fascinating how they're saying 20m is derisory, and talk of it being double that in today's marketplace. i seem to remember they didn't think 3m was too derisory, just two years ago..
They are all right. This is a great point made by one of them... "It'd need a hefty chunk of the £50 million they pocketed for David Luiz I'd say".
It's another world out there isn't it ! They moan about 20 million and we moan about taking another billy-no-name on loan.
I can remember some guy from Merseyside moaning they had signed some "nomark" for £2 million on talksport................still they no best, as longas we get our 20% though!!
But we havent got 2 million for him. If Everton sell for 30 mill our sell on is 25% so we get 7.5 mill that makes it we got 9.5 million for him not 2 mill
What's more, I seem to recall at the time Stones left that he was something like the second or third highest transfer fee ever for a teenage (or maybe it was for an 18 year old) right back, when we thought the fee was £3m. The record was only a couple of million higher than that. Ergo, if we get another few million, it will mean that, at the time we sold him it was for a world record transfer fee for a teenage (or 18 year old!) right back. Not bad for a team at the wrong end of the second flight and a player who'd only played 25 games. And yet we'll still feel that we were robbed!
If they sell JS and we get say 15% of 32M then i think it completely changes this from a bad deal at the initial sale to a great deal right now.