Olise being sold for £8m?

[tidus_mi2]

Swift is definitely better than Olise right now but not by much, he's 6 years older than him but that's where the value for Olise will come in, he could well have the potential to be a very good top flight player whereas Swift will probably amount to a lower Prem side at most, unfortunately hindered by his injuries.

[Snowflake Royal]

Swift is certainly more rounded as a midfielder. Not convinced he's better. There's a lot of absence makes the heart grow fonder with him.

[morganb]

EFL Young Player of the Season!

[Sutekh]

And to support those who think the release clause is a load of cobblers some media stories are now saying he’s valued at £30m by Reading

Personally if Reading could get a quarter of that value up front then I’d say sell, esp. if any deal struck gets him loaned back next season.

[tidus_mi2]

Frankly with all the interest, I don't think the fact he has 1 year on his contract will have too big of an effect on his final value. If we're sensible and take the big cash that should be on offer it should put us in a much better position with FFP.

[Snowflake Royal]

I'm calling a prediction here and now.

Reading value him at mega bucks.
Covid has depressed the market to the point we won't get an offer above £12m max, probably single millions
Yongge will tell them to go jump and refuse to sell
Olise will have a mixed season and leave on a free to a lower club than originally offered good money

[Chairman Mao]

ugh

that^^^

id sell him for 10m

[morganb]

After this news -

Eberechi Eze: Crystal Palace player potentially out injured until new year with Achilles injury

Might make Palace more likely to make an offer for our Michael as we all know that Eze is a poor man's Ollse

[WestYorksRoyal]

It's widely accepted that this summer will be a buyer's market, and potential suitors won't have loads of cash to spare. We'd do well to get £12m or so, although I guess Birmingham got a big fee for Bellingham in similar circumstances.

[Snowflake Royal]

I'm not so sure it is a buyer's market. Lots of clubs are struggling financially, but how many will decide it's better to keep the player and risk the finances than get 50% value.

And we know Dai would rather push us into armageddon than accept a fee for a 'star' player

[Royalwaster]

I'm not so sure it is a buyer's market. Lots of clubs are struggling financially, but how many will decide it's better to keep the player and risk the finances than get 50% value.

And we know Dai would rather push us into armageddon than accept a fee for a 'star' player

Not sure you understand the concept of a 'buyer's market' ... or at least your response doesn't make sense.

[Snowflake Royal]

I'm not so sure it is a buyer's market. Lots of clubs are struggling financially, but how many will decide it's better to keep the player and risk the finances than get 50% value.

And we know Dai would rather push us into armageddon than accept a fee for a 'star' player

Not sure you understand the concept of a 'buyer's market' ... or at least your response doesn't make sense.

Buyer's market - buyers are in the driving seat and have control.

I'm not convinced that's true. I think clubs may refuse to sell at low balled offers and take the risk instead because what's offered isn't good enough value.

[JimmytheJim]

I'm not so sure it is a buyer's market. Lots of clubs are struggling financially, but how many will decide it's better to keep the player and risk the finances than get 50% value.

And we know Dai would rather push us into armageddon than accept a fee for a 'star' player

Not sure you understand the concept of a 'buyer's market' ... or at least your response doesn't make sense.

Buyer's market - buyers are in the driving seat and have control.

I'm not convinced that's true. I think clubs may refuse to sell at low balled offers and take the risk instead because what's offered isn't good enough value.

This is a bizarre post.

[Royalwaster]

Not sure you understand the concept of a 'buyer's market' ... or at least your response doesn't make sense.

Buyer's market - buyers are in the driving seat and have control.

I'm not convinced that's true. I think clubs may refuse to sell at low balled offers and take the risk instead because what's offered isn't good enough value.

This is a bizarre post.

Thanks I'm glad you also see it that way ... I was wondering whether I was just being too thick to understand his logic

[Snowball]

A "buyers' market" suggests that due to current circumstances sellers MUST sell
and therefore buyers can low-ball.

But we already know that (unless you're in a fire-sale) a low-ball offer might
make you reconsider and hang on to your assets.

So it's a two-way thing. Buyer's may get greedy but sellers might think
it's better to hang on to the asset.

And let's not forget that if indeed prices are down buy (say 30%) RFC
will benefit if it goes into the market as a buyer.

But going back to the first paragraph. We are all presuming that Fair Play
pressure is going to force us to sell our best assets. If it becomes public
knowledge that the league says we have to ship out, cut wages etc (IF)
then obviously our disadvantage is increased.

The last couple of seasons, so far at RDG we haven't seen forced-sales and asset-stripping. In fact the opposite

[Brogue]

agree with RoyalWaster and jimmy. players are only worth what someone is prepared to pay. If the buying clubs have oxf*rd all money then players will be going for cheaper. Buyers market.

[Snowball]

:| agree with RoyalWaster and jimmy. players are only worth what someone is prepared to pay. If the buying clubs have oxf*rd all money then players will be going for cheaper. Buyers market.

or NOT being sold because it's not worth selling too cheap.


Put it simply. Would we sell Olise for £50?

NO


So we might have "hoped for £15-20 Million, and we MIGHT accept £10M
but I seriously doubt we would sell Olise for £5-6 Million.

If we were offered less than £10Million it might pay to hang-on and go again for top six and maybe promotion

[WestYorksRoyal]

If you have Erling Haaland on your books it may be a sellers market, as he is a generational talent. Olise isn't that good. Clubs are cash strapped, and if we hold our for £20m I expect they will simply walk away and look for a better value alternative.

Our decision is what price we can accept and when we're willing to walk away, with consideration to his remaining contract, our current FFP issues, the difficulty of making new signings and the risk of points deductions if we don't take in any transfer revenue. I'd put that figure at £12m or so, but I suspect the owners will have a higher number. That's up to them, but I hope someone is highlighting the risks to them.

[Hound]

:| agree with RoyalWaster and jimmy. players are only worth what someone is prepared to pay. If the buying clubs have oxf*rd all money then players will be going for cheaper. Buyers market.

or NOT being sold because it's not worth selling too cheap.


Put it simply. Would we sell Olise for £50?

NO


So we might have "hoped for £15-20 Million, and we MIGHT accept £10M
but I seriously doubt we would sell Olise for £5-6 Million.

If we were offered less than £10Million it might pay to hang-on and go again for top six and maybe promotion

but the buyers will still have the choice of paying the minimum we'd accept where it might not be the case in other circumstances

its still massively in favour of the buying clubs - esp those in the Prem who haven't been hit too hard from COVID. They can trawl the champ for players and pay fees that'd prob not have been accepted 18 months ago. And with the likes of Olise - if they don't want to pay it fine - they'll try and nab him for free (or low comp) next season.

[Hound]

no COVID and we'd prob hold out for 15m. As things stand, 10m and a sell on would prob be good business