Player Watch Player Watch: Pedro Porro

H-SF said:

Porro, Edwards, Gil, Kulu, Devine, Skipp, Sarr, Bentancur, Udogie, Spence, Sess, Romero and Richarlison would be a pretty amazing pool of youth to build around regardless of whether or not Conte stays or goes.

Click to expand...

Nick-TopSpursMan said:

Perhaps the club think they can get Porro for less if they also sign Edwards?

We could sign Porro for a low fee but give up our sell on fee for Edwards. So for example we sign Porro for £10m but Edwards for £50m.

Ends up costing us £60m but means Sporting make a huge profit as they will barely have to give City any money (rumours they’re due 30% of any Porro sale if they don’t buy back).

Click to expand...

JUSTINSIGNAL said:

Release clauses are only binding to clubs in the same country IIRC.

For example, Chelsea are willing to pay Enzo Fernandes 106m release clause but Benfica still don't want to sell.

Click to expand...

H-SF said:

Porro, Edwards, Gil, Kulu, Devine, Skipp, Sarr, Bentancur, Udogie, Spence, Sess, Romero and Richarlison would be a pretty amazing pool of youth to build around regardless of whether or not Conte stays or goes.

Click to expand...

Flobadob said:

I have to be honest I would be a lot more ruthless with my approach than you would and do what’s best for the squad rather than an individual. We’ve got FA Cup, League and CL fixtures that we should be aiming to win and I felt at the start of the season we needed one more quality option on top of the 4 we have and that feeling has only increased with the fitness issues of Kulusevski and Richarlison. Those injuries have screwed us in the last couple of months, I’m not going to forget that just because Gil had a good game and has potential. If he’s meant to make it here he will need to become a better player than Edwards is right now regardless. I don’t see Edwards challenging Kulu for his spot but he’s an upgrade on Gil and able to play in 2 other positions. I see him as a different kind of option to what we have, someone purely creative with ability to take players out of the game with skill on a consistent basis as well as being a better option in terms of less drop off in quality to our first choice options

Click to expand...

Spursmatty87 said:

I’m sure it will have been asked before but is this guy home grown

Click to expand...

Nick-TopSpursMan said:

Perhaps we need to consider that Lucas may well not play again this season due to his tendon issue but he also doesn't want to leave until the summer, which means we need to keep Gil but also sign another attacker too so we have 6 players for the attacking options?

So the club see an opportunity to bring in a HG attacker that won't take up a squad space and won't cost much but does have big potential upsides and brings some skills we currently lack. We'd have Richarlison who can cover Son or Kane, Edwards and Gil who could cover both Kulsevski and if needed the left side too.

Then in the summer when Lucas leaves, we can look for a long term Son successor and perhaps at that point make a decision over potentially loaning out or selling Gil or Edwards depending on who we view as the better long term option for us?

So it fills an attacking hole we currently have without taking up a foreign space we can't afford to take up, gets us through until the summer when we can reasses our options.

And it potentially helps us secure the RWB option we want.

Click to expand...

Spursmatty87 said:

I’m sure it will have been asked before but is this guy home grown?

Click to expand...

Ghost Hardware said:

I think you may have misconstrued my point. Im not really thinking about whats best for Gil, more that we already have Gil and nobody other then Son on the left. Nobody, including myself, thinks that Gil is the finished product or that we should forgo challenging for competitions just to keep and nurture any young player. Believing Gil is a guaranteed future star is very risky just like brining in a player that has known attitude issues would be very risky and both of which could be detrimental towards the immediate future and success of the club. Personally i believe that we should only be looking at players that would be almost immediately challenging for a starting spot, but I understand that is near impossibly with our budget. But that would be the best thing for the squad as a whole and the way we compete on all fronts. Beyond that i think we also need to look at the age of the players which is why im saying that looking at our forward options a quality creative right footed attacker who can eventually take over from Son but is versatile enough to play across the three would make more sense. As really as much as Kulu's absence has been detrimental so has Son's abysmal form all season been detrimental.

Ether way, as i said previously, id be a lot more embracing of Edwards (he's obviously very skilful) if it wasn't such a risky move, which it most certainly is whichever way you look at it. And personally i think we shouldn't be bringing in players that have a large risky factor involved, whether that be injury history, attitude problems, question marks about adaptability etc.

Click to expand...

Yid-ol said:

Did we not do some like before with a high loan fee to reduce the fee so the club had to pay less for a sell on fee?

Buy Edwards for his release amount (minus 50%) for money back to us. Agree to loan Porro for the rest of the season or season and half for 20 million and agree 10 million fee at the end that we will pay?

Would help spread our funds out as well as not give city as much.

Click to expand...

Japhet said:

Did it with LoCelso so Betis didn't lose a chunk of change to PSG.

Click to expand...

Yid-ol said:

I knew we had done it, just couldn't think who! Thank you!

Click to expand...

Ghost Hardware said:

I think you may have misconstrued my point. Im not really thinking about whats best for Gil, more that we already have Gil and nobody other then Son on the left. Nobody, including myself, thinks that Gil is the finished product or that we should forgo challenging for competitions just to keep and nurture any young player. Believing Gil is a guaranteed future star is very risky just like brining in a player that has known attitude issues would be very risky and both of which could be detrimental towards the immediate future and success of the club. Personally i believe that we should only be looking at players that would be almost immediately challenging for a starting spot, but I understand that is near impossibly with our budget. But that would be the best thing for the squad as a whole and the way we compete on all fronts. Beyond that i think we also need to look at the age of the players which is why im saying that looking at our forward options a quality creative right footed attacker who can eventually take over from Son but is versatile enough to play across the three would make more sense. As really as much as Kulu's absence has been detrimental so has Son's abysmal form all season been detrimental.

Ether way, as i said previously, id be a lot more embracing of Edwards (he's obviously very skilful) if it wasn't such a risky move, which it most certainly is whichever way you look at it. And personally i think we shouldn't be bringing in players that have a large risky factor involved, whether that be injury history, attitude problems, question marks about adaptability etc.

Click to expand...

Yid-ol said:

Did we not do some like before with a high loan fee to reduce the fee so the club had to pay less for a sell on fee?

Buy Edwards for his release amount (minus 50%) for money back to us. Agree to loan Porro for the rest of the season or season and half for 20 million and agree 10 million fee at the end that we will pay?

Would help spread our funds out as well as not give city as much.

Click to expand...

Trix said:

Hardly worth putting a release clause that size in in the first place if it could only be triggered by Portuguese clubs. Couldn't see his agent agreeing to that because no one could trigger it.

Click to expand...

Trix said:

All depends on what the clause is with City. If they have a buy back option and that option gives them first refusal, they'd have to disclose any potential sale to City to allow them the opportunity to take up that first option. If you were City and heard that proposal and that they were going to accept what would you do?

Click to expand...