- Apr 1, 2005
- 41,363
- 74,893
They’re not meant to get a fee.
Not sure i understand. They're not meant to get a fee for players over 18? They do and there are no rules against it. U18 they don't get a fee, as my post said.
They’re not meant to get a fee.
Not sure i understand. They're not meant to get a fee for players over 18? They do and there are no rules against it. U18 they don't get a fee, as my post said.
With all the hype I can’t see how it is any other way.It really doesn't work like that.
I don't think he's quality enough to be an inside forward
...And therefore not worth £50m????He's 17.
If Pulisic was availble and only for 50m I would bet the entire top 6 would bust a nut getting on planes to Dortmund. I bet if he went today he'd go for double that....And therefore not worth £50m????
Pulisic (19) is probably worth £50m
Yep, Gylfi went for nearly £50m.If Pulisic was availble and only for 50m I would bet the entire top 6 would bust a nut getting on planes to Dortmund. I bet if he went today he'd go for double that.
Maybe we shouldn't read to much into it but Fulham just signed a new left-back, on loan, from Southampton for the reminder of the season. Matt Targett.
Gylfi is good but not £50m worth. If we got Sess or Pulisic for £50m its good business as they and both potential stars!Yep, Gylfi went for nearly £50m.
Gylfi.
We're not getting Pulisic for 50m mate, no one is.Gylfi is good but not £50m worth. If we got Sess or Pulisic for £50m its good business as they and both potential stars!
There has been ITK from Herc a few months back saying Pulisic could be bought for a reasonable fee. How much that is I don’t know, but if he said that then it’s unlikely to be 70/80mil as we would be unlikely to pay that much for any player.We're not getting Pulisic for 50m mate, no one is.
And I very much doubt we'd spend that on a 17 year old who's never played outside the championship
There has been ITK from Herc a few months back saying Pulisic could be bought for a reasonable fee. How much that is I don’t know, but if he said that then it’s unlikely to be 70/80mil as we would be unlikely to pay that much for Anaheim player.
For 50m lolDortmund don’t have to sell. And I see no reason at all why they would sell one of the worlds best young talents when he hasn’t even reached peak value. Especially to a team like us who aren’t necessarily above them in the food chain. It makes absolutely no sense.
Dortmund don’t have to sell. And I see no reason at all why they would sell one of the worlds best young talents when he hasn’t even reached peak value. Especially to a team like us who aren’t necessarily above them in the food chain. It makes absolutely no sense.
Well his contract only runs til 2020 and there was some mention of a release clause being put in the extension he recently signed. Ether way, if he only has two and a half seasons left his price will be dropping slightly each window. BVB is not a particularly positive place to be at the moment so I can see him wanting out if there is an interesting enough offer put on the table. Regardless of this, I am just going off the Herc itk from a few months back which suggests we are very keen and there is a deal that could be done.Dortmund don’t have to sell. And I see no reason at all why they would sell one of the worlds best young talents when he hasn’t even reached peak value. Especially to a team like us who aren’t necessarily above them in the food chain. It makes absolutely no sense.
Not that I agree that Pulisic is attainable as it stands right now, but as I often hear when it comes to our clubs top players - every player has a price ...
It can't work one way and not the other.
As far as Dortmund go, are they that further up the food chain than Spurs? (this is a genuine question as I don't keep afoot of who is bigger in terms of money etc etc)