Shea Charles

This lad looks like exactly what we’ve needed for a long time. Big, strong, shields the ball, moves the ball on nicely, can tackle, would be perfect for us in Europe. Reminds me of that Souza we were linked to a couple of seasons back.

I wouldn’t be against a LTB with MOR going for £20m ish and if we don’t take up the option we get more cash next year. We’d still need a proper 10 to replace MOR.

 

Would be a good signing 12m they paid from the city academy, he’s a proper DM physical and a good football brain I would have thought out of our reach, but a loan to buy would be great ; I would imagine the option to buy would be north of 10m. Nothing wrong with this as a piece of business he has a far bigger profile/pedigree than your typical “project” . As others have rightly said wouldn’t be a MOR replacement .

 

About time we turned the tables and took one of their promising players off them.

 

I don’t get how a loan to buy would be part of a deal for Matt. If they are looking to move him on already it sounds like their manager doesn’t fancy him.

As I saw elsewhere the fact they paid 8 figures for a Man City reserve just says to me up the bid for Matt. In addition they paid around £20m for Lavia a few seasons ago and sold him for over £50m and although a talent is he better than O’Riley?

 

Well for me, I don’t see us paying £12m for Shea without us getting a proper look at him. So you could possibly structure the deal as £20m for MOR, with the option as we take either Shea or £12m.

Probably suits all parties, MOR goes to them at a lower price than they wish to fork out initially, meaning they can also spend more strengthening their squad elsewhere. It would probably help their FFP. This gives them a fighting chance and I bet one of the add ons is if they stay in the EPL. It means we probably don’t have to pay as much to MK Dons as a sell on, we only pay on the £20m not £30m, plus we get a good look at Shea before we decide to drop a stack on a player.

Honestly think this is the type of deal that suits us perfectly.

 

Reports last week were saying Southampton aren't loaded and was unlikely they could match our valuation.

It may be a case of them getting Oriley for cheaper while we also do a loan to buy for a £12m player where the buy fee is maybe only £6-7m which in all likleyhood is the maximum we would spend on a transfer.

They are also allowing us loan to buy option which they may not give other clubs and would be wanting a direct sale.

It's maybe not specifically linked to the deal but there could be a few favours flung in from both sides.

 

Loan to buy I would be happy with. Strange how they paid 12 million for him last season and now he's suddenly not wanted? Decent player

 

I really can't see us buying him, considering how much they paid for him. I'd expect it to be a loan, if we go for him at all. Even if we do end up with an option it'll be for an amount that we'll not pay.

I'm not normally in favour of loans, but in a case like this I'd be ok with it, a type of player we don't normally play with so it'd be interesting to see how it alters the dynamic of the team without risking being stuck with them if the experiment fails, meanwhile scout for a realistic alternative for when the loan ends if it's a success. A loan for a LB I'd be much less happy with.

 

Would you ever * up! Its draining reading your constant negative *.

 

In isolation, I think he looks really good. Confused as to why they would be looking to move him on in any case? 20 years old, 30 appearances for a promotion winning team.... seems strange to me. I get they would want Matt O'Riley and they can't afford the full £30m fee but I wouldn't have expected them to move on a young, upcoming talent like this lad.

If they can't afford the fee, use a player as leverage to get that player. Don't try and double sting us with a low valuation of our player and give us an option to buy for your player which seems slightly more expensive.

For me, it has to be £17m-£20m plus Shea Charles. Not an option. * that. You want O'Riley, you can pay us the going rate for him. If they rate Charles at £12m, and we find that fair, you can give £18m cash up front, plus Shea Charles.

Our valuation shouldn't drop just because they can't afford to buy him. He's in a long term contract and he seems happy enough during games. No danger will his attitude change, in my opinion.

 

Yes from me but moot.

Southampton won't loan him to us unless they get their cheap mitts on MoR.

But again, disappointing. Another loan. You'd think we were skint. It's obvious we don't have the scouting network to make substantial offers for permanent players, and the club are, as usual, "playing it safe".

 

I don’t have a problem as long as it’s a loan with an option to buy. Would obviously be a decent sized fee so would be smart to try before you buy essentially. Also if there is an option to buy next season then you would imagine it wouldn’t take too much money off MORs price tag this season.

if that’s not the case then hard pass.

 

Why not do an option where we get to chose Shea or another £12m in cash in 12 months time?

 

That's fine, provided we get £25m-£30m for him in cash. We need to get the fee we want for our player.

If they want to use Charles as a makeweight in the deal, then it needs to be part of the deal for O'Riley. Which is taken into what WE want as a club, not what Southampton WANT to do a deal at.

I wouldn't be against loaning in Charles with an option at £10m-£12m... he looks good. Not to the detriment of our players value, though.

 

Why do people keep saying he signed for £12m, it was closer to £10m.

Still a decent sized fee for someone with his lack of experience, but City are well known to fleece other teams for younger 'talents' who have no chance of making it there.

 

Him + £25m and you’ve got a deal for O’Riley

 

I don’t think anyone is saying LTB to the detriment of our players value. We can make it a win-win here if it’s done smart.

Put simply, 3 options we could do: (skip to the ‘Simply’ paragraph if you don’t care about how the figures are worked out)

1) Sell for £30m. Profit is (£30m - £1.5m) less sell on 20% MK Dons £5.7m = £22.8m but no extra outfield player.

2) a. Sell for £20m, option for either LTB Shea or take another £12m cash where we take Shea. Profit is (£20m - £1.5m) less 20% sell on MK Dons £3.7m = £14.8m plus Shea (if Shea is worth £12m, but our difference in profit is £22.8m - £14.8m = £8m, we’ve essentially paid £8m for Shea).

b. Sell for £20m, option for either LTB Shea or take another £12m cash, where we take £12m cash. Profit is (£20m + £12m - £1.5m) less 20% sell on MK Dons £6.1m = £24.4m.

Simply:

1) Someone pays £30m we don’t care.

2) a. Southhampton pay £20m this year and Shea on loan for the season, then we get Shea on a permanent.

Or

2) b. Southampton pay £20m this year, plus we get Shea on loan for the season and £12m next year.

How Southampton win is they get MOR now for £20m. While we win by getting either £32m or a £32m deal for £28m.

 

For me, it doesn't need to be that complicated.

A team either provides us with £30m or a deal worth around £30m. If they value Charles at £12m, then they can give us £18m plus Charles. That would also depend on the value we see in Charles and I don't think we would value him at £12m, which further complicates the deal.

Giving us the option to buy Charles for £12m, after being short changed by £10m, isn't something we should even entertain.

 

Saints fans I know saying they'd be surprised if they let him go on a permanent deal or LTB..

 

You aren’t getting short changed though if you have an option to take Shea or £12m. It’s not that complicated.