• 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

Ryan Sessegnon

Fulham are doing a Betis and being somewhat unreasonable in their valuation.

Its been said all summer Levy would pay £25m for him, Fulham want £35m, madness...

I would imagine our top offer would be that £25m + Onomah.

Onomah is basically a freebie from our POV, squad fodder we need to move on anyway.

Though Id fully expect us to want buy back and sell on options with him.
 
Gutter Boy said:
Steven Sessegnon isn't a first team player for them. He's only made 2 or 3 league cup appearances.

He's the

s-l225.jpg
Click to expand...

He is tipped to break through this season, and has been used in pre-season I believe.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Fulham are doing a Betis and being somewhat unreasonable in their valuation.

Its been said all summer Levy would pay £25m for him, Fulham want £35m, madness...

I would imagine our top offer would be that £25m + Onomah.

Onomah is basically a freebie from our POV, squad fodder we need to move on anyway.

Though Id fully expect us to want buy back and sell on options with him.
Click to expand...

What is an unreasonable price, when it's completely a sellers' market?

It's why Hazard's £80m needs to be our benchmark for Eriksen.
 
Gutter Boy said:
What is an unreasonable price, when it's completely a sellers' market?

It's why Hazard's £80m needs to be our benchmark for Eriksen.
Click to expand...

I understand the nature of the market. But, IMO, both Fulham and Betis are gambling in a big way, they are putting their prices beyond reason - to the degree they risk the deal altogether.

I dont expect a bargain, but it has to be set reasonably enough that clubs might actually meet it...

Gutter Boy said:
Sure. But he's a Marsh, Georgiou or Eyoma, rather than a Ryan Sessegnon
Click to expand...

I love it when you do this. We both know, you know naff all about the player, but youre still willing to speak in absolutes about him.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
I love it when you do this. We both know, you know naff all about the player, but youre still willing to speak in absolutes about him.
Click to expand...

Academy player rather than a first teamer was all I meant

I do find the idea that we'd sign someone we wouldn't otherwise look at twice, just because he's the brother of someone we want, a bit preposterous. The Leeds Ray Wallace thing was perfection and that was 25 years ago.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Is that why though? As opposed to him being a similarly significant talent and well worth bringing in on his own merit?
Click to expand...

He's never been standout though, like Ryan, as he? I'm sure there's half a dozen comparable players in every academy in every EPL and championship club.

Eyoma seemingly kept him out of the RB spot in the England U17 side at the 2017 world cup
 
Well, unlike you, I dont claim to know. Same as I dont just assume our interest in him is because we like his brother.

I tend to think we buy players on their own merits, so if we have genuine interest in him - it would be for footballing reasons.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Well, unlike you, I dont claim to know. Same as I dont just assume our interest in him is because we like his brother.

I tend to think we buy players on their own merits, so if we have genuine interest in him - it would be for footballing reasons.
Click to expand...

My point is more that I don't think we have any interest in the brother - its just some brick that some depart on twitter made up weeks ago, to establish a unique angle, that people keep repeating.
 
Gutter Boy said:
My point is more that I don't think we have any interest in the brother - its just some brick that some retread on twitter made up weeks ago, to establish a unique angle, that people keep repeating.
Click to expand...

Why didnt you say that then?

Its entirely possible. Though to my memory we have been linked with both since we were linked with Ryan, so Ive been inclined to think there is genuine interest.

Though Ive also been inclined to think its in a more "if we can get him it could be worth a punt" way, than in anyway essential to our plans.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
I understand the nature of the market. But, IMO, both Fulham and Betis are gambling in a big way, they are putting their prices beyond reason - to the degree they risk the deal altogether.
Click to expand...
Its not really a risk on Fulhams part (unless he decides to move abroad) as I imagine Tribunal will set his value £15-£20 plus a sell on fee next year. They will get a fair bit for him this year or next.
 
Most recent I can find:

Liverpool and Fulham will be going to a tribunal to set a fee for Harvey Elliott and the Cottagers are aiming for a record fee in excess of £10 million for the 16-year-old.

And regarding Ings:
the Reds had to pay £6.5m up front, a further £1.5m in add-ons and 20% of any sell-on profit. As he left for Southampton this summer for around £19m, that sell-on would equate to another £2.2m, making it just over £10m all told if the £1.5m add-ons were paid.

And Solanke:
that went to tribunal too, the clubs eventually reached an agreement over the fee, thought to be around £6m plus a sell-on, which again would have come into effect when Solanke traded Liverpool for Bournemouth.


While Fulham might want £15-20m for Sessegnon, I think the precedent suggests that they will get decidedly less.

Similarly I highly doubt they will get £10m for Elliott.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Most recent I can find:

Liverpool and Fulham will be going to a tribunal to set a fee for Harvey Elliott and the Cottagers are aiming for a record fee in excess of £10 million for the 16-year-old.

And regarding Ings:
the Reds had to pay £6.5m up front, a further £1.5m in add-ons and 20% of any sell-on profit. As he left for Southampton this summer for around £19m, that sell-on would equate to another £2.2m, making it just over £10m all told if the £1.5m add-ons were paid.

And Solanke:
that went to tribunal too, the clubs eventually reached an agreement over the fee, thought to be around £6m plus a sell-on, which again would have come into effect when Solanke traded Liverpool for Bournemouth.


While Fulham might want £15-20m for Sessegnon, I think the precedent suggests that they will get decidedly less.

Similarly I highly doubt they will get £10m for Elliott.
Click to expand...

Max would be £10m by tribunal as it’s potential not achievements were paying for
 
Gazza Dazzla said:
Sounds about right. Mkt value for Onomah is probably 10m based on the likes of Solanke’s transfer fees. So that would value Sessegnon at 30m, for a player with 1 year left on his contract.

That actually seems quite big for Sessegnon if Eriksen’s value is 40-50m with a year left on his contract. Eriksen easily has another 5 years in him at the top level, which is a good chunk of time in modern football. RS is just potential at the moment.
Click to expand...
Difference is that in a year's time Fulham would still receive a 'development fee' for an out of contract Sessegnon. I would be surprised if that fee was set at less than £10 million and wouldn't be surprised if it was as high as £15 million. Whereas Eriksen is truly 'free' in that same year's time. Sessegnon is also a English club trained player, which seems to be becoming more and more valuable for clubs when building their squads.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Most recent I can find:

Liverpool and Fulham will be going to a tribunal to set a fee for Harvey Elliott and the Cottagers are aiming for a record fee in excess of £10 million for the 16-year-old.

And regarding Ings:
the Reds had to pay £6.5m up front, a further £1.5m in add-ons and 20% of any sell-on profit. As he left for Southampton this summer for around £19m, that sell-on would equate to another £2.2m, making it just over £10m all told if the £1.5m add-ons were paid.

And Solanke:
that went to tribunal too, the clubs eventually reached an agreement over the fee, thought to be around £6m plus a sell-on, which again would have come into effect when Solanke traded Liverpool for Bournemouth.


While Fulham might want £15-20m for Sessegnon, I think the precedent suggests that they will get decidedly less.

Similarly I highly doubt they will get £10m for Elliott.
Click to expand...

But with transfer fees inflating tribunals should take that into account I'd have thought?
 
P.D. said:
But with transfer fees inflating tribunals should take that into account I'd have thought?
Click to expand...

Who knows?

All I can say is that, IMO, the deals that have gone through tribunal have all ended up at a far lower cost than anticipated.

As Bedfordspurs says, its about potential, and who knows how a tribunal really judges that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back