Summer Silly Season Transfer Thread 2025

[General]

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.

It's definitely a grey area for me that I think needs addressing properly. Too often bigger clubs just poach without any work done because of reputation, but then it leaves clubs like Fulham, who are churning out a really good talent pool with nothing to show for their efforts. I definitely think weighting transfers and monies owed/contractual stipulations are a healthier way to doing this.

If you think of how Arsenal's club reputation grew due to their academy players coming through - Nelson, Nwaneri, Hoyte, ESR etc , How West Ham's did from the likes of Lampard, Ferdinand etc..  City - McAtee, Palmer.. even Tosin etc. then you see how ours does when we get a player like Sess who's committed, or De Fougerolles.. then it really starts to become an issue not having these players come through more.

Matt O'riley could easily be a CM solution for us in the squad at the moment had he stayed for instance. Saving us not only in spending £20m, but also we could've potentially had him as an asset to sell for £25m+... which in many ways kinda puts a £40m+ price tag on losing him to the club.

From Matt O'riley and Moussa Dembele Mk2, you're looking at a decent sum at just 10%.

According to online sources, Celtic got £19.7m for Dembele, and £25m (a record fee received for the scottish prem) fo O'riley, so £4m-£5m lost potentially, which would boost our coffers and investment into the academy. Can't see it as a bad thing, when you think it could boost competitiveness.

Definitely a bigger case to be made for protecting clubs academy assets.

[Thailand Mick]

Easy solution, any player under 20 years old 5m transfer fee + 50% sell on. Let's see how many of these clubs are willing to pay that.

[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.

It's definitely a grey area for me that I think needs addressing properly. Too often bigger clubs just poach without any work done because of reputation, but then it leaves clubs like Fulham, who are churning out a really good talent pool with nothing to show for their efforts. I definitely think weighting transfers and monies owed/contractual stipulations are a healthier way to doing this.

If you think of how Arsenal's club reputation grew due to their academy players coming through - Nelson, Nwaneri, Hoyte, ESR etc , and how ours does when we get a player like Sess who's committed, or De Fougerolles.. then it really starts to become an issue not having these players come through more. Matt O'riley could easily be a CM solution for us in the squad at the moment had he stayed for instance. Saving us not only in spending £20m, but also we could've potentially had him as an asset to sell for £25m+... which in many ways kinda puts a £40m+ price tag on losing him to the club.

From Matt O'riley and Moussa Dembele Mk2, you're looking at a decent sum at just 10%.

According to online sources, Celtic got £19.7m for Dembele, and £25m (a record fee received for the scottish prem) fo O'riley, so £4m-£5m lost potentially, which would boost our coffers and investment into the academy. Can't see it as a bad thing, when you think it could boost competitiveness.

Definitely a bigger case to be made for protecting clubs academy assets.

Also encourages smaller clubs to continute to invest in their academies if they know they'll get an appropriate reward without court cases. Which is obviously good for the talent themselves too.

Regarding what William put earlier- does this apply exactly the same to kids that are 17 or under that haven't signed a pro contract yet? Carvalho and sess for example were fully fledged first team players when they were bought so I assume had signed pro contracts by the time they left. Not sure about Harvey Elliot but he was younger if I recall and so perhaps hadn't signed yet ,more like Seth I would assume the up front fee will be nominal- but hopefully it's a minimum 10% sell on, frankly if poaching before pro contract I think it should be more

[Willham]

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.

It's definitely a grey area for me that I think needs addressing properly. Too often bigger clubs just poach without any work done because of reputation, but then it leaves clubs like Fulham, who are churning out a really good talent pool with nothing to show for their efforts. I definitely think weighting transfers and monies owed/contractual stipulations are a healthier way to doing this.

If you think of how Arsenal's club reputation grew due to their academy players coming through - Nelson, Nwaneri, Hoyte, ESR etc , and how ours does when we get a player like Sess who's committed, or De Fougerolles.. then it really starts to become an issue not having these players come through more. Matt O'riley could easily be a CM solution for us in the squad at the moment had he stayed for instance. Saving us not only in spending £20m, but also we could've potentially had him as an asset to sell for £25m+... which in many ways kinda puts a £40m+ price tag on losing him to the club.

From Matt O'riley and Moussa Dembele Mk2, you're looking at a decent sum at just 10%.

According to online sources, Celtic got £19.7m for Dembele, and £25m (a record fee received for the scottish prem) fo O'riley, so £4m-£5m lost potentially, which would boost our coffers and investment into the academy. Can't see it as a bad thing, when you think it could boost competitiveness.

Definitely a bigger case to be made for protecting clubs academy assets.

Also encourages smaller clubs to continute to invest in their academies if they know they'll get an appropriate reward without court cases. Which is obviously good for the talent themselves too.

Regarding what William put earlier- does this apply exactly the same to kids that are 17 or under that haven't signed a pro contract yet? Carvalho and sess for example were fully fledged first team players when they were bought so I assume had signed pro contracts by the time they left. Not sure about Harvey Elliot but he was younger if I recall and so perhaps hadn't signed yet ,more like Seth I would assume the up front fee will be nominal- but hopefully it's a minimum 10% sell on, frankly if poaching before pro contract I think it should be more

Yes it does, also applies to under 16s,

Also as someone has mentioned, a sell on fee is given to earlier clubs in the youngsters growth,

But very nominal, it can be as low as like 1%, but for some clubs thats still quite a bit.

Im sure I recall maidenhead or maidstone got something like 500k for our smalling transfer to man utd off this rule.

Edit, for instance, Q.P.R will of reiceved a very nomial fee when carvalho (*edit again* ELLIOT not carvalho) was bought by brentford. Most Probably way under 5%. But it's something

[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.

It's definitely a grey area for me that I think needs addressing properly. Too often bigger clubs just poach without any work done because of reputation, but then it leaves clubs like Fulham, who are churning out a really good talent pool with nothing to show for their efforts. I definitely think weighting transfers and monies owed/contractual stipulations are a healthier way to doing this.

If you think of how Arsenal's club reputation grew due to their academy players coming through - Nelson, Nwaneri, Hoyte, ESR etc , and how ours does when we get a player like Sess who's committed, or De Fougerolles.. then it really starts to become an issue not having these players come through more. Matt O'riley could easily be a CM solution for us in the squad at the moment had he stayed for instance. Saving us not only in spending £20m, but also we could've potentially had him as an asset to sell for £25m+... which in many ways kinda puts a £40m+ price tag on losing him to the club.

From Matt O'riley and Moussa Dembele Mk2, you're looking at a decent sum at just 10%.

According to online sources, Celtic got £19.7m for Dembele, and £25m (a record fee received for the scottish prem) fo O'riley, so £4m-£5m lost potentially, which would boost our coffers and investment into the academy. Can't see it as a bad thing, when you think it could boost competitiveness.

Definitely a bigger case to be made for protecting clubs academy assets.

Also encourages smaller clubs to continute to invest in their academies if they know they'll get an appropriate reward without court cases. Which is obviously good for the talent themselves too.

Regarding what William put earlier- does this apply exactly the same to kids that are 17 or under that haven't signed a pro contract yet? Carvalho and sess for example were fully fledged first team players when they were bought so I assume had signed pro contracts by the time they left. Not sure about Harvey Elliot but he was younger if I recall and so perhaps hadn't signed yet ,more like Seth I would assume the up front fee will be nominal- but hopefully it's a minimum 10% sell on, frankly if poaching before pro contract I think it should be more

Yes it does, also applies to under 16s,

Also as someone has mentioned, a sell on fee is given to earlier clubs in the youngsters growth,

But very nominal, it can be as low as like 1%, but for some clubs thats still quite a bit.

Im sure I recall maidenhead or maidstone got something like 500k for our smalling transfer to man utd off this rule.

Edit, for instance, Q.P.R will of reiceved a very nomial fee when carvalho was bought by brentford. Most Probably way under 5%. But it's something

Well thats a relief to know. Maintain it should be higher though if development is over several years.
Like imagine with Luc DF, been with us since he's what, 9 years old? A Decade of training him and we only get 10% of any sell on fee if he decided to sign elsewhere...seems outrageous to me.

[Deeping_white]

TC is at Motspur and has FFC training gear on, Iwobi's snapchat story strikes again

[jayffc]

TC is at Motspur and has FFC training gear on, Iwobi's snapchat story strikes again

To be fair he could just be staying in shape while making decisions. Don't think there's anything stopping him from training with us even if he's not getting paid at the moment

[DM]

Knew TC would stick around ✍️

[Angus Telford]

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.

Wasn't Tete on £60k with Everton offering £120 (allegedly) and I presume us giving him somewhere in the middle ultimately?

Had a quick glance and we tend to get about 500-1000 mins from Cairney per year and average about 1,750 from Tete in the PL.

ALlowing for TC playing a more expensive position, still being club captain and us offering a shorter contract (I agree it should only be one year) I'd say he's worth about two thirds of whatever wage Tete got.

So if Tete's on 75k I'd say TC is worth 50k for example.

[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.

Wasn't Tete on £60k with Everton offering £120 (allegedly) and I presume us giving him somewhere in the middle ultimately?

Had a quick glance and we tend to get about 500-1000 mins from Cairney per year and average about 1,750 from Tete in the PL.

ALlowing for TC playing a more expensive position, still being club captain and us offering a shorter contract (I agree it should only be one year) I'd say he's worth about two thirds of whatever wage Tete got.

So if Tete's on 75k I'd say TC is worth 50k for example.

Fair enough...sensible breakdown. Has to be one year only but yeah I'm not against £50k a week personally if we look at it snd can afford it. He does still win us points so worth it.

[WindyCity]

The line "we are in no rush because we don't believe we need to be", whilst 100% believable, smacks of naivety and complacency to me, given the statement above. No we don't "need" to strengthen, but we should *want* to! Urgency and action can come from ambition and desire, they're not just signs of desperation.

Agreed, smacks of complacency to me also. I know much of this is just 'fan talk', but I surely hope the club itself, MS, and the recruitment folks know what they're doing.  Standing pat is not an option.

[FFC1987]

The line "we are in no rush because we don't believe we need to be", whilst 100% believable, smacks of naivety and complacency to me, given the statement above. No we don't "need" to strengthen, but we should *want* to! Urgency and action can come from ambition and desire, they're not just signs of desperation.

Agreed, smacks of complacency to me also. I know much of this is just 'fan talk', but I surely hope the club itself, MS, and the recruitment folks know what they're doing.  Standing pat is not an option.

I think some of you lot just aren't reading what people are saying.....

I've not seen one post to suggest we're content to signing no one. Its about the speed of said signings. No ones saying we should and are standing still. Just that we're not spitting dummies because its the 14th of July, and we haven't signed anyone because a) we have a settled squad already and b) going into a pre season with an already settled squad. Something we've not done in my memory. This isn't complacency, its just saying there's absolutely much worse positions to be in (and granted some better), but it is what it is.

We will sign players and I look forward to it. Getting said players in earlier is optimum, but its just not the way we work. Its also shown, in previous seasons, that it doesn't really lose us points as well....

[KJS]

The line "we are in no rush because we don't believe we need to be", whilst 100% believable, smacks of naivety and complacency to me, given the statement above. No we don't "need" to strengthen, but we should *want* to! Urgency and action can come from ambition and desire, they're not just signs of desperation.

Agreed, smacks of complacency to me also. I know much of this is just 'fan talk', but I surely hope the club itself, MS, and the recruitment folks know what they're doing.  Standing pat is not an option.

They have known what they're doing in the last few seasons so just enjoy the Summer and let them do what they're paid to do😎🍻

[Coastwalker]

Come on Fulham,give us a new signing,anybody will do,even a new groundsman.
Just so we can argue if he is any good.
No new strip either on show yet.
Boring Boring Fulham.😃

[jayffc]

Would never happen sadly but

https://x.com/DeadlineDayLive/status/1944668189108945132?t=qqLYErFJoYpnII81OWod2w&s=19

If we're in the market for arsenal "rejects"


One can dream 🤣

[alfie]

Would never happen sadly but

https://x.com/DeadlineDayLive/status/1944668189108945132?t=qqLYErFJoYpnII81OWod2w&s=19

If we're in the market for arsenal "rejects"


One can dream 🤣

I wouldn't consider him to be a reject, he is far from that.

[RAY Rock]

Would never happen sadly but

https://x.com/DeadlineDayLive/status/1944668189108945132?t=qqLYErFJoYpnII81OWod2w&s=19

If we're in the market for arsenal "rejects"


One can dream 🤣

No thanks Oscar Bobb please

[lomotd]

Knew TC would stick around ✍️

I wouldn't assume this means he's staying. No doubt Fulham would let him train with the club until his contract status is sorted out either way.

[keithh]

faithful fan just patiently waiting until page 168.  Don't ask.

[Angus Telford]

I think some of you lot just aren't reading what people are saying.....

I've not seen one post to suggest we're content to signing no one.

Well I could say the same to you because I haven't seen anyone alleging that we're content to sign no one. But in between the extremes of (a) having signed 6 players already and (b) signing no one all window, there are numerous degrees of ambition / urgency / proficiency, and the suggestion is that we're pretty low on those metrics (which is clearly true, as the last club to sign anyone).

And it isn't just about getting players in for pre-season training, it's about (among other things) getting the players you actually want rather than everyone else's leftovers, having time to pursue a plan B if plan A fails, etc. If we were on to something brilliant with this relaxed strategy, other clubs would be doing it (and/or we probably wouldn't be finishing in the bottom half).