• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Matthijs De Ligt

nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
The interesting thing with the massively cut price, is that its still twice what we paid for him.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you have to look at it in the context of what it would cost to sign a similar quality replacement, not what you paid for him. If prices had remained at 2015 or 2016 levels, it wouldn't be that bad a deal, because we could have signed someone pretty good for that money. But at 2018 prices, it will put us in the hole.
 
Will it?

Alderweireld was a known quantity at the time we got him, him being this good came as no surprise, and yet we got him for £12m.

John Stones was a relatively unknown quantity, and City spent £50m on him, and while I dont think he has been a disaster I also think its fair to say the move hasnt been a roaring success.

Point being, money isnt really indicative of anything, is it?
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Will it?

Alderweireld was a known quantity at the time we got him, him being this good came as no surprise, and yet we got him for £12m.

John Stones was a relatively unknown quantity, and City spent £50m on him, and while I dont think he has been a disaster I also think its fair to say the move hasnt been a roaring success.

Point being, money isnt really indicative of anything, is it?
Click to expand...
Money isn't indicative of quality, but my response was to what you said that, even if we sold Toby at his release clause we would still make a profit on him. If we can find another Toby at an equivalent price that we paid for him (pro-rate for 2019 prices), then yes, we will be making a nice profit on him. But players of Toby's quality and at the cut-rate price we got him for don't come around every year. So we will have to spend big to get someone of similar quality. So we will really not be making any profit. That was my point.

As for how known of a quantity he was at the time we signed him, yes, everyone knew he was a solid player, but only us and Soton were bidding for him. So I do not think that many teams considered him to be the potential megastar he ended up becoming, else Atleti wouldn't have sold him for just the £12m they ended up selling him for as more bigger teams would be bidding for him. And Stones was not an unknown quantity. He already had 2 years of PL experience. It's not like he came from League 2 Rotherham.
 
alekaras said:
Money isn't indicative of quality, but my response was to what you said that, even if we sold Toby at his release clause we would still make a profit on him. If we can find another Toby at an equivalent price that we paid for him (pro-rate for 2019 prices), then yes, we will be making a nice profit on him. But players of Toby's quality and at the cut-rate price we got him for don't come around every year. So we will have to spend big to get someone of similar quality. So we will really not be making any profit. That was my point.

As for how known of a quantity he was at the time we signed him, yes, everyone knew he was a solid player, but only us and Soton were bidding for him. So I do not think that many teams considered him to be the potential megastar he ended up becoming, else Atleti wouldn't have sold him for just the £12m they ended up selling him for as more bigger teams would be bidding for him. And Stones was not an unknown quantity. He already had 2 years of PL experience. It's not like he came from League 2 Rotherham.
Click to expand...

Well, if you want to talk about profit I would wager Alderweireld is currently a £0 asset in the books, or as good as, and so all the money will be profit. 200% of the original (now amortised) investment!

The point is though - you (or I) simply do not know how we will replace him. Who knows, maybe we entice someone in on a free who does a great job? Maybe £15m gets us a gem just about to break out just as we sign them. Maybe we spent an utter fortune. We simply cannot tell - and this is the point.

I can see your logic, but transfers dont work that way - there are far too many varibles and factors in these things.

At the time we bought Alderweireld it was odd there wasnt other clubs in for him. Maybe they didnt need CBs, maybe they didnt scout well, maybe they didnt rate him - but it could be a multitude of reasons. I remember clearly though the definite feeling we got away with it - so I really dont judge his ability on who was trying to sign him.


Stones was a rookie who showed potential and no more, Id suggest "unknown quantity" is entirely appropriate description. City paid £50m for hope, not a player that has realised their ability and can reliably play at whatever level. They didnt know what he would become, how he would develop, IF he would develop...

Alderweireld was already a very solid and classy defender who had just had a fantastic season leading the SCBC defence. Chalk and cheese, hence the comparison.
 
Alderweireld had a clause in his contract at AM that allowed him to be signed for that price.tbf
 
billyiddo said:
Alderweireld had a clause in his contract at AM that allowed him to be signed for that price.tbf
Click to expand...

But this is my point - so many moving parts, clauses, complications, competitors (or not), environmental factors... so many parts to it you just literally cannot say "Itll cost more to replace him than it cost to buy him".

Yes, logically it makes some sense, but it just doesnt stand necessarily true.

As I recall, in the case of Alderweireld, didnt a minor bit of carelessness mean SCBC missed the opportunity to sign him for that money? They had first refusal or something but only to a specific date? I dont remember exactly, but the point is that its all so random logic need not apply!
 
You give yourself a better chance of replacing him if you have more money in return and if you can pick up a cheap replacement then all the better as the money left over can be used elsewhere to strengthen too.
 
alekaras said:
Hmm, we sign de Ligt and offer Juan on a one-year loan. Would give him some good game time.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1006472468486414336
Click to expand...

Ajax wouldn't take that, nor should they. They still have some pride, at least - and that deal would be awful for them. Sell Tottenham your best defender and then develop one of their young players before returning him to Spurs at no cost when the loan ends.
 
DubaiSpur said:
Ajax wouldn't take that, nor should they. They still have some pride, at least - and that deal would be awful for them. Sell Tottenham your best defender and then develop one of their young players before returning him to Spurs at no cost when the loan ends.
Click to expand...

Alternatively Ajax have another CB who isn't quite ready but given another season in their reserves/youth team would be ready next year. Ajax are a machine when it comes to developing players and that deal might actually suit them by not having to immediately buy a replacement for De Ligt.
 
DE LIGT TO JUVENTUS?

Juventus have eyed a move for Ajax defender Matthijs De Ligt, according to Tuttosport.

The move is understood to hinge on the future of Medhi Benatia, who has been linked with a move to Arsenal.

If the Serie A champions fail to sign De Ligt, Tuttosport claim they could make a move for Atletico Madrid centre-back Diego Godin.

The Uruguayan’s contract at the Wanda Metropolitano runs out in a year and may be available for £15m, with Atletico reportedly willing to cash in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back