Caleb Okoli - Outgoing

[MPH]

2 hours ago, LCFCJohn said:

Why is the ideal not that they stay and get us promoted out of interest?

My concern for Bilal is that should we not loan him out, he’ll want out as he won’t want to play in the champ. That wouldn’t be ideal at all.  Considering the car crash of a team performance we put in this season, there’s no guarantee we will get promoted either I suppose and then where does that leave him? Playing in the championship again. He’s too good to risk that from his own personal point of view 

[LCFCJohn]

5 hours ago, MPH said:

My concern for Bilal is that should we not loan him out, he’ll want out as he won’t want to play in the champ. That wouldn’t be ideal at all.  Considering the car crash of a team performance we put in this season, there’s no guarantee we will get promoted either I suppose and then where does that leave him? Playing in the championship again. He’s too good to risk that from his own personal point of view 

Ok, I get if you are saying loaning him and him returning if promoted is preferable to losing him altogether. Although then there’s the argument of finances and whether we can justify losing key players from the squad without funds coming in to replace.

 

It was just the wording of that being the ideal option that was all.

 

Yeah there’s no guarantee we go up. If he, or any others, stay and play in the Championship next season, I think they would just have to take responsibility for their own performances. If they play well but the team come up short, there will be options on the table. From Bilal’s and Okoli’s point of view, they would have a year less PSR value so a move would be more likely next year.

 

They might move permanently or go on loan. But both are young and joined us as we were newly promoted. Unless they are completely detached from reality, they must have realised relegation was likely. Yeah, I’m sure they would hope that their individual performances in that scenario would get them a move. Particularly in Okoli’s case that hasn’t happened and Bilal has hardly taken the league by storm, even though we can see the potential.

 

Personally I think the club should keep them to play if they can’t make profit to reinvest but there’s no right or wrong. If wages are still our issue you’d hope these guys aren’t the problem!

[Happy Fox]

Post

 

See new posts

 

 

 

Conversation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TransferFeed

 

@transferfeedcom

Follow

 

 AC Milan and Bologna set for a transfer battle for Leicester City's Caleb Okoli, according to Tuttosport. https://transferfeed.com/transfers/caleb-okoli-leicester-city-milan/12342446… #LCFC #ForzaMilan #PremierLeague #SerieA

 

 

transferfeed.com

Caleb Okoli Transfer from Leicester City to Milan

[st albans fox]

Perhaps another reason why he may not be starting is that we can’t afford for him to get injured. 

[JimJams]

The same Bologna that took VK on loan for a season, qualified for CL football and then decided they wanted to renegotiate the fee. 

Awesome. Look forward to them winning Serie A and then asking if they can have him for £70 and a nice pair of loafers.

[honeybradger]

42 minutes ago, JimJams said:

The same Bologna that took VK on loan for a season, qualified for CL football and then decided they wanted to renegotiate the fee. 

Awesome. Look forward to them winning Serie A and then asking if they can have him for £70 and a nice pair of loafers.

Let's be honest, Bologna were 100% correct to not value Kristiansen at his £15mil option to buy. They are not the villains for being sensible and not wanting to splash out on players that arent worth it. The only reason we get taken advantage of as a club is because our incompetent ownership put us in this position, italian sides just behave in a pragmatic way that we would like to see our club run.

[Jazzy_Jeff]

56 minutes ago, honeybradger said:

Let's be honest, Bologna were 100% correct to not value Kristiansen at his £15mil option to buy. They are not the villains for being sensible and not wanting to splash out on players that arent worth it. The only reason we get taken advantage of as a club is because our incompetent ownership put us in this position, italian sides just behave in a pragmatic way that we would like to see our club run.

They should have negotiated better at the beginning then. 
 

You can’t have an agreement to buy a player for a certain price and then decide you do want him but want to pay less than agreed- that’s not how it works. 

[dmayne7]

27 minutes ago, Jazzy_Jeff said:

They should have negotiated better at the beginning then. 
 

You can’t have an agreement to buy a player for a certain price and then decide you do want him but want to pay less than agreed- that’s not how it works. 

It absolutely is how it works. It wasn't an obligation to buy him, just an option. If they deem he's not worth that value after what is effectively a year long trial, then why should they pay that? The option exists because often the loaning club is paying a sizeable loan fee so it's essentially a discount off the final value if they do want him, plus it also protects them for taking a punt in the case that the player has a breakout season and there value suddenly sky rockets. As the 'selling' club, you're hoping that it incentives the other club into going for that player as the optics of the deal are much better generally.

 

The fault, as always, lies with us and our decision to loan these players out without and guarantee of selling them 

[Jazzy_Jeff]

1 hour ago, dmayne7 said:

It absolutely is how it works. It wasn't an obligation to buy him, just an option. If they deem he's not worth that value after what is effectively a year long trial, then why should they pay that? The option exists because often the loaning club is paying a sizeable loan fee so it's essentially a discount off the final value if they do want him, plus it also protects them for taking a punt in the case that the player has a breakout season and there value suddenly sky rockets. As the 'selling' club, you're hoping that it incentives the other club into going for that player as the optics of the deal are much better generally.

 

The fault, as always, lies with us and our decision to loan these players out without and guarantee of selling them 

My point is they would have negotiated a price at the beginning of the loan. I can’t recall a time where a price had been agreed then been haggled down - would have been no point making an agreement in the first place 

[LCFCJohn]

1 hour ago, dmayne7 said:

It absolutely is how it works. It wasn't an obligation to buy him, just an option. If they deem he's not worth that value after what is effectively a year long trial, then why should they pay that? The option exists because often the loaning club is paying a sizeable loan fee so it's essentially a discount off the final value if they do want him, plus it also protects them for taking a punt in the case that the player has a breakout season and there value suddenly sky rockets. As the 'selling' club, you're hoping that it incentives the other club into going for that player as the optics of the deal are much better generally.

 

The fault, as always, lies with us and our decision to loan these players out without and guarantee of selling them 

Your point makes perfect sense and I agree with the principle of it. But in reality, did he not have a really good time there and helped them to qualify for the Champions League, so you could argue he exceeded expectations. Or maybe he was an average cog in a well performing side, I don’t know as I didn’t watch first hand.

 

But you can see why people would say they were being cheap given their success with him.

[honeybradger]

2 hours ago, Jazzy_Jeff said:

They should have negotiated better at the beginning then. 
 

You can’t have an agreement to buy a player for a certain price and then decide you do want him but want to pay less than agreed- that’s not how it works. 

They didnt have an agreement to buy him though, they had an option which they didnt want to trigger because he is not worth that much. The concept of a team wanting a player but not being willing to pay over the odds for him has sadly become alien to us as a club.

[CosbehFox]

2 hours ago, Jazzy_Jeff said:

They should have negotiated better at the beginning then. 
 

You can’t have an agreement to buy a player for a certain price and then decide you do want him but want to pay less than agreed- that’s not how it works. 

 

1 hour ago, Jazzy_Jeff said:

My point is they would have negotiated a price at the beginning of the loan. I can’t recall a time where a price had been agreed then been haggled down - would have been no point making an agreement in the first place 

But that's good work really by Bologna to a degree. They got in, took a look and then went yeah not worth it. Bit like us with Yunus actually. 

 

The irony is they replaced him with a better left-back on a free. 

[Ric Flair]

14 hours ago, CosbehFox said:

 

But that's good work really by Bologna to a degree. They got in, took a look and then went yeah not worth it. Bit like us with Yunus actually. 

 

The irony is they replaced him with a better left-back on a free. 

And Kristiansen has gone on to be revolting once again for us and undoing any improvement on his potential on the continent, whilst Yunus has gone back to Gala been deployed more on the left than previous and ripped it up this season.

 

Whilst it'll never be as appalling as opting not to sign Lookman for £13m. The £6m or whatever it was really stings, will likely be less outlay on the books in 24/25 than the Bounanotte loan.

[JimJams]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

The £6m or whatever it was really stings, will likely be less outlay on the books in 24/25 than the Bounanotte loan.

Or like, the Edouard one.

 

 

[ACF]

On 28/04/2025 at 15:35, Ric Flair said:

And Kristiansen has gone on to be revolting once again for us and undoing any improvement on his potential on the continent, whilst Yunus has gone back to Gala been deployed more on the left than previous and ripped it up this season.

 

Whilst it'll never be as appalling as opting not to sign Lookman for £13m. The £6m or whatever it was really stings, will likely be less outlay on the books in 24/25 than the Bounanotte loan.

Yeah but he didn’t have any Premier League Experience™ so obviously not worth it

[jim5000]

On 27/04/2025 at 13:09, Jazzy_Jeff said:

They should have negotiated better at the beginning then. 
 

You can’t have an agreement to buy a player for a certain price and then decide you do want him but want to pay less than agreed- that’s not how it works. 

 

I mean, you can, they did, and we said no so it didn't happen.