08 Jul 2017 19:46:49
Evening Eds,
Solanke, whilst training at Melwood, still hasn't been confirmed officially despite having his interviews and photo shoot. Is this due to negotiations continuing over a fee with Chelsea and not yet been sent to tribunal panel?
Just curious.
Thanks for your time.
{Ed002's Note - No, Liverpool are not interested in negotiating with Chelsea and have asked to go to tribunal.
08 Jul 2017 19:58:02
Ah, Ok. Seems an odd delay in confirming his arrival then, given he has done the Media work for it. Ed, thanks as always for your time and response. Have a good evening.
{Ed002's Note - I would not read anything in to it.}
08 Jul 2017 20:19:41
Pisses me off that we aren't even looking to try and find some compromise with Chelsea over this.
{Ed002's Note - I imagine Liverpool think that they will get a cheaper deal going the route they are - they got burned last time they tied this. They expect to pay £3M for Solanke at tribunal.}
08 Jul 2017 20:57:41
I'm very concerned that we don't seem to be learning when we do stuff wrong.
Make mistakes, do stuff wrong, fair enough! It's stupid but not awful.
Carrying on making the same mistakes and doing things wrong over and over is just idiotic or arrogant or both.
I'm sick of it now. Just do things properly!
08 Jul 2017 21:13:12
There's surely nothing wrong going to a tribunal?
We value Solankes worth differently to Chelsea, that's why we're going to a tribunal to decide his value.
{Ed002's Note - No, that is fine - but most clubs can find a suitable agreement. I suspect Liverpool are wrong in their assessment that they will pay around £2.5M to £3M for Solanke - but we will see.}
08 Jul 2017 21:36:54
That might be right. I've only read what the media had been saying and that is that LFC value him at 3 mill and Chelsea at 10 mill which I think is excessive. I think around 5 mill would be fair.
08 Jul 2017 22:06:55
Why £5m? Why £10m?
He's played like 17 minutes of prem football in his career.
{Ed002's Note - That is not what it is about nor the reason for the payment Max.}
08 Jul 2017 22:25:49
Think we fans are going overboard and also the Ed's.
The whole PL transfer is a business and there is no moral ground.
All the media reports are also pure speculation.
There is one more where Arsenal has agreed personal terms with Lemar (AS Monaco) and are yet to contact AS Monaco. Do we really believe this?
So please stop saying we don't learn and make this sound over the board.
Every team/ manager/ club keep doing this all the time. Just that we are underlimelight doesn't change the fact that other clubs don't do it.
Cheers.
{Ed002's Note - Arsenal has been speaking to Monaco.}
08 Jul 2017 22:30:53
The tribunal will find Solanke to be worth in excess of £5m.
08 Jul 2017 22:53:44
Hi Ed sorry to pull you up but you have advised Liverpool expect to pay £3 million and then later on that you expect they will end up paying £2.5 to £3 million but are wrong in their assessment. Was there a typo somewhere as those figures suggest the assessment to be correct?
{Ed002's Note - Perhaps you should read what I wrote again.}
08 Jul 2017 22:54:49
solanke should be worth less than 2 mil.
08 Jul 2017 23:40:14
Since he was part of the English U20 team that won the world cup recently,
Would that increase his value at the tribunal?
He was actually named player of rhe tournament.
09 Jul 2017 00:14:23
I think Chelsea's valuation of Solanke suddenly leaped to £10 million when he won Player of the Tournament at the Under 20 World Cup.
Chelsea fans weren't happy that the Club had let him go, so acquiring a larger fee for him would help to pacify them.
09 Jul 2017 01:05:23
so some of you would be much happier if we just pay 10m to avoid go to tribunal?
{Ed002's Note - I am not sure anyone has said that and Chelsea would be open to negotiation and settlement at a lower figure.}
09 Jul 2017 01:08:12
It gets subjective and the price will be just whatever the buyer's are prepared to pay I suppose but if you think about it if Ibe can go for 15 million plus then sure these solanki is worth about the same.
09 Jul 2017 01:58:47
We had an agreement with Solanke before he won player of the tournament so that shouldn't really be a factor. If he had missed 5 penalties at the Confederation Cup, should we be expecting a discount?
09 Jul 2017 03:51:44
Seems fashionable on this site to lash us out of it on anything transfer related. end of the day he's played no minutes of top flight football and why shudnt we go to tribunal, we won't pay the stupid money Chelsea think there due. are we liverpool supporters or not!
{Ed001's Note - what stupid money? You have no idea how much Chelsea were even asking, so why make an idiotic comment like that?}
09 Jul 2017 07:34:37
I think the PFCC will have a lot of factors to consider regarding the player in order to decide the fee. In the case of Danny Ings, a notable factor was that Tottenham were willing to pay 12 mil for him. Danny had a Premier League season under his belt before the transfer and even made his senior English debut soon after joining us. As such, I wouldn't expect Solanke to command a record-breaking fee even though our valuation of him may be off the mark. A few days ago, I was analyzing the current squad just to see which players wouldn't be registered for the Champions League 25-man squad and if there's room for incoming transfers, and I'm pretty sure that I saw Solanke's name and picture on the official LFC website in the first team list but it's not there anymore. Don't know what that implies but I guess the club is just treading carefully now.
09 Jul 2017 07:44:08
What you pay for is not how much playing time but his age and development by Chelsea, as what happened with Ings and Burnley. Think we ended up paying about 8 million for him through a tribunal where Liverpool only wanted to pay about 3-5 million if my memory serves me correctly.
09 Jul 2017 08:01:27
Simple question.
Answered by the Ed.
So why does everyone feel the need to use this as an excuse to complain about the club.
Move on guys and stop moaning.
09 Jul 2017 04:09:10
Correct me I feel I'm wrong.
Ibe still had a contract running, Solanke is a free agent .
Fee is required because he's still underage.
IMO Lpool is correct going tribunal. Anything from £3m-£9m is a bonus, if it turn out £10m or more so be it.
Btw Eds, like to know has any tribunal ever exceeded £10m figure?
Tia.
{Ed002's Note - I have no idea why you think Ibe is relevant to this. It is the same situation as Ings. Burnley were owed for his development and Liverpool would not negotiate and they ended up paying Burnley £6.5M with £1.5M in add ons. No the fee has never exceeded £10M and I very much doubt Liverpool would see £9M (more than Chelsea want) as a bonus. Liverpool are expecting to pay £2.5M to £3M - that is considerably less than what Chelsea want and they, if approached, would be open to a settlement.}
09 Jul 2017 07:10:54
Think the 6 week old daughter and lack of sleep is catching up with me Ed I must have slipped an "and" in your sentence somehow. Makes sense re reading this morning! Apologies my bad!
{Ed002's Note - No problem. If it is any consolation, she will leave to go to college at 18 and return when you are financially crippled at 22.}
09 Jul 2017 07:28:10
Hi Ed (or maybe anyone can answer this), "what do you think they're smoking over there at LFC? "
Maybe I need some of those they are having.
09 Jul 2017 08:31:45
The players value has nothing to do with it, friends. We could get him for 5 mil today and sell him for 35mil in 2 years. you never know. The compensation is for player's development at the academy, by his home club. Seems fair enough, considering what we're getting. He could become better than Sturridge, given the right guidance and enough minutes on the pitch. In my opinion, we already have the best business of this summer with this lad. Yeah, you read me right. Not Salah, or VVD, Keita or the other Keita. I hope his performances in the coming years will vindicate my faith in him!
Ed2 is a Chelsea supporter, if memory serves. I'm sure he won't be too pleased with this. Sorry mate :-)
P. S. Thanks for everything you do for this site every day ED2!
{Ed002's Note - I really don't care about him at all, nor the money. Chelsea were not going to be held to ransom and let his contract run down. I should point out that the fee is variable at tribunal and takes account of a lot more than his simple "development". I think the point is that it is very unlikely that he will move for the £2.5M to £3M that Liverpool are expecting and, like Ings, refusing to negotiate at all will see them get their fingers burned.}
09 Jul 2017 09:10:56
My point on this was that we tapped players up in the past. That was wrong. We were reprimanded and we should've learnt our lesson and moved on, everyone makes mistakes and is stupid from time to time. But after that we carried on doing it over and over and over until it was splattered all over the press and we missed out on one of our main targets all whilst being made to look like arrogant idiots.
As well as the above we tried to low ball Burnley when we bought Ings. Made then a crazy low offer and decided to head to tribunal to sort it out instead. At the tribunal we ended up paying more than Burnley said they would take for him because we had no clue how it really worked. Now it would appear we are just doing the same over Solanke, low balling Chelsea and being arrogant enough to think the tribunal will definitely go in our favour.
Given the insane prices this summer I could well see Solanke being assessed at around £10mill. (Sorry for the prices about to follow Eds, they are taken from the best source i know but might be false) . Swansea paid £11mill for a 28yr old midfielder who has never had an international cap (even at youth level) and played for a decidedly average Las Palmas team. Newcastle just paid £6mill for Christian Atsu who never once played for Chelsea, couldn't get into the Bournemouth team when he was there and barely played for Everton when he was there, has done nothing whatsoever to show he will be a decent premier league player, now or in the future.
How much is a tribunal going to cost? I'm sure the FA aren't doing it for free? Plus the fees for the lawyers or "experts" to plead their case.
Why not just made a more reasonable offer and see if Chelsea would compromise? Instead of just arrogantly thinking that we can pay whatever we want.
09 Jul 2017 19:48:24
Thing is though, in any form of dispute resolution, failing to even attempt to negotiate is bad form and may draw an adverse inference.