Summer Silly Season Transfer Thread 2025

[Drewry66]

Romulo update from FFN on Discord chat:

'Rômulo didn't feature today in a friendly for Goztepe. He was left out all together as his exit gets closer.
Fulham, Leipzig & an unnamed side have offers on the table for him.  ⏳'

Talk the unnamed side might be Soorting to replace Gokyres but also that they may be in for Luis Suarez instead. Have to hope they are not in as you'd imagine he'd go there if they are.

[Drewry66]

Nelson update from FFN on Discord:

'Also Nelson is in talks with 3 clubs to leave Arsenal. His preference is to return to Fulham & Marco wants him back. The club however are less receptive... Although if Marco wants it he usually gets it and if it helps ESR kick on as well that could sway the board.'

Interesting that Marco wants him but the club is t so keen if true!

[jayffc]

Feels to me like there should be some rule here on future fee compensation, depending on how long a kid has been in your academy

If say you've been developing a kid over 13 for 3+ years (just for an example) you should automatically get 10% of their next sale if they are signed before their first pro contract. 5 years - 15%

Would need to think through the details but seems ridiculous you could train someone for that long just to see them poached and sold for millions later without proper compensation for what is a key development period.

[alfie]

Nelson update from FFN on Discord:

'Also Nelson is in talks with 3 clubs to leave Arsenal. His preference is to return to Fulham & Marco wants him back. The club however are less receptive... Although if Marco wants it he usually gets it and if it helps ESR kick on as well that could sway the board.'

Interesting that Marco wants him but the club is t so keen if true!

Marco would want him because he is an exciting skillfull player, Maybe the club are a little concerned about his injury record.

[Drewry66]

Both the above have 3 clubs in for them. DM mentioned we had an offer in for a player the other day along with two other clubs and that we were quietly confident. Not that I don't want Nelson back if at a steal but do hope the quiet confidence is Romulo!!

[jayffc]

Nelson update from FFN on Discord:

'Also Nelson is in talks with 3 clubs to leave Arsenal. His preference is to return to Fulham & Marco wants him back. The club however are less receptive... Although if Marco wants it he usually gets it and if it helps ESR kick on as well that could sway the board.'

Interesting that Marco wants him but the club is t so keen if true!

I mean, I can understand their trepedation, I doubt they're keen to pay his wages if he were out for 2 thirds of the season again. They saw how that panned out with Kongolo. I really like Nelson as a player the question is IF he can stay fit. If it's a cut price deal with bonuses based on appearances I'd go for it but I'd probably want at least 1 additional winger as insurance then on top - which I suspect might not happen

[Drewry66]

Nelson update from FFN on Discord:

'Also Nelson is in talks with 3 clubs to leave Arsenal. His preference is to return to Fulham & Marco wants him back. The club however are less receptive... Although if Marco wants it he usually gets it and if it helps ESR kick on as well that could sway the board.'

Interesting that Marco wants him but the club is t so keen if true!

Marco would want him because he is an exciting skillfull player, Maybe the club are a little concerned about his injury record.

Oh defo. Even if we get him for a very low fee and his wages reduce still a big risk for injuries. ESR defo played better with him and there really is a player there if he can stay fit. Was looking at FBRef last night and his stats really are so impressive. Sometimes operations can sort these problems but it is clearly a big risk. The prob is we almost have to sign someone else 'just in case' if he does go down again, especially with Iwobi away for at least a month. So tough as could be a steal but a big gamble with the injuries of course.

If he is desperate to come back to us you'd hope he will accept a reasonable deal on wage I suppose.

[Drewry66]

Feels to me like there should be some rule here on future fee compensation, depending on how long a kid has been in your academy

If say you've been developing a kid over 13 for 3+ years (just for an example) you should automatically get 10% of their next sale if they are signed before their first pro contract. 5 years - 15%

Would need to think through the details but seems ridiculous you could train someone for that long just to see them poached and sold for millions later without proper compensation for what is a key development period.

Yeah first point that is so easy to fix is why the F can you not sign them up at an early age if you want to?? Just makes no sense to me. You should be encouraged to promote talent early which we have done but because of this stupid rule we couldn't tie him down before all the big clubs saw him perform at that higher level and then too late.

Second as you say you should be guranteed a percentage sell on. Still infuriating watching Liverpool earning prob £50 odd million gir doing next to F all for Elliot and Fabio but at least we have made some money from that with sell ons. We'll get nothing for Osmond and Ridgeon when they are sold on and that just can't be right.

[Drewry66]

Update re TC on discord:

Talk on there that he is asking for a two year deal on £60k a week. Apparently we will only offer one on less.

As much as I love Tom and I am in the camp that he can still change games and win us points anything more than a one year deal on £30k a week would be madness for the amount he will play. If true completely understand the club standing firm.

If West Ham or someone wants to offer tgat fair enough but would seem crazy for any club to do so. See what happens then but doubt we'll be shifting our position so up to him.

[JimmyConway]

Feels to me like there should be some rule here on future fee compensation, depending on how long a kid has been in your academy

If say you've been developing a kid over 13 for 3+ years (just for an example) you should automatically get 10% of their next sale if they are signed before their first pro contract. 5 years - 15%

Would need to think through the details but seems ridiculous you could train someone for that long just to see them poached and sold for millions later without proper compensation for what is a key development period.

Yeah first point that is so easy to fix is why the F can you not sign them up at an early age if you want to?? Just makes no sense to me. You should be encouraged to promote talent early which we have done but because of this stupid rule we couldn't tie him down before all the big clubs saw him perform at that higher level and then too late.

Second as you say you should be guranteed a percentage sell on. Still infuriating watching Liverpool earning prob £50 odd million gir doing next to F all for Elliot and Fabio but at least we have made some money from that with sell ons. We'll get nothing for Osmond and Ridgeon when they are sold on and that just can't be right.

Not that I agree but does open that can of worms with regards to youth development football and the investment required. You can see why some clubs scrap it and concentrate on senior squad. The rules are so heavily stacked more in agents favour than the player/s? We will continue to lose the likes of Osmand Ridgeon etc clubs hands are tied. For every extra £ we offer the bigger clubs will better five or ten fold especially as they have had no outlay in their development. Will be interesting to see how Josh King situation pans out? It's a situation we can never win when it comes to youngsters leaving for the brighter lights.

[Drewry66]

Feels to me like there should be some rule here on future fee compensation, depending on how long a kid has been in your academy

If say you've been developing a kid over 13 for 3+ years (just for an example) you should automatically get 10% of their next sale if they are signed before their first pro contract. 5 years - 15%

Would need to think through the details but seems ridiculous you could train someone for that long just to see them poached and sold for millions later without proper compensation for what is a key development period.

Yeah first point that is so easy to fix is why the F can you not sign them up at an early age if you want to?? Just makes no sense to me. You should be encouraged to promote talent early which we have done but because of this stupid rule we couldn't tie him down before all the big clubs saw him perform at that higher level and then too late.

Second as you say you should be guranteed a percentage sell on. Still infuriating watching Liverpool earning prob £50 odd million gir doing next to F all for Elliot and Fabio but at least we have made some money from that with sell ons. We'll get nothing for Osmond and Ridgeon when they are sold on and that just can't be right.

Not that I agree but does open that can of worms with regards to youth development football and the investment required. You can see why some clubs scrap it and concentrate on senior squad. The rules are so heavily stacked more in agents favour than the player/s? We will continue to lose the likes of Osmand Ridgeon etc clubs hands are tied. For every extra £ we offer the bigger clubs will better five or ten fold especially as they have had no outlay in their development. Will be interesting to see how Josh King situation pans out? It's a situation we can never win when it comes to youngsters leaving for the brighter lights.

The only way you can win is to get them tied down, get them to a top level and then sell huge. End of the day if they are that good they will end up at a bigger club but that is fine as long as you make the money on the sale. We did with Sess and Stansfield of course. That is why it's so frustrating that the rules didn't allow us to tie Ridgeon down.

King by all accounts won't sign at the mo because he's not playing enough. We at least have some influence here as we can play him more. Difficult however as a bit chicken and egg. If we play him more before he signs and he's brilliant watch the big clubs tap him up and advise him not to sign and just wait until next summer. Very tricky situation but got to try and work out the best solution. I suppose if he's good enough we play him first half of the season, try and get him to sign an extension after showing he is getting game time and if he wont sell him for whatever we can in January.

[MickTheBeard]

Nelson has a cotract for over 3 mill this year for 1 year at arsenal because of his injury problems it has to be pay as you play deal to see how is operations went,he will want his 3 mill arsenal want him off the books and a fee we cannot be a loser play as you play non negotiable to safe guard our club he must be told and any fee spread over a few seasons due to injury problems simple and silva sign a cotract we don't buy sick notes if your leaving.

[Willham]

I just want to mention,

When a young player gets snapped up, a compensation package is always decided, so for ridgeon, we will get a nominal fee. Also yes, there absolutely is a sell on fee attached to that compensation too.

I think if memory serves me correctly, this rule doesn't extend abroad, so players going to Spain as a youngster, do in fact go for free.

Edit: to add, this compensation package is firstly decided by the two clubs involved, for carvalho's case, we were asking for around 12 million if memory serves me correctly (from reports) and Liverpool's offer was no more than 5 million.

Between us, no package could be decided, so it was taken to the court and a tribunal was held which decides the package instead. In carvalho's case, it was settled somewhere between, around 7.5 mill and then we also gained from the transfer to Brentford, we may have made over 10 mill in the end.

Which while low, it isnt THAT low, 10 mill still pays the development team for a long long period.

[JimmyConway]

Feels to me like there should be some rule here on future fee compensation, depending on how long a kid has been in your academy

If say you've been developing a kid over 13 for 3+ years (just for an example) you should automatically get 10% of their next sale if they are signed before their first pro contract. 5 years - 15%

Would need to think through the details but seems ridiculous you could train someone for that long just to see them poached and sold for millions later without proper compensation for what is a key development period.

Yeah first point that is so easy to fix is why the F can you not sign them up at an early age if you want to?? Just makes no sense to me. You should be encouraged to promote talent early which we have done but because of this stupid rule we couldn't tie him down before all the big clubs saw him perform at that higher level and then too late.

Second as you say you should be guranteed a percentage sell on. Still infuriating watching Liverpool earning prob £50 odd million gir doing next to F all for Elliot and Fabio but at least we have made some money from that with sell ons. We'll get nothing for Osmond and Ridgeon when they are sold on and that just can't be right.

Not that I agree but does open that can of worms with regards to youth development football and the investment required. You can see why some clubs scrap it and concentrate on senior squad. The rules are so heavily stacked more in agents favour than the player/s? We will continue to lose the likes of Osmand Ridgeon etc clubs hands are tied. For every extra £ we offer the bigger clubs will better five or ten fold especially as they have had no outlay in their development. Will be interesting to see how Josh King situation pans out? It's a situation we can never win when it comes to youngsters leaving for the brighter lights.

The only way you can win is to get them tied down, get them to a top level and then sell huge. End of the day if they are that good they will end up at a bigger club but that is fine as long as you make the money on the sale. We did with Sess and Stansfield of course. That is why it's so frustrating that the rules didn't allow us to tie Ridgeon down.

King by all accounts won't sign at the mo because he's not playing enough. We at least have some influence here as we can play him more. Difficult however as a bit chicken and egg. If we play him more before he signs and he's brilliant watch the big clubs tap him up and advise him not to sign and just wait until next summer. Very tricky situation but got to try and work out the best solution. I suppose if he's good enough we play him first half of the season, try and get him to sign an extension after showing he is getting game time and if he wont sell him for whatever we can in January.

There is the problem they are advised by the agent/s not to sign long term contract/s as team/s interested advise the agent of their interest in said player. These top teams know every footballer playing world wide especially the younger talent.

[Drewry66]

I just want to mention,

When a young player gets snapped up, a compensation package is always decided, so for ridgeon, we will get a nominal fee. Also yes, there absolutely is a sell on fee attached to that compensation too.

I think if memory serves me correctly, this rule doesn't extend abroad, so players going to Spain as a youngster, do in fact go for free.

Yeah all correct I believe. Think the sell should be included however if you have developed them...just seems completely fair and the system should be amended to this in my opinion.

[@jolslover]

We need two new wingers if we get Nelson IMO (think that might be the plan anyway)

I rate Nelson, but another winger needed with his injury record or atleast a striker who can play on wings (Like a Richarlison)

[Drewry66]

Feels to me like there should be some rule here on future fee compensation, depending on how long a kid has been in your academy

If say you've been developing a kid over 13 for 3+ years (just for an example) you should automatically get 10% of their next sale if they are signed before their first pro contract. 5 years - 15%

Would need to think through the details but seems ridiculous you could train someone for that long just to see them poached and sold for millions later without proper compensation for what is a key development period.

Yeah first point that is so easy to fix is why the F can you not sign them up at an early age if you want to?? Just makes no sense to me. You should be encouraged to promote talent early which we have done but because of this stupid rule we couldn't tie him down before all the big clubs saw him perform at that higher level and then too late.

Second as you say you should be guranteed a percentage sell on. Still infuriating watching Liverpool earning prob £50 odd million gir doing next to F all for Elliot and Fabio but at least we have made some money from that with sell ons. We'll get nothing for Osmond and Ridgeon when they are sold on and that just can't be right.

Not that I agree but does open that can of worms with regards to youth development football and the investment required. You can see why some clubs scrap it and concentrate on senior squad. The rules are so heavily stacked more in agents favour than the player/s? We will continue to lose the likes of Osmand Ridgeon etc clubs hands are tied. For every extra £ we offer the bigger clubs will better five or ten fold especially as they have had no outlay in their development. Will be interesting to see how Josh King situation pans out? It's a situation we can never win when it comes to youngsters leaving for the brighter lights.

The only way you can win is to get them tied down, get them to a top level and then sell huge. End of the day if they are that good they will end up at a bigger club but that is fine as long as you make the money on the sale. We did with Sess and Stansfield of course. That is why it's so frustrating that the rules didn't allow us to tie Ridgeon down.

King by all accounts won't sign at the mo because he's not playing enough. We at least have some influence here as we can play him more. Difficult however as a bit chicken and egg. If we play him more before he signs and he's brilliant watch the big clubs tap him up and advise him not to sign and just wait until next summer. Very tricky situation but got to try and work out the best solution. I suppose if he's good enough we play him first half of the season, try and get him to sign an extension after showing he is getting game time and if he wont sell him for whatever we can in January.

There is the problem they are advised by the agent/s not to sign long term contract/s as team/s interested advise the agent of their interest in said player. These top teams know every footballer playing world wide especially the younger talent.

Definitely. But this is why the system surely has to be better set up to protect smaller clubs when they have developed players. There is the compensation scheme but it is a pittance really and to not have guaranteed sell ons included is just poor really.

[hovewhite]

Think jedi is staying this season  so hope that we keep Sess in the wide area as he and jedi down the side will be crucial especially for teams with low block

[cookieg]

Feels to me like there should be some rule here on future fee compensation, depending on how long a kid has been in your academy

If say you've been developing a kid over 13 for 3+ years (just for an example) you should automatically get 10% of their next sale if they are signed before their first pro contract. 5 years - 15%

Would need to think through the details but seems ridiculous you could train someone for that long just to see them poached and sold for millions later without proper compensation for what is a key development period.

Yeah first point that is so easy to fix is why the F can you not sign them up at an early age if you want to?? Just makes no sense to me. You should be encouraged to promote talent early which we have done but because of this stupid rule we couldn't tie him down before all the big clubs saw him perform at that higher level and then too late.

Second as you say you should be guranteed a percentage sell on. Still infuriating watching Liverpool earning prob £50 odd million gir doing next to F all for Elliot and Fabio but at least we have made some money from that with sell ons. We'll get nothing for Osmond and Ridgeon when they are sold on and that just can't be right.
[/quot

Feels to me like there should be some rule here on future fee compensation, depending on how long a kid has been in your academy

If say you've been developing a kid over 13 for 3+ years (just for an example) you should automatically get 10% of their next sale if they are signed before their first pro contract. 5 years - 15%

Would need to think through the details but seems ridiculous you could train someone for that long just to see them poached and sold for millions later without proper compensation for what is a key development period.

Yeah first point that is so easy to fix is why the F can you not sign them up at an early age if you want to?? Just makes no sense to me. You should be encouraged to promote talent early which we have done but because of this stupid rule we couldn't tie him down before all the big clubs saw him perform at that higher level and then too late.

Second as you say you should be guranteed a percentage sell on. Still infuriating watching Liverpool earning prob £50 odd million gir doing next to F all for Elliot and Fabio but at least we have made some money from that with sell ons. We'll get nothing for Osmond and Ridgeon when they are sold on and that just can't be right.
[/quot

Feels to me like there should be some rule here on future fee compensation, depending on how long a kid has been in your academy

If say you've been developing a kid over 13 for 3+ years (just for an example) you should automatically get 10% of their next sale if they are signed before their first pro contract. 5 years - 15%

Would need to think through the details but seems ridiculous you could train someone for that long just to see them poached and sold for millions later without proper compensation for what is a key development period.

Yeah first point that is so easy to fix is why the F can you not sign them up at an early age if you want to?? Just makes no sense to me. You should be encouraged to promote talent early which we have done but because of this stupid rule we couldn't tie him down before all the big clubs saw him perform at that higher level and then too late.

Second as you say you should be guranteed a percentage sell on. Still infuriating watching Liverpool earning prob £50 odd million gir doing next to F all for Elliot and Fabio but at least we have made some money from that with sell ons. We'll get nothing for Osmond and Ridgeon when they are sold on and that just can't be right.

Didn't we get Elliot from QPR? or someone? So a couple of clubs could claim to have developed him.

[Drewry66]

Yep re Elliot and really the sell on should be split if fair so we'd lose out there but QPR should indeed get something. As Jay suggested a percentage could be based on the length of time you developed them.