our own academy or elsewhere. Here's to hoping. Have a good one all.