14 Jun 2017 12:11:46
Hearing that Chelsea want 10m for solanke. Would that be the highest tribunal fee ever? 10m is still a decent fee

Cheers.

1.) 14 Jun 2017
14 Jun 2017 13:49:16
No chance. Chelsea should take the £3m on offer. If it goes to a tribunal there is more chance of that figure being reduced than increasing.

He is a 19 year old who has never played a Premier League game and has 7 senior goals, all of which came in a terrible Dutch league. Tribunals ensure a team gets fair settlement for the time invested in the development of the player. Chelsea are demanding that based on his potential. We paid less for Ings who had over 50 senior goals for Burnley and had just hit double figures in the Premier League.

They are living in a dreamland and should take the very significant £3m on offer.

2.) 14 Jun 2017
14 Jun 2017 14:25:45
Agreed that ings looked a bigger prospect and had a decent season before we signed him. But with inflation and all that, 10m isn't too bad. I heard (rumours) Chelsea wanted 10m as a max, so I gather we could get him for less than that. Can't see him going for the 3m we offered though. anything from 5-8m would be ideal.

3.) 14 Jun 2017
14 Jun 2017 14:47:48
Eds, who decides the tribunal fee? Is it the fa?

{Ed001's Note - here you go: tribunal fees

That article should answer your questions.}

4.) 14 Jun 2017
14 Jun 2017 15:32:33
thankyou.

{Ed001's Note - welcome.}

5.) 15 Jun 2017
15 Jun 2017 10:51:23
I reckon an offer halfway between the two should be ok. He's not seen much first team action unlike Ings and hasn't been called up to a senior England squad. Chelsea are just chancing their arm. Which is fair enough as any reasonable team would do the same.