Alex Scott - £25m to Bournemouth- Confirmed

[Leveller]

Quite happy if the price tag puts them off. No reason to sell him cheap.

[REDOXO]

Money has only just started to move courtesy of The Saudis. 
 

Once some really big deals get done then we will see, who has the real interest. 
 

I pretty sure there are a couple of clubs that haven’t been talked about in the press watching to see who makes a move. Who on earth predicted the European cup finalists as a possible destination? 
 

 

[Ska Junkie]

So that's Wolves and Milan who are saying the price WILL come down. Stick to your guns City!

£25M or do one and we'll keep AS.

[tin]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Dean Jones suggests that clubs are not rushing to meet the price tag.

Wolves certainly don't think £25m is right according to this, other clubs and the window time will tell. In fact things move quickly so again this could be outdated within a week.

https://www.footballfancast.com/wolverhampton-wanderers-transfer-news-alex-scott/

He’s right. I bumped into Gilhespy, who I used to play in the same team with, yesterday and asked him about Scotty, to which he said: “It’s all gone quiet on that front at the moment”. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, Ska Junkie said:

So that's Wolves and Milan who are saying the price WILL come down. Stick to your guns City!

£25M or do one and we'll keep AS.

Inter but yes. Part of me thinks we won't but then I see Balogun reportedly in the market for £35m and think Scott at £25m is good if not a bit cheap!

2 hours ago, tin said:

He’s right. I bumped into Gilhespy, who I used to play in the same team with, yesterday and asked him about Scotty, to which he said: “It’s all gone quiet on that front at the moment”. 

Bit who blinks first? I wonder if Scott himself would be happy to stay another year just jn case or is he seeing a move as inevitable. Only he and his entourage will know that I guess.

[JoeAman08]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Inter but yes. Part of me thinks we won't but then I see Balogun reportedly in the market for £35m and think Scott at £25m is good if not a bit cheap!

Bit who blinks first? I wonder if Scott himself would be happy to stay another year just jn case or is he seeing a move as inevitable. Only he and his entourage will know that I guess.

Idk why you keep mentioning Balogun and Scott in the same breath. Balogun is coming off a 21 goal season in the French top flight for a team that overachieved and finished 4th. He is also now playing at a senior international level. Arsenal wanting 35m for him doesn’t make Alex Scott at 25m cheap. 

[Jimbo123]

£25m is ridiculous. It’ll be closer to £20m.

We could invest 1/5th of that in Scott Twine and get a player who currently is better.

[Mr Popodopolous]

51 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

Idk why you keep mentioning Balogun and Scott in the same breath. Balogun is coming off a 21 goal season in the French top flight for a team that overachieved and finished 4th. He is also now playing at a senior international level. Arsenal wanting 35m for him doesn’t make Alex Scott at 25m cheap. 

Looking at age, trajectory, position. Trying to compare different fees, age position similar stages and of career although strikers v midfielders? What percentage higher does a striker cost.

Maybe it's a pointless exercise.

[Davefevs]

25 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Maybe it's a pointless exercise.

The reverse argument works too.  Very few transfers can be compared like for like, all manner of little nuances why two “like” players might be valued completely differently.

Not sure why it creates so much fuss on here.

If Nige and Steve and Phil want to value Alex at £25m that’s up to them.  That might be purely because they think nobody will pay it.

We will find out at some point.

It shouldn’t stop discussion though, but valuations are rarely so black and white.

[George Rs]

2 hours ago, Jimbo123 said:

£25m is ridiculous. It’ll be closer to £20m.

We could invest 1/5th of that in Scott Twine and get a player who currently is better.

Implying it’ll be closer to 20m suggest there would be a 2-3 mil difference. Don’t see how that makes one a fair price and one ridiculous.

[W-S-M Seagull]

2 hours ago, Jimbo123 said:

£25m is ridiculous. It’ll be closer to £20m.

We could invest 1/5th of that in Scott Twine and get a player who currently is better.

Scott Twine isn't going to go on and play at the very highest level of the game. 25 million is reasonable for Scott.

[BarnzFM]

Pretty obvious that £25 million is the initial negotiating price, it’ll come down for the initial fee but probably be made up in potential add ons, can see him going for around £18m with a decent sell on clause and other appearance related fees on top

[JoeAman08]

9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Looking at age, trajectory, position. Trying to compare different fees, age position similar stages and of career although strikers v midfielders? What percentage higher does a striker cost.

Maybe it's a pointless exercise.

I don’t think it is pointless. Or even if it is, it is fun to do. Just don’t think the player you were comparing to AS was worthwhile for discussion. Sounding harsher than I am intending btw. 

 

8 hours ago, Davefevs said:

The reverse argument works too.  Very few transfers can be compared like for like, all manner of little nuances why two “like” players might be valued completely differently.

Not sure why it creates so much fuss on here.

If Nige and Steve and Phil want to value Alex at £25m that’s up to them.  That might be purely because they think nobody will pay it.

We will find out at some point.

It shouldn’t stop discussion though, but valuations are rarely so black and white.

True. Not many similar to Scott anyway really. Most his age and level are at bigger clubs. So hard to put a value anyway imo. So no reason we shouldn’t set the market for it. 
 

For championship midfielders he is somewhere inbetween Kalvin Phillips and James Maddison. Phillips went up with Leeds. Maddison went for 22m plus add ons or around that figure. Of course that was 5 years ago or so. 

[Jimbo123]

7 hours ago, George Rs said:

Implying it’ll be closer to 20m suggest there would be a 2-3 mil difference. Don’t see how that makes one a fair price and one ridiculous.

I don’t blame for asking for £25m but we won’t get it. If that means he stays here then so be it, but I think it’d be beneficial for the club to sell him and invest in other areas.

7 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Scott Twine isn't going to go on and play at the very highest level of the game. 25 million is reasonable for Scott.

Yes I agree, but he is currently a better player imo. Scott will have a much better career though.

[Super]

16 minutes ago, Jimbo123 said:

I don’t blame for asking for £25m but we won’t get it. If that means he stays here then so be it, but I think it’d be beneficial for the club to sell him and invest in other areas.

Yes I agree, but he is currently a better player imo. Scott will have a much better career though.

I think that's hard to predict. He should have a very good career yes.

[Nogbad the Bad]

I thought the club had made it extremely clear that we value Scott at £25m.

That's not a starting price for discussion, make a lower offer and we'll meet you half way, it's our minimum expected price.

We're Bristol City, seen as a middling Championship club, so interested clubs might feel we have to take what they offer.

On the contrary we don't have to sell and if Scott is to go it should only be for our top price - it's unlikely we'll have another saleable asset like him for many years, if ever.

He'll be a significant loss to City, potentially a huge asset to the buyers, and we know there is widespread interest.

City must hold their nerve, stick to their guns, and ensure we are duly compensated.

 

 

[Super]

Just now, Nogbad the Bad said:

I thought the club had made it extremely clear that we value Scott at £25m.

That's not a starting price for discussion, make a lower offer and we'll meet you half way, it's our minimum expected price.

We're Bristol City, seen as a middling Championship club, so interested clubs might feel we have to take what they offer.

On the contrary we don't have to sell and if Scott is to go it should only be for our top price - it's unlikely we'll have another saleable asset like him for many years, if ever.

He'll be a significant loss to City, potentially a huge asset to the buyers, and we know there is widespread interest.

City must hold their nerve, stick to their guns, and ensure we are duly compensated.

 

 

Great post.

[Cidre Monita]

31 minutes ago, Jimbo123 said:

I don’t blame for asking for £25m but we won’t get it. If that means he stays here then so be it, but I think it’d be beneficial for the club to sell him and invest in other areas.

Yes I agree, but he is currently a better player imo. Scott will have a much better career though.

What do you base your evaulation of Twine on? 

[Jimbo123]

Just now, Psychopomp said:

What do you base your evaulation of Twine on? 

From what I've seen of him.

Twine scored more in his last season in League One just from free kicks than Alex Scott has in his career.

I think Scott's going to have a great career, but anyone who's watched Scott and Twine will acknowledge Twine currently is a better footballer.

[KegCity]

 

17 minutes ago, Jimbo123 said:

From what I've seen of him.

Twine scored more in his last season in League One just from free kicks than Alex Scott has in his career.

I think Scott's going to have a great career, but anyone who's watched Scott and Twine will acknowledge Twine currently is a better footballer.

[Jimbo123]

1 minute ago, KegCity said:

 

Have you watched Scott Twine then?

Same applies to Jed Wallace, John Swift etc. All currently better footballers at this level, Scott will go onto do more than all though I think.

[Selred]

2 minutes ago, Jimbo123 said:

Have you watched Scott Twine then?

Same applies to Jed Wallace, John Swift etc. All currently better footballers at this level, Scott will go onto do more than all though I think.

All very different players to Scott.

[Super]

26 minutes ago, Jimbo123 said:

From what I've seen of him.

Twine scored more in his last season in League One just from free kicks than Alex Scott has in his career.

I think Scott's going to have a great career, but anyone who's watched Scott and Twine will acknowledge Twine currently is a better footballer.

Better footballer because he's scored more free kicks in a lower league? Behave.

[Jimbo123]

4 minutes ago, Selred said:

All very different players to Scott.

For sure, I think their qualities would be better served in a team like ours though.

2 minutes ago, Super said:

Better footballer because he's scored more free kicks in a lower league? Behave.

Yes, that is of course the only reason.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, BarnzFM said:

Pretty obvious that £25 million is the initial negotiating price, it’ll come down for the initial fee but probably be made up in potential add ons, can see him going for around £18m with a decent sell on clause and other appearance related fees on top

Not unless we’ve stated that price, because as Noggers say, we don’t want to sell.

20 minutes ago, Jimbo123 said:

Have you watched Scott Twine then?

Same applies to Jed Wallace, John Swift etc. All currently better footballers at this level, Scott will go onto do more than all though I think.

Scored more goals does not necessarily mean better player!

There’s a part of me that wonders whether in hindsight the reason we never went for Twine was because we knew we had an Alex Scott, and signing Twine might’ve stopped Alex’s pathway.  Of course it might’ve been missed opportunity, but these are the discussions had with every signing.  Pathway doesn’t always win, but it does play a part in the debate, especially for someone as obviously good as Alex.

From Twine’s role as MK, he might also be seen as a luxury player, where he fitted nicely into their super-high possession set-up…hence why injury apart he was a good fit for Kompany’s Burnley.

1 hour ago, JoeAman08 said:

I don’t think it is pointless. Or even if it is, it is fun to do

Yeah, what I meant was the bits where posters are getting angry with one another, insisting their rationale is better than someone else’s, someone else “hasn’t got a clue…”, etc.

[robin_unreliant]

5 minutes ago, Super said:

Better footballer because he's scored more free kicks in a lower league? Behave.

I don't think there is any point in debating who is a better footballer. It's more about what the team needs right now. What you can say is, if you are a club say that wants to avoid prem relegation, which player will help me achieve that short term objective. The likes of Bournemouth and West Ham are gonna have one eye on making sure they stay up. 

Would you rather spend £25m on a 19 year old with potential or a player that has proven they can win you games now. For instance Bowen and Maddison who were very much players who could win you a game were a good bet for a lower prem team. Whether Scott is I think is not quite so clear cut.

Similarly, could we get closer to Top 6 if we traded Scott for a couple of older players who might give us the extra push we need to get to Top 6 in the next two seasons. Dunno if Twine is that but there are probably players out there that would.

[Jimbo123]

Just now, Davefevs said:

Not unless we’ve stated that price, because as Noggers say, we don’t want to sell.

Scored more goals does not necessarily mean better player!

There’s a part of me that wonders whether in hindsight the reason we never went for Twine was because we knew we had an Alex Scott, and signing Twine might’ve stopped Alex’s pathway.  Of course it might’ve been missed opportunity, but these are the discussions had with every signing.  Pathway doesn’t always win, but it does play a part in the debate, especially for someone as obviously good as Alex.

From Twine’s role as MK, he might also be seen as a luxury player, where he fitted nicely into their super-high possession set-up…hence why injury apart he was a good fit for Kompany’s Burnley.

Yeah, what I meant was the bits where posters are getting angry with one another, insisting their rationale is better than someone else’s, someone else “hasn’t got a clue…”, etc.

Of course not, especially not midfielders, but I think Twine would be more effective in our pursuit of the top six next season than Scott would be. And he'd cost about 1/5th of the price AS will go for.

[RedRoss]

https://www.kumb.com/story.php?id=138063

According to KUMB sources, Wolves have made an opening offer of £15million with a further £5million in add-ons - while Tottenham are understood to have tabled a bid worth £18million.

 

 

[cotswoldred2]

4 minutes ago, RedRoss said:

https://www.kumb.com/story.php?id=138063

According to KUMB sources, Wolves have made an opening offer of £15million with a further £5million in add-ons - while Tottenham are understood to have tabled a bid worth £18million.

 

 

This seems to be just lazy speculation...to date we have seen nothing from a credible reporting agency that can be trusted. Dig hard enough you can always find rubbish.

[cotswoldred2]

1 hour ago, Super said:

Better footballer because he's scored more free kicks in a lower league? Behave.

Well what do base a footballer apparently worth £25m on then?

Apart from being good on the eye.