Brighton reject £80m bid from Chelsea for Caicedo
theathletic.com
Brighton and Hove Albion have rejected an £80million bid (£75m plus £5m in add-ons) from Chelsea for Moises Caicedo. The improved proposal was submitted on Thursday and turned down instantly via email. It is the fourth offer Chelsea have made for the 21-year-old after they had offers worth £60m, £65m, and £70m knocked back by Brighton. Caicedo, who is with the south coast club in the U.S. on their summer tour, wants the move and personal terms will not be a problem. Brighton hope to keep the Ecuador international and it is expected to take north of £100million for the stance of owner...
    • kameecoding@lemmy.world
      4·
      11 months ago

      Ornstein said, they told him if they get a fair offer they will let him go, but then also said Brighton owner (Forgot his name) has his valuation and he isn’t going to sell for a price under that.

      The Bellingham and Rice moves give a pretty good indicator of what Caicedo is worth, given his age profile and potential and what he has already shown he can do in the PL

      • sabreW4K3@lemmy.tf
        3·
        11 months ago

        But Rice comes with an English tax and Bellingham is an international star with champions league pedigree, comparing either to Caicedo is a lot. Don’t get me wrong, I think Caicedo is a great player, but £100 million is a lot to ask for him.

        • kameecoding@lemmy.world
          3·
          11 months ago

          and Caicedo is younger than Rice with a much longer contract

          and then we can start arguing about who is better (I don’t care tbh)

          but it’s not like it’s unrealistic to value him at 100m pounds

          • sabreW4K3@lemmy.tf
            1·
            11 months ago

            You mention the contract, but didn’t he only sign based on the promise that he would be sold this summer? Brighton need to be careful. If I was Chelsea or even Arsenal, I’d try and guide him to talking to the court of arbitration 👀

            • kameecoding@lemmy.world
              2·
              11 months ago

              well that’s not how the law works, he entered into a new contract, which very likely included higher wages, so it’s not like you could even argue that it was a one-sided contract (which could be used to attack it).

              But based on what ornstein said he was promised to be sold “if the right offer arrives”, well now you would have to go and argue in court what that means, I doubt you could it in front of CAS, maybe in civil court that could take months, so Chelsea wouldn’t get him this summer either way.