Lacroix

doombear said:
getting 60m euros for Lacroix doesn't look bad against the above backdrop at all.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
Every club, below the Champions league last 8, is a selling club. And its all ok if the money we get is good.

Best of luck to Rizla, and lets hope our new arrivals are better than some of the signings of the last 18 months.
 
We can debate whether 60 million euros is a good or bad deal for a player who has Premier League experience and recently featured in the French squad. For my part it may be a reasonable deal if we also have a percentage of any future sale. Who knows what the background is. Personally I trust Parish to get the best deal he can.
What’s not up for debate is the failure to secure a replacement before finalising the transfer. Presumably we expected Augsburg to agree a reasonable compromise but now we’ve walked away and any other club knows we’re getting desperate unless Sage is planning on switching to a back four.
 
I'm as disappointed as anyone at selling Lacroix and the fee that we got for him.

Blaming Matt Hobbs is pure nonsense. Parish did the deal and ultimately has the final say in both inward and outward fees.

But let's be realistic. As I wrote on here before, there is a black hole in the finances ( not £22 billion thankfully ) after signing Johnson and JSL and not getting the expected fee for Mateta after his move broke down.

At least we haven't sold on the last day of the window as we nearly did with Guehi last summer - which incidentally ultimately ' cost ' the club another £25m.

It looks like Palace are shopping in the £30m region for a replacement. These days that either buys you potential or a player like Chalobah whose re-sale value at the end of a three year deal would be significantly reduced.

I have to trust that this gap will be plugged, if it isn't then we've done it to ourselves.

My other concern is the players returning from the World Cup. We all saw what happened two years ago post Euros....took us nine games ( I think ) to get a win....
 
On the rare occasions I get a bit despondent with Palace, I have to remind myself that those running the club do actually know what they’re doing - their track record proves it. Selling any player for a well publicised “big fee” BEFORE we’ve secured a replacement (or ideally 2) is one such occasion!

Max leaves a huge gap in our 1st team, both his ability and leadership on the pitch but also all the other qualities he brings to the day to day around the club and his teammates. Big shoes to fill - but what’s to say we can’t find an able replacement…….or that someone within the squad might step up?
 
Last edited:
PatrickA said:
Never say 'never', but I don't believe this - unless an Elliot Anderson style bid is forthcoming
Click to expand...
www.bbc.co.uk

Chelsea fined £10m for breaching agent rules

Chelsea are fined £10m by the Football Association for breaching rules relating to payments to agents between 2009 and 2022.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

Given the reference to a two window ban on registering new players, the rumour of Chelsea coming for Wharton now (rather than see him go to one of the other big boys next Summer) may have some legs. How desperate they are to sign him now should be reflected in the fee, if the rumour is true.
 
Linford said:
Jacquet for 63 million and he's an unproven 21 year old who we were looking at as an understudy to Max a year ago.

How much does that put Lacroix at then? 100m?
Click to expand...
I think you should consider that there was no whisper of other top clubs being in for him. Arsenal have Saliba out for months; City have lost Stones; Liverpool have a declining van Dijk. Konate has departed and Gomez is always injured. Not a peep from any of them
 
pssguy said:
I think you should consider that there was no whisper of other top clubs being in for him. Arsenal have Saliba out for months; City have lost Stones; Liverpool have a declining van Dijk. Konate has departed and Gomez is always injured. Not a peep from any of them
Click to expand...
So we take the first and only offer? That's just poor strategy.
 
As I read the article through a bit further it appeared to be trying to sell Chalobah to Crystal Palace not buying the injured Wharton. If they are going to fork out £100m they will want to know he is fit otherwise he might fail the medical.

There have been moans on here about the £51m fee for Lacroix. It may be lower than expected because Palace insisted on an all up front payment. Parish has done that in the past.
 
Norbury Old Git said:
As I read the article through a bit further it appeared to be trying to sell Chalobah to Crystal Palace not buying the injured Wharton. If they are going to fork out £100m they will want to know he is fit otherwise he might fail the medical.

There have been moans on here about the £51m fee for Lacroix. It may be lower than expected because Palace insisted on an all up front payment. Parish has done that in the past.
Click to expand...
The fee for Lacroix or any player has some defining points, the player wants to leave or the club wants to sell a player. If a player has said he wants to leave, the negotiating power is taken away from the seller and he has to get the best price possible or you have an unhappy player. If a player doesn't particularly want to leave the negotiating power is with the seller to get highest price possible or the player stays.

Parish is shrewd, he would of got the best fee available, which allows time before deadline day to find a replacement.
 
Linford said:
So we take the first and only offer? That's just poor strategy.
Click to expand...
Well, neither of us know the full details. Maybe Lacroix saw Guehi quintupling his salary and said to Parish, I wont kick up a fuss if you sell me quick to Chelsea. I doubt he would be regarded as one of the top 10 CB's in the league
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top