Player Watch Player Watch: Pedro Porro

[Yid-ol]

I am starting to think that they may want us to pay his release clause in order to get him. Why haven't the press reported this in the last ten minutes?

The press must know something we don't, and hope there is room for negotiation to pay less than the release clause and spread it out over the period of his contract rather than all in one?!

 

[Japhet]

More of a general point, but why do we struggle so much with moving players on??

Wealthier clubs don't want them and poorer clubs can't afford them.

 

[snakehipsspurs]

Or we have 3 RWB's already and need to move at least one of those out. I'm not saying that any of your options aren't also taking place but the fact we are already over stacked there is the main reason.

Understandable we need to clean the position up, as we’re overloaded there. From an outside perspective though. I just don’t get why we can’t do this first to help us through a month when we play Arsenal and City (twice).

It seems the likely solution is a loan for one of the current options anyway so it’s not like we’d be losing bargaining power by having Porro in and settling already. Only reason I can see it maybe making sense is Conte has expressed previously not wanting to have a bloated squad. But it all just seems a bit backwards thinking at the moment…

 

[KirstyG]

Wealthier clubs don't want them and poorer clubs can't afford them.

We need to start talking them up more lol don't let them know they're not good enough!

 

[sam1972]

If we trigger the clause, nothing is stopping Chelsea from doing the same and Porro picking them over us. Is that still on Levy?

I’d have no issue with that but while he dithers there’s more chance of that happening

 

[Trix]

Understandable we need to clean the position up, as we’re overloaded there. From an outside perspective though. I just don’t get why we can’t do this first to help us through a month when we play Arsenal and City (twice).

It seems the likely solution is a loan for one of the current options anyway so it’s not like we’d be losing bargaining power by having Porro in and settling already. Only reason I can see it maybe making sense is Conte has expressed previously not wanting to have a bloated squad. But it all just seems a bit backwards thinking at the moment…

I know I'm probably going to sound like a broken record here but it's just not that simple. they don't have to go on loan and will only go if they think it's in their best interests, and to a club and country that they'd like to go to. On top of that the club has to see some benefit in it financially or from a growth perspective and these all need to align. It's frustrating for all of us that we are in this position window after window due to poor transfer strategy in the past, but we are, and we are going to have to lump it in the short term at least.

 

[N'Obody]

I know I'm probably going to sound like a broken record here but it's just not that simple. they don't have to go on loan and will only go if they think it's in their best interests, and to a club and country that they'd like to go to. On top of that the club has to see some benefit in it financially or from a growth perspective and these all need to align. It's frustrating for all of us that we are in this position window after window due to poor transfer strategy in the past, but we are, and we are going to have to lump it in the short term at least.

100% this.

The main concern is if Conte is understanding of this situation as it stands and not going to kick up a fuss as there's no movement.

 

[snakehipsspurs]

I know I'm probably going to sound like a broken record here but it's just not that simple. they don't have to go on loan and will only go if they think it's in their best interests, and to a club and country that they'd like to go to. On top of that the club has to see some benefit in it financially or from a growth perspective and these all need to align. It's frustrating for all of us that we are in this position window after window due to poor transfer strategy in the past, but we are, and we are going to have to lump it in the short term at least.

Makes sense totally. You’re right my frustration is mainly tied up in the 3 years prior to Conte coming when we were so poor in the market and I think it’s understandable why a lot of our fans are now so quick to get annoyed. Such a shame that period is still causing us grief as we try to build again.

 

[TPdYID]

I know I'm probably going to sound like a broken record here but it's just not that simple. they don't have to go on loan and will only go if they think it's in their best interests, and to a club and country that they'd like to go to. On top of that the club has to see some benefit in it financially or from a growth perspective and these all need to align. It's frustrating for all of us that we are in this position window after window due to poor transfer strategy in the past, but we are, and we are going to have to lump it in the short term at least.

Certainly makes the Spence transfer even more infuriating (and bizarre). Hard enough shifting 2 unwanted (or undesirable) RB's in Royal & Doherty, before factoring in Spence who isn't fancied or played.

The more you think about it, the more the Spence transfer sounds like a complete an utter cock-up.

 

[brasil_spur]

I know I'm probably going to sound like a broken record here but it's just not that simple. they don't have to go on loan and will only go if they think it's in their best interests, and to a club and country that they'd like to go to. On top of that the club has to see some benefit in it financially or from a growth perspective and these all need to align. It's frustrating for all of us that we are in this position window after window due to poor transfer strategy in the past, but we are, and we are going to have to lump it in the short term at least.

I do remember there been talk of Emerson not being keen on the move to Spurs initially and that it took some convincing from our Brazilian contingent (which might have just been Lucas at the time) to get him onboard with the move. If we don't have a loan deal already lined up that he's happy with then of course the risk becomes that we have 3 RWBs for the second half of the season and Emersons value falls off a cliff as he'll get no game time.

This is however the reality of operating without a proper transfer strategy and by going with slightly risky, but might pay off, signings. Because when you do that a % of them just won't work out. What Spurs fail to realise is that if you go with riskier signings and you don't loan them first to test them out (and sometimes even if you do - Lo Celso), then you will end up winning on some (Kulusevski) and losing on others (Emerson). What you have to do is cut your loses on the ones that don't work out.

So we paid, in this example, about £65m for Kulu and Emerson. Kulu is now worth about £50-60m and Emerson is now worth about £10-15m. So you've ended up with about £60-75m worth of players for £65m. However if you had just bought 1 player at £65m then they might have worked out or might not. So this method reduced the risk overall of your transfer spend. However it does require to you cut your loses on those that don't work out. I think Levy simply doesn't understand that part - we should cut our loses now on Emerson, as there will be takers for £10m-15m (even if it's loan to buy) and then sign Porro. But I imagine we are trying to negotiate both a lower fee for Porro and a higher fee for Emerson all at the same time.

 

[Trix]

Certainly makes the Spence transfer even more infuriating (and bizarre). Hard enough shifting 2 unwanted (or undesirable) RB's in Royal & Doherty, before factoring in Spence who isn't fancied or played.

The more you think about it, the more the Spence transfer sounds like a complete an utter cock-up.

Yep, not sure if I said this 20 or 25 times at the time. It made zero sense.

 

[chrissivad]

Certainly makes the Spence transfer even more infuriating (and bizarre). Hard enough shifting 2 unwanted (or undesirable) RB's in Royal & Doherty, before factoring in Spence who isn't fancied or played.

The more you think about it, the more the Spence transfer sounds like a complete an utter cock-up.

I think it was just the timing
He seems an ideal player to have as a back up to someone like Porro.

But if we don't move for him, then we miss out on him like Eze at palace ( who we didn't move for because Jose didn't want him)

What we didn't/don't have is the player like Porro so he could come in and settle into the squad.

We seem to have made it too comfortable for players we want to sell. They still make squads, get game time in cups ect.

Anyway, hopefully Paratici has his team working hard finding club for them so we can bring in new players.

 

[Maxtremist]

I do remember there been talk of Emerson not being keen on the move to Spurs initially and that it took some convincing from our Brazilian contingent (which might have just been Lucas at the time) to get him onboard with the move. If we don't have a loan deal already lined up that he's happy with then of course the risk becomes that we have 3 RWBs for the second half of the season and Emersons value falls off a cliff as he'll get no game time.

This is however the reality of operating without a proper transfer strategy and by going with slightly risky, but might pay off, signings. Because when you do that a % of them just won't work out. What Spurs fail to realise is that if you go with riskier signings and you don't loan them first to test them out (and sometimes even if you do - Lo Celso), then you will end up winning on some (Kulusevski) and losing on others (Emerson). What you have to do is cut your loses on the ones that don't work out.

So we paid, in this example, about £65m for Kulu and Emerson. Kulu is now worth about £50-60m and Emerson is now worth about £10-15m. So you've ended up with about £60-75m worth of players for £65m. However if you had just bought 1 player at £65m then they might have worked out or might not. So this method reduced the risk overall of your transfer spend. However it does require to you cut your loses on those that don't work out. I think Levy simply doesn't understand that part - we should cut our loses now on Emerson, as there will be takers for £10m-15m (even if it's loan to buy) and then sign Porro. But I imagine we are trying to negotiate both a lower fee for Porro and a higher fee for Emerson all at the same time.

But has been touched on before, what if Emerson doesn't wanna join those clubs? What if those takers are of a lower standard or are in a place where Emerson doesn't want to move to?

Ultimately (and annoying) Emerson (or anyone for that matter) doesn't have to say yes to any transfer. Wolves may want him but Emerson may not fancy a trip there. Southampton may fancy Sess and he may not wanna leave London etc...

 

[Maxtremist]

Yep, not sure if I said this 20 or 25 times at the time. It made zero sense.

If feels like a Football Manager or Fifa transfer. On paper, the pieces are there. But when you factor in actual human beings and what people actually want... if Conte doesn't want him at all then there's no point making the move despite how 'good' he is or could be.

 

[Dannyspur]

More of a general point, but why do we struggle so much with moving players on??

Because the other teams have seen them play.

 

[rawhide]

A release clause payment period is between the two clubs. No different than a transfer.

It's the value a club places on a player to trigger the release of his contract.

It’s not though.

From what I understand, it’s an immediate payment that the player can make to buy themselves out of their contract. This means that we would have to pay Porro a lump sum of his release clause value plus an amount equivalent to the income tax (and any other taxes) he’d have to pay, to exercise this clause. He would then pay the release clause payment in full to the club.

 

[brasil_spur]

But has been touched on before, what if Emerson doesn't wanna join those clubs? What if those takers are of a lower standard or are in a place where Emerson doesn't want to move to?

Ultimately (and annoying) Emerson (or anyone for that matter) doesn't have to say yes to any transfer. Wolves may want him but Emerson may not fancy a trip there. Southampton may fancy Sess and he may not wanna leave London etc...

Yeh I mean I address that concern in literally my first line. But the likelihood of finding a club that he wants to join and who are willing to pay Levy prices for him is very slim. If we reduce the price then more clubs will be interested and there's more chance he'd be keen to join one.

 

[TheAmerican]

I know I'm probably going to sound like a broken record here but it's just not that simple. they don't have to go on loan and will only go if they think it's in their best interests, and to a club and country that they'd like to go to. On top of that the club has to see some benefit in it financially or from a growth perspective and these all need to align. It's frustrating for all of us that we are in this position window after window due to poor transfer strategy in the past, but we are, and we are going to have to lump it in the short term at least.

I would guess Spence would be the easiest to get out on loan, but the ideal scenario would be an Emerson sale.

 

[Maxtremist]

Yeh I mean I address that concern in literally my first line. But the likelihood of finding a club that he wants to join and who are willing to pay Levy prices for him is very slim. If we reduce the price then more clubs will be interested and there's more chance he'd be keen to join one.

More chance potentially, but still no guarantee. I mean we saw this summer we were practically given Ndombele away and he seemed willing to move and that took an age. So with someone like Royal who is potentially less willing? What can you do at that point?

 

[he is you know!]

I do remember there been talk of Emerson not being keen on the move to Spurs initially and that it took some convincing from our Brazilian contingent (which might have just been Lucas at the time) to get him onboard with the move. If we don't have a loan deal already lined up that he's happy with then of course the risk becomes that we have 3 RWBs for the second half of the season and Emersons value falls off a cliff as he'll get no game time.

This is however the reality of operating without a proper transfer strategy and by going with slightly risky, but might pay off, signings. Because when you do that a % of them just won't work out. What Spurs fail to realise is that if you go with riskier signings and you don't loan them first to test them out (and sometimes even if you do - Lo Celso), then you will end up winning on some (Kulusevski) and losing on others (Emerson). What you have to do is cut your loses on the ones that don't work out.

So we paid, in this example, about £65m for Kulu and Emerson. Kulu is now worth about £50-60m and Emerson is now worth about £10-15m. So you've ended up with about £60-75m worth of players for £65m. However if you had just bought 1 player at £65m then they might have worked out or might not. So this method reduced the risk overall of your transfer spend. However it does require to you cut your loses on those that don't work out. I think Levy simply doesn't understand that part - we should cut our loses now on Emerson, as there will be takers for £10m-15m (even if it's loan to buy) and then sign Porro. But I imagine we are trying to negotiate both a lower fee for Porro and a higher fee for Emerson all at the same time.

For clarification we haven't signed Deki yet, which should be €35m at the end of this season.

Not singling you out, but the Emerson fee has continually been misrepresented. It was €25m all in, £20m at the time.