Djed Spence

TeaCider said:
They've just spent £17m on Nico Williams, who they have far less familiarity with, he's only played 484 minutes of Premier League football.

He'd barely played Championship football.
Click to expand...
Maybe they liked what they saw in Spence, but some other aspects they didn't like?

I've not seen much of Williams, but he's been back up to probably the best English Right Back/ Right Wing Back there is, when at Liverpool, not surprised he didn't get a look in, but was a starter for Fulham who absolutely battered the league.

It's still three seasons at one of the top two clubs in England, also got 20 Wales caps and played a few games in the Champions League, not bad for a 21 year old.

I'd expect he'd be a better defender than Spence (but I'm guessing here), and Forest are going to spend most of the season on the back foot.

I'd have him worth more than Spence, and would consider him less risk, but will be interesting to see how they both get on.
 
Andy_W said:
Maybe they liked what they saw in Spence, but some other aspects they didn't like?

I've not seen much of Williams, but he's been back up to probably the best English Right Back/ Right Wing Back there is, when at Liverpool, not surprised he didn't get a look in, but was a starter for Fulham who absolutely battered the league.

It's still three seasons at one of the top two clubs in England, also got 20 Wales caps and played a few games in the Champions League, not bad for a 21 year old.

I'd expect he'd be a better defender than Spence (but I'm guessing here), and Forest are going to spend most of the season on the back foot.

I'd have him worth more than Spence, and would consider him less risk, but will be interesting to see how they both get on.
Click to expand...

You don't even need a club to get a Wales cap, I wouldn't put much stock in that as a metric of quality.

He's almost as much of an unknown in the top flight as Spence.

He'll have cost £17m because he's at a much bigger club.
 
indeedido said:
If Spence has a stinker at Spurs they will not sell him for over £9m - your 75% figure, that's what I thought was strange.
I certainly wouldn't imagine that would be the case across a large sample of players bought in Spence like circumstances who then under-perform.

re Levy, he has made some appalling buys for massive money in recent years.
It feels like he has rinsed us here.
Click to expand...
Ah ok, I see what you mean. I can't see him having the opportunity to make a fool out of himself, if he's not doing great he probably just won't play against good side. If he has a stinker they might get back half, but if he does ok, but not great they might get their money back. Even with two years on the bench and they'll still get around 8-10m I would think?

I don't feel rinsed, we've got ~12.5m for a player who couldn't get in our side, who most of us would not swap for Jones, who Warnock didn't want, who Wilder didn't want to recall, who didn't want to be here etc etc.

I'm over the moon to be honest, if he does well, then great, we might get more money, if he doesn't then great, we rinsed them. My only worry is who we spend that £12.5m on, but that 12.5m on a striker could end up worth £100m to us. Keeping him for a year against his will could have dropped his value and meant us missing out on a Striker which we all know will absolutely screw us.
 
I think the fee will probably be undisclosed in the end. We will be happy, spurs will be happy and we will move on. People often have a biased opinion in things like this. I remember when the circus act Traore went to Wolves for £18m, people were saying we dropped a massive one as there was no sell on clause. They’re now looking to get rid of him for £10m. I have never seen a £12.5 -£20m player in Spence so its a good deal from me.
 
starplayer said:
I think the fee will probably be undisclosed in the end. We will be happy, spurs will be happy and we will move on. People often have a biased opinion in things like this. I remember when the circus act Traore went to Wolves for £18m, people were saying we dropped a massive one as there was no sell on clause. They’re now looking to get rid of him for £10m. I have never seen a £12.5 -£20m player in Spence so its a good deal from me.
Click to expand...

100%. If the "£15m" figure was never mentioned for Spence, most of us would have been more than happy with 10.
 
TeaCider said:
You don't even need a club to get a Wales cap, I wouldn't put much stock in that as a metric of quality.

He's almost as much of an unknown in the top flight as Spence.

He'll have cost £17m because he's at a much bigger club.
Click to expand...
Wales are still going to the World Cup, and have some pretty good players, but it's not so much the playing for Wales, it's also the experience at that level.

I think 500 minutes, 3 years at a prem club, training with the first team (under a great coach), 20 caps and half a dozen CL appearances is a lot more experience/ proven than Spence.

I agree coming from a bigger club sometimes attracts a premium though.
 
starplayer said:
I think the fee will probably be undisclosed in the end. We will be happy, spurs will be happy and we will move on. People often have a biased opinion in things like this. I remember when the circus act Traore went to Wolves for £18m, people were saying we dropped a massive one as there was no sell on clause. They’re now looking to get rid of him for £10m. I have never seen a £12.5 -£20m player in Spence so its a good deal from me.
Click to expand...
We couldn't insert a sell on clause with Traore, as they met his release clause. It was daft of us to have such a low release clause mind, as we took a gamble paying 9m for him, so should have expected a better fee if that gamble paid off. He might not have came without that clause mind.

Traore is out of contract in 2023, and wants to go to a top 4 club, so they will be forced to take less, rather than let him go for nothing. This is one of the problems with sell on clauses, they're crap if players run their contracts down. You would think Barcelona had to pay a loan fee for last year mind, as Wolves would have known he could come back after a year and only have a year left? Barcelona are skint, so couldn't pay the 30m buy option, even if they wanted to.

My guess is he didn't want to stick around back at Wolves when he spent half his time at right back, which we all know is a massive waste of his ability. He probably sees himself as better than them now also, after being at Barca.
 
Andy_W said:
It was daft of us to have such a low release clause mind, as we took a gamble paying 9m for him, so should have expected a better fee if that gamble paid off. He might not have came without that clause mind.
Click to expand...

I think the last point there is the key. If was the difference between him walking away and signing, then was in our interest to do it. It's in the player's interest to be able to get out of his contract on his terms as easily as possible.

There were 2 clauses I think? A sell on clause agreed with Villa, and a release clause agreed with Traore (or his agent).
 
I’d rather the fee was undisclosed, I can’t understand people thinking it’s wise to advertise that you have cash on the hip if you’re trying to negotiate to buy players!
A lot of naivety on here.
 
NoloBoro said:
I’d rather the fee was undisclosed, I can’t understand people thinking it’s wise to advertise that you have cash on the hip if you’re trying to negotiate to buy players!
A lot of naivety on here.
Click to expand...
Or you could tell them you got 12.5 million instead of everyone thinking, they just sold Spence, they must have 20 million to spend.
 
Frozen Horse said:
I think the last point there is the key. If was the difference between him walking away and signing, then was in our interest to do it. It's in the player's interest to be able to get out of his contract on his terms as easily as possible.

There were 2 clauses I think? A sell on clause agreed with Villa, and a release clause agreed with Traore (or his agent).
Click to expand...
Aye, seems like we took a fair risk to get him here, with that fee and the clauses, and it wasn't paying off very well until Pulis sorted him out, then he was incredible.

Just a shame that we couldn't get him here on a contract which could keep him for longer, or without the sell on clause and release fee, but I'm glad we had him.
 
NoloBoro said:
I’d rather the fee was undisclosed, I can’t understand people thinking it’s wise to advertise that you have cash on the hip if you’re trying to negotiate to buy players!
A lot of naivety on here.
Click to expand...
I think we need to know the fee, we've all be arguing over it for the last 6 months :LOL:

Everyone knows we will have got 12-15m, they might as well just say what it is.

Some of that cash might have already been spent, or we could at least claim that, it's not like we didn't know if he was going or not, we've been window shopping with that cash for months.
 
NoloBoro said:
I’d rather the fee was undisclosed, I can’t understand people thinking it’s wise to advertise that you have cash on the hip if you’re trying to negotiate to buy players!
A lot of naivety on here.
Click to expand...

FAir enough, but those who think we always get rinsed in the transfer market will just assume we got rinsed again.

They might think that whatever the fee disclosed may be though: if we got £20 million, it must mean he was worth £25...
 
Frozen Horse said:
FAir enough, but those who think we always get rinsed in the transfer market will just assume we got rinsed again.

They might think that whatever the fee disclosed may be though: if we got £20 million, it must mean he was worth £25...
Click to expand...
I get what you mean, but I’d rather clubs we are trying to buy players from or negotiate loan deals with were in the dark about the amount of any fees received.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top