Lacroix

[Linford]

The argument from the poster wasn’t about transfer proceeds it was that selling players shows a lack of ambition and that is why OG left. Talking about transfer fees is a fair discussion but an entirely separate point

If we got an absolutely ridiculously overinflated fee for the likes of Guéhi and Eze and reinvested 100% of it, I doubt Glasner would have been making complaints about it. So fee does come to an extent into the Glasner conversation.

Either Chelsea makes a ridiculous offer we can't possibly refuse and then we can justify taking it... or they don't and we shouldn't be taking the peanuts they've offered us for someone who played practically every minute of the last season and was/is a crucial cog in the machine.

 

[ASCPFC]

If we got an absolutely ridiculously overinflated fee for the likes of Guéhi and Eze and reinvested 100% of it, I doubt Glasner would have been making complaints about it. So fee does come to an extent into the Glasner conversation.

Either Chelsea makes a ridiculous offer we can't possibly refuse and then we can justify taking it... or they don't and we shouldn't be taking the peanuts they've offered us for someone who played practically every minute of the last season and was/is a crucial cog in the machine.

Completely agree. The reason Chelsea are after him is the fact he was in the top five stats for every defensive metric in the league. Number one for clearances I believe. How is that not comparable to players like Anderson?
Obviously, not English, that's about it. This is a 75 mil player. Not 55.

 

[Linford]

Completely agree. The reason Chelsea are after him is the fact he was in the top five stats for every defensive metric in the league. Number one for clearances I believe. How is that not comparable to players like Anderson?
Obviously, not English, that's about it. This is a 75 mil player. Not 55.

Sky Sports recon that our transfer bods are using the Jean-Paul van Hecke transfer as a "benchmark" for this deal. If that is the case, our bods have completely undervalued Lacroix or completely overrated Van Hecke...

 

[JHB]

Completely agree. The reason Chelsea are after him is the fact he was in the top five stats for every defensive metric in the league. Number one for clearances I believe. How is that not comparable to players like Anderson?
Obviously, not English, that's about it. This is a 75 mil player. Not 55.

Ok but say we hold out and Lacroix refuses to play or starts playing poorly. What then? It is rubbish it really is but in this situation the club doesn’t have many good options really. I also suspect we need to make ends meet a bit for financial sustainability rules.

I also think we may have slightly rose tinted glasses when it comes to Lacroix. He’s been very good for us but he is also occasionally not great in the air or positionally and our defence wasn’t brilliant in the second half of last season. He is not on the same class as Guehi for example. Then again hardly anyone is.

 

[ASCPFC]

Sky Sports recon that our transfer bods are using the Jean-Paul van Hecke transfer as a "benchmark" for this deal. If that is the case, our bods have completely undervalued Lacroix or completely overrated Van Hecke...

The media seem complicit in selling our players on the cheap. There's no comparison between the two. One's a pussy for a start. Gone from a club that suits that to another club that suits that.

 

[Linford]

The media seem complicit in selling our players on the cheap. There's no comparison between the two. One's a pussy for a start. Gone from a club that suits that to another club that suits that.

If they are telling the truth, it's our own fault, not their's.

Not Sky making the player comparison.

 

[JHB]

If we got an absolutely ridiculously overinflated fee for the likes of Guéhi and Eze and reinvested 100% of it, I doubt Glasner would have been making complaints about it. So fee does come to an extent into the Glasner conversation.

Either Chelsea makes a ridiculous offer we can't possibly refuse and then we can justify taking it... or they don't and we shouldn't be taking the peanuts they've offered us for someone who played practically every minute of the last season and was/is a crucial cog in the machine.

We did invest most of it. We can argue whether we invested it well but it’s not like we didn’t splash out on transfers last year. Reality is Glasner was off regardless of what we did. It’s his MO and he was never here for the long run

 

[Linford]

Ok but say we hold out and Lacroix refuses to play or starts playing poorly. What then?

I really don't see that situation happening with Max. With some players it's a risk, sure, but you can usually tell which players are that way inclined.

 

[Linford]

We did invest most of it. We can argue whether we invested it well but it’s not like we didn’t splash out on transfers last year. Reality is Glasner was off regardless of what we did. It’s his MO and he was never here for the long run

It wasn't a ridiculously overinflated fee. The situation that happened, is not comparable to the one I described.

Glasner's reaction wasn't right. That's not my point here. My point is, it would never have happened in that scenario, and if it still did happen in that scenario he would be way more indefensible.

When we see Lacroix going for 51 million, it does give me more sympathy for Oli's point.

 

[doombear]

That is how you're supposed to sell, though. Based on what they are worth to you, not to the buying club. If they are worth more to us than we will get, we should not be selling. That's what Brentford and Brighton do.

He is certainly worth more than 55m to our club, we would be unlikely to be able to replace like-for-like for a similar or lesser price, and as far as I am aware he is one of the few without a release clause, so we should be able to stand our ground if we wanted to, either to keep him or request a more germane fee.

A lot of people said the same when we let Andersen go and they were wrong as Lacroix proved to be the better player. I expect Matsima, assuming we do get him, will prove to be every bit as good as Lacroix at possibly half the price we're selling Lacroix for. Sarr is no Olise but given what we paid for him and what we sold Olise for, his contributions so far have been more than acceptable and his value will have increased as well. The problems come when you buy players such as JSL and Johnson and realize that you've overpaid and in the case of the latter been sold a pup.

 

[StandbyPalace]

If we had crap players no one would want to sign them, so we would get to keep them and we would not be havng this convo
OR
Sign/develop quality players that because they are fuckn good other clubs want to sign them and we mght sell for a profit and get a decent replacement.

Which opton do you prefer?

 

[MrRobbo]

A lot of people said the same when we let Andersen go and they were wrong as Lacroix proved to be the better player. I expect Matsima, assuming we do get him, will prove to be every bit as good as Lacroix at possibly half the price we're selling Lacroix for. Sarr is no Olise but given what we paid for him and what we sold Olise for, his contributions so far have been more than acceptable and his value will have increased as well. The problems come when you buy players such as JSL and Johnson and realize that you've overpaid and in the case of the latter been sold a pup.

Completely agree. Remember the uproar. And how Lacroix was slated in his first couple of games/months.

Matsima, like Lacroiz has represented France throughout the youth groups. So clearly is a talented lad.

2 years younger, and if he has 2 good seasons with up, he'll also be a full international worth north of 50m

 

[TheBigToePunt]

Ultimately, we don't know what's happening behind the scenes with these people, or what they are like. We didn't know what the story was with Sam Johnson when we bought Henderson, for example, and we don't know what's been happening with Lacroix.

Perhaps he's a nightmare, kicking off left right and centre to make the move happen.

Perhaps he's happy to stay but the club wants to sell someone to increase the transfer budget, and they consider Lacroix easier to replace than the other key saleable assets.

Perhaps there has always been a gentleman's agreement that he can go if clubs of a certain level come in for him.

It seems highly unlikely in this case, but perhaps he's shagged another players wife. Or one of them has shagged his. Or shagged him. Christ knows.

We only see it from the outside.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Wan Bissaka, Guehi, Eze. I've given up moaning about us selling our best players.

Lacroix will be just another in the ever increasing list of top players we have sold. I will be amazed if we continue to avoid relegation at some stage if we keep selling quality and replacing them with cheaper alternatives. Sometimes it works out, but buying players like Nketiah, Johnson and Strand Larsen at inflated prices seems like a suicidal policy to me.
None of them are good enough and are on high wages. We are basically selling Lacroix to pay for Strand Larsen, which seems crazy.
The books might have to be balanced, but we can't keep buying donkeys.

 

[Willo]

Wan Bissaka, Guehi, Eze. I've given up moaning about us selling our best players.

Lacroix will be just another in the ever increasing list of top players we have sold. I will be amazed if we continue to avoid relegation at some stage if we keep selling quality and replacing them with cheaper alternatives. Sometimes it works out, but buying players like Nketiah, Johnson and Strand Larsen at inflated prices seems like a suicidal policy to me.
None of them are good enough and are on high wages. We are basically selling Lacroix to pay for Strand Larsen, which seems crazy.
The books might have to be balanced, but we can't keep buying donkeys.

I concur with the general thrust of these sentiments.

 

[BelfastEagle]

From what I have read Chelsea were originally indicating an offer of £52 million, so after a week of negotiations we have agreed just to accept their initial offer ? A masterclass in negotiating. He’s worth at least £70 million with 3 years on his contract……do Chelsea have something on Parrish ?

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

From what I have read Chelsea were originally indicating an offer of £52 million, so after a week of negotiations we have agreed just to accept their initial offer ? A masterclass in negotiating. He’s worth at least £70 million with 3 years on his contract……do Chelsea have something on Parrish ?

Yes. We need to sell. Chelsea know it.

 

[palace99]

A lot of people said the same when we let Andersen go and they were wrong as Lacroix proved to be the better player. I expect Matsima, assuming we do get him, will prove to be every bit as good as Lacroix at possibly half the price we're selling Lacroix for. Sarr is no Olise but given what we paid for him and what we sold Olise for, his contributions so far have been more than acceptable and his value will have increased as well. The problems come when you buy players such as JSL and Johnson and realize that you've overpaid and in the case of the latter been sold a pup.

That's the hope but clearly is a big ask and is not a guarantee.

Pino is clearly no Eze and the team is weaker for it.

Eventually these things catch up on you - the crazy gang Wimbledon being the best example as their business model dictated they sold 1 or 2 EVERY season and bought excellent replacements. However, eventually the replacements got sold and their league position suffered as a consequence, until they got relegated.

 

[mileend]

A while back I saw a journalist on Sky I think express their thoughts about Palace transfer strategy and posed the question as 'why do Palace keep getting rid of their best players - they got rid of Olise, Eze and Guehi, why?'

They seemed genuinely dumbfounded. But the answer is, and not frequently stressed on these type of threads, that the players wanted to go. Olise wanted to go. Eze wanted to go. Guehi wanted to go. And now Lacroix wants to go.

The clubs job is to try and get the best fee possible for them but them leaving is inevitable.

I am disappointed losing Lacroix, especially since he's gone to Chelsea who aren't even in Europe and they are a graveyard of many a career. The fee is low and we don't know if there are contract terms but it seems obvious that there isn't a more prestigious club willing to offer more than Chelsea so hard to get a higher fee.

Lacroix has been beyond great for us. It might be getting used to the new international environment but he did not look very good for France at the World Cup. Overall if he is the only departure I'd probably be ok with it. If we lose Wharton this summer I'll be seriously depressed.

Overall it's a shame to lose Max but much more important that we up our game on recruitment.

 

[doombear]

People have complained that Palace (or Chelsea) have used Van Hecke as the benchmark and consider Max as far better - but is he? or is it a case that the Dutch player played for our bitter South Coast rivals and, therefore, must be worse? He does have 16 caps for the Dutch and on the rare occasions I've seen him play, he looks decent enough.

My gripe with the fee (if it is £52m) is the difference in contract length remaining - V-H's was apparently 1 year and Max is 3. I would have hoped for more on that basis alone. Having said all that, we bought Max just 2 years ago for £18m including add-ons and have basically tripled our investment in pure transfer fee terms. That's not a bad result.