Murillo | Page 3 | Vital Football

Murillo

finbar70 said:
I’m applying logic by measuring players who are worse and what they went for

Forest should demand that figure based on what those 2 went for
Click to expand...
There are two problems with that. Firstly how do you define whether a player is better or worse? And secondly have you taken into account the state of the current market?

We can demand what we like but if clubs won’t pay it, we have a problem.
 
Basha73 said:
There are two problems with that. Firstly how do you define whether a player is better or worse? And secondly have you taken into account the state of the current market?

We can demand what we like but if clubs won’t pay it, we have a problem.
Click to expand...
Indeed, and we're not the size of club that can mothball a player a la Napoli and Osimhen.

If any of the big boys come calling, and place an offer £50m+ the club allow Murillo to leave (not that they could, or would, stand in his way...given he's made it clear he wants out)
 
Basha73 said:
There are two problems with that. Firstly how do you define whether a player is better or worse? And secondly have you taken into account the state of the current market?

We can demand what we like but if clubs won’t pay it, we have a problem.
Click to expand...
Also you can't calibrate price by super expensive 'flops'.
 
BlackGold said:
Means an unhappy Murillo.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. We have an appreciating asset under contract, and if anyone wants him they pay our price.

EM has already shown he can get good prices for support players like Vlach, Mangala, and Niakhate to support our investment. This may well see us accept say a 45/50m for Elanga if clubs who want Murillo or MGW do not pay the 80m+ valuations which we should place upon them.

When I quoted the Chelsea fees for Fernandez and Caciedo, I get that Chelsea are total clowns and no-one else would pay it, but they did. They may well want Murillo on 10 year deal and pay us 100m+ for him. If so, sell him
 
finbar70 said:
Irrelevant. We have an appreciating asset under contract, and if anyone wants him they pay our price.

EM has already shown he can get good prices for support players like Vlach, Mangala, and Niakhate to support our investment. This may well see us accept say a 45/50m for Elanga if clubs who want Murillo or MGW do not pay the 80m+ valuations which we should place upon them.

When I quoted the Chelsea fees for Fernandez and Caciedo, I get that Chelsea are total clowns and no-one else would pay it, but they did. They may well want Murillo on 10 year deal and pay us 100m+ for him. If so, sell him
Click to expand...
Its not really irrelevant.
 
weejockmcplop said:
There's a balance to be struck.
Big teams like Real Madrid know they can unsettle a player just by mentioning his name, but Murillo's under contract here for a good while yet so if he wants to go he needs to wait, probably quite patiently, for an offer to meet our valuation.
Click to expand...
Which is my point. So long as the club are transparent with him, for example if Real, or City, or whoever meet the valuation we won't stand in your way, then we should absolutely stand firm on our valuation. Now, who knows if Forest value him at 40m or 100m, all we are debating is that number.

Guehi as a comparable wasn't sold for 65m and he is out of contract in 2026. We have Murillo until 2028 or 2029 I think, is a couple of years younger, and has just as much, if not more potential. In fact, if someone offered a straight swap I'd keep Murillo
 
weejockmcplop said:
There's a balance to be struck.
Big teams like Real Madrid know they can unsettle a player just by mentioning his name, but Murillo's under contract here for a good while yet so if he wants to go he needs to wait, probably quite patiently, for an offer to meet our valuation.
Click to expand...
Their is a long gam to be layer here. Keeping an unhappy player, against their aspirations because you have a contract not only means they play below par thus diminishing asset but sends a message to potential other possibl buys that your career pathway is blocked.

If a player, such as Murillo, had gone to a bigger club he would probably be sitting on the bench. By playing this season he will improve a bit more. I get the sense his positioning has already improved. His price probably maxes out end of this season. Other players see his trajectory and development and perceive Forest as being a good stepping stone. Unlike Giminez.

A lot depends on requirements of buying clubs. For instance Newcastle sell an unsettled Gordon to Liverpool at high price require a young winger and thus offer over the odds for Elanga. Replacements are in suad or earmarked. Think Carmo has been bought with selling this year in mind. Price will determine probability of sale but cards are all in Forests hand.

One of the interesting aspects of this weekends game is do we have a replacement in the squad for MGW should price be met. Anderson or Jota?
 
Polly 433 said:
Their is a long gam to be layer here. Keeping an unhappy player, against their aspirations because you have a contract not only means they play below par thus diminishing asset but sends a message to potential other possibl buys that your career pathway is blocked.

If a player, such as Murillo, had gone to a bigger club he would probably be sitting on the bench. By playing this season he will improve a bit more. I get the sense his positioning has already improved. His price probably maxes out end of this season. Other players see his trajectory and development and perceive Forest as being a good stepping stone. Unlike Giminez.

A lot depends on requirements of buying clubs. For instance Newcastle sell an unsettled Gordon to Liverpool at high price require a young winger and thus offer over the odds for Elanga. Replacements are in suad or earmarked. Think Carmo has been bought with selling this year in mind. Price will determine probability of sale but cards are all in Forests hand.

One of the interesting aspects of this weekends game is do we have a replacement in the squad for MGW should price be met. Anderson or Jota?
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Some think, medium to small sized clubs can dictate terms to, would-be, world-class players: no chance.

If one of the big boys come knocking they'll pretend to agree with our terms, (thus being granted permission to negotiate with Murillo's advistors), Murillo will become starry-eyed at their £300k-per-week salary and image rights and when Forest sit down with their team to sign a £70m deal...will be offered £40m and the rest in clauses never to be achieved.

What then happens?

Keep Murillo who has had his head (legitimately) turned: they've not tapped him up, so i aint done nothing wrong, mate.
Or, take a reduced deal on better terms?

At the end of the day, its immaterial as we'll never know what he'll be sold for.
But, for those thinking £100m+ need to stop smoking the demon weed.
 
Polly 433 said:
Their is a long gam to be layer here. Keeping an unhappy player, against their aspirations because you have a contract not only means they play below par thus diminishing asset but sends a message to potential other possibl buys that your career pathway is blocked.

If a player, such as Murillo, had gone to a bigger club he would probably be sitting on the bench. By playing this season he will improve a bit more. I get the sense his positioning has already improved. His price probably maxes out end of this season. Other players see his trajectory and development and perceive Forest as being a good stepping stone. Unlike Giminez.

A lot depends on requirements of buying clubs. For instance Newcastle sell an unsettled Gordon to Liverpool at high price require a young winger and thus offer over the odds for Elanga. Replacements are in suad or earmarked. Think Carmo has been bought with selling this year in mind. Price will determine probability of sale but cards are all in Forests hand.

One of the interesting aspects of this weekends game is do we have a replacement in the squad for MGW should price be met. Anderson or Jota?
Click to expand...
I agree that he may reach his max value at the end of this season, and we will have to sell.

I see Carmo as Boly's replacement (we shouldn't take up the second year option on him, too injury prone) and we will need to buy a top class replacement for Murillo (Bijol, Chalobah, etc etc)
 
BlackGold said:
Exactly.

Some think, medium to small sized clubs can dictate terms to, would-be, world-class players: no chance.

If one of the big boys come knocking they'll pretend to agree with our terms, (thus being granted permission to negotiate with Murillo's advistors), Murillo will become starry-eyed at their £300k-per-week salary and image rights and when Forest sit down with their team to sign a £70m deal...will be offered £40m and the rest in clauses never to be achieved.

What then happens?

Keep Murillo who has had his head (legitimately) turned: they've not tapped him up, so i aint done nothing wrong, mate.
Or, take a reduced deal on better terms?

At the end of the day, its immaterial as we'll never know what he'll be sold for.
But, for those thinking £100m+ need to stop smoking the demon weed.
Click to expand...

the flip side is we have to be strong enough, otherwise we just become a thrift shop for other teams. if we want to progress then you need to keep your best players for as long as.possible.

murillo will cost someone top dollar.
 
radfordinlondon said:
the flip side is we have to be strong enough, otherwise we just become a thrift shop for other teams. if we want to progress then you need to keep your best players for as long as.possible.

murillo will cost someone top dollar.
Click to expand...
Financailly, no doubt, we can stand firm for these super-high valuations and offers.

What we can't do, is become a club we're not i.e. one of the elite in Europe/World through money alone.

When any of the Mega EPL Six come knocking, or Real, PSG or Barcelona any of our stars will have their heads turned...and we, in turn, our pants down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.