Jump to content
IGNORED

SIGNED : Tomas Kalas - 4 Year deal


Ska Junkie

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, phantom said:

I wonder if he will be OK staying in one place for so long !!

DD-COMPOSITE-Tomas-Kalas-v2.jpg

Or you could believe that he actually wants to settle down and put down some roots and be stable somewhere?  Instead of being a part of a club who only want to loan you out,  and with each season you are no nearer getting into their reserves never mind their first team. He now has a club who want him and that should make him feel even more motivated than ever as every time he plays he can really feel part of any success, as we are his club now. How good is that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TBW said:

Anyone else think it would've been considerably less if not for the fact we got Dasilva so cheaply? Seems like Chelsea bumped the price up to make up for the loss on Jay.

According to this it was an eyebrow-raising sum.....https://www.chelsea-news.co/2019/07/chelsea-bank-eyebrow-raising-fee-in-exchange-for-tomas-kalas/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TBW said:

Exactly my point. Who else was willing to pay that much for him? Definitely feels like more of a £5m for each one than £8m and £2m.

We got both for £9m but I agree DaSilva would've been closer to £4m had we not agreed the fee last summer so it's a good deal for the pair of them. There was also serious interest in Kalas from other clubs around Europe apparently, so we don't know for sure that no-one else was willing to pay a good price for him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Inside Right said:

Same fee for 26yo Kalas as we got for 29yo Flint. And prices have gone up since last year. Looks very fair to me.

Difference is Flint was wanted by both teams involved in the deal. Kalas was only wanted by us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TBW said:

Difference is Flint was wanted by both teams involved in the deal. Kalas was only wanted by us.

I doubt if it was as one sided as that. I don’t think Chelsea were desperate to offload him, he’s probably been earning them loan fees for all his career and wouldn’t have been short of offers for a loan deal or permanent signing from other clubs. No other club interested in him, no I don’t think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, TBW said:

Difference is Flint was wanted by both teams involved in the deal. Kalas was only wanted by us.

 

1 hour ago, Kid in the Riot said:

We got both for £9m but I agree DaSilva would've been closer to £4m had we not agreed the fee last summer so it's a good deal for the pair of them. There was also serious interest in Kalas from other clubs around Europe apparently, so we don't know for sure that no-one else was willing to pay a good price for him. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, TBW said:

Difference is Flint was wanted by both teams involved in the deal. Kalas was only wanted by us.

And you cannot underestimate flints goal contribution, think kalas is the better defender but he wont get us upwards of 8 goals a season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pillred said:

And you cannot underestimate flints goal contribution, think kalas is the better defender but he wont get us upwards of 8 goals a season.

But if his presence means we concede 8 fewer the result is the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sturny said:

About what? There's oceans of sources quoting £8m. There is no debate. 

The media often get it wrong and then various articles publish the same figure. There's often contingent payments embedded within a deal and that's where the confusion often lies. For example, Kalas may be £7m upfront with a further £1m if we get promoted. I am inclined to believe KITR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sturny said:

About what? There's oceans of sources quoting £8m. There is no debate. 

Don't mistake volumes of people repeating things they read elsewhere for them actually being correct.  KITR hasn't been wrong yet that I've noticed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Coppello said:

The media often get it wrong and then various articles publish the same figure. There's often contingent payments embedded within a deal and that's where the confusion often lies. For example, Kalas may be £7m upfront with a further £1m if we get promoted. I am inclined to believe KITR.

Yes there may, but there's plenty of reliable sources such as Skysports, Bristol post journalist and even Chelsea news articles who have all said it's £8m. There is no confusion...   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sturny said:

Yes there may, but there's plenty of reliable sources such as Skysports, Bristol post journalist and even Chelsea news articles who have all said it's £8m. There is no confusion...   

I've worked on a high profile transfer over the past couple of weeks and all media sources have got the transfer fee wrong including the players wages. It does happen a lot more than you'd imagine! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Coppello said:

I've worked on a high profile transfer over the past couple of weeks and all media sources have got the transfer fee wrong including the players wages. It does happen a lot more than you'd imagine! 

There's far more people who have inside knowledge saying its £8m. Think I'm gonna believe them.. 

It's a weak and lazy argument to say "They get it wrong every now and again" 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TBW said:

Anyone else think it would've been considerably less if not for the fact we got Dasilva so cheaply? Seems like Chelsea bumped the price up to make up for the loss on Jay.

Whichever way you look at it they’re both good deals. And if our relationship with Chelsea continues to be as advantageous as it has recently, a few quid or so here or there makes very little difference I’d guess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

What's a million between friends :dunno:

Haha, we couldn't say that 10 years ago. Great grow in terms of money. Your comment says everything about our future which is top 10 EPL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Sturny said:

Yes there may, but there's plenty of reliable sources such as Skysports, Bristol post journalist and even Chelsea news articles who have all said it's £8m. There is no confusion...   

And all of them have probably got it from the same ONE source. If a few on here said 12 million the Post would report it was a "reported 12 million fee". I would rather believe KITR on here than any media outlet who get most of their stuff from regurgitated, generally made up nonsense from Social Media.

Still each to their own! Jay Dasilva and Kalas combined for 9 or 10 million is superb business regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...