Micah Mbick - 20/1/2026 The Athletic reporting Brighton have had 2 bids for him rejected (p12)

Alwaysneil said:

As Micah was not going to play for Brighton this season, why do they need to transfer his contract to Brighton in the transfer window. Why can't they just agree terms with the window shut, like a pre-contract? 😂

then no sale was done, just the froth of social media.

Think he may be announced in the morning my question is if we have had 2M to spend on a player why did we not wrap up Sichenje at the start rather than at the end when we had identified him as a summer target origninallt must have come from somewhere 

Crispywood said:

Think he may be announced in the morning my question is if we have had 2M to spend on a player why did we not wrap up Sichenje at the start rather than at the end when we had identified him as a summer target origninallt must have come from somewhere 

I think there was a bit of money put aside in case we needed to buy Bree, we then didn't and made relatively cheap loan deals (on the whole). That and our defensive injury issues then convinced the owners to let us spend an extra £1mish. In the end most of the "extra" money gets covered by the Lookman transfer

PragueAddick said:

fenaddick said:

PragueAddick said:

WSS said:

You seem unusually very emotional about this Prague…

And no apologies for it. I thought we finally had serious owners, and maybe we do but they are listening to Rodwell. This is not the “business model” you and others think it is. With the exception of Lookman, it is the dismal pattern of our post FAPL demise: Gomez, Konsa, Shelvey all sold at least a season too soon and for no positive “business” result. I’m so sick of it.

Far too early to see with these owners if it is a business model or not. They’ve rejected offers for players before, it just doesn’t he spoken about. They aren’t selling at the first offer like TS. He might not even be gone. I’d save your anger until it’s confirmed and we have a vague idea of the fee 

i’m talking about the business model as many fans think it is. Its not the model pursued by Sunderland (post Methven) or Ipswich to get them promoted from this division. People talk about “investing” the fee in supposedly more  seasoned players. They forget that such players also come with seasoned salary demands. And then there is the Academy itself. M’bick is easily the most promising product through there since Lookman. If we give him away now for £5m -or probably less - you cant say the Academy earns its keep, if you then blow the money on a
modestly talented Championship player, which is all we’d get if you amortise the salary on top of say a £3m fee. And as for the line about no guarantees that he will fulfil his promise; there were no guarantees with Olaofe, Apter, or Kelman either. Yet very few minded that we were paying sizeable  transfer fees to bring them in. Pity nobody insisted on a money-back guarantee for them!

I'd argue that 5m for a kid who's never scored above league two level is not 'giving him away'.

Are there many other examples of fees that high for players who've only scored at that level?

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

PragueAddick said:

fenaddick said:

PragueAddick said:

WSS said:

You seem unusually very emotional about this Prague…

And no apologies for it. I thought we finally had serious owners, and maybe we do but they are listening to Rodwell. This is not the “business model” you and others think it is. With the exception of Lookman, it is the dismal pattern of our post FAPL demise: Gomez, Konsa, Shelvey all sold at least a season too soon and for no positive “business” result. I’m so sick of it.

Far too early to see with these owners if it is a business model or not. They’ve rejected offers for players before, it just doesn’t he spoken about. They aren’t selling at the first offer like TS. He might not even be gone. I’d save your anger until it’s confirmed and we have a vague idea of the fee 

i’m talking about the business model as many fans think it is. Its not the model pursued by Sunderland (post Methven) or Ipswich to get them promoted from this division. People talk about “investing” the fee in supposedly more  seasoned players. They forget that such players also come with seasoned salary demands. And then there is the Academy itself. M’bick is easily the most promising product through there since Lookman. If we give him away now for £5m -or probably less - you cant say the Academy earns its keep, if you then blow the money on a
modestly talented Championship player, which is all we’d get if you amortise the salary on top of say a £3m fee. And as for the line about no guarantees that he will fulfil his promise; there were no guarantees with Olaofe, Apter, or Kelman either. Yet very few minded that we were paying sizeable  transfer fees to bring them in. Pity nobody insisted on a money-back guarantee for them!

I'd argue that 5m for a kid who's never scored above league two level is not 'giving him away'.

Are there many other examples of fees that high for players who've only scored at that level?

Ollie Watkins £7.25 million 

WSS said:

Leaburn must be worth about £50m based on his 100+ appearances and 20+ goals at League 1 level and above.

You joke, but Leaburn has improved in the last few months, his hold up play is better, he’s fitter and pressing more effectively, he retains possession more often. He’s been winning plenty of headers all season.

If Clarke and Chambers can get more dangerous crosses in as they did vs Leicester then Leaburn will add goals to the above.

Do that and he’ll attract interest and be worth a big fee.

Colchester fans have often commented on Mbick’s hold up play, how he’s playing like an experienced target man. It is only L2, but it’s a role players usually grow into right into their late 20s and early 30s. Leaburn wasn’t consistently doing that at the same age (admittedly one division above), and that I imagine is a big reason Brighton are so keen. It’s not normal for a young striker to play that role so effectively, it shows a combination of technical ability, intelligence and physicality - they’ll be imagining what he could be in years to come.

PragueAddick said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

PragueAddick said:

fenaddick said:

PragueAddick said:

WSS said:

You seem unusually very emotional about this Prague…

And no apologies for it. I thought we finally had serious owners, and maybe we do but they are listening to Rodwell. This is not the “business model” you and others think it is. With the exception of Lookman, it is the dismal pattern of our post FAPL demise: Gomez, Konsa, Shelvey all sold at least a season too soon and for no positive “business” result. I’m so sick of it.

Far too early to see with these owners if it is a business model or not. They’ve rejected offers for players before, it just doesn’t he spoken about. They aren’t selling at the first offer like TS. He might not even be gone. I’d save your anger until it’s confirmed and we have a vague idea of the fee 

i’m talking about the business model as many fans think it is. Its not the model pursued by Sunderland (post Methven) or Ipswich to get them promoted from this division. People talk about “investing” the fee in supposedly more  seasoned players. They forget that such players also come with seasoned salary demands. And then there is the Academy itself. M’bick is easily the most promising product through there since Lookman. If we give him away now for £5m -or probably less - you cant say the Academy earns its keep, if you then blow the money on a
modestly talented Championship player, which is all we’d get if you amortise the salary on top of say a £3m fee. And as for the line about no guarantees that he will fulfil his promise; there were no guarantees with Olaofe, Apter, or Kelman either. Yet very few minded that we were paying sizeable  transfer fees to bring them in. Pity nobody insisted on a money-back guarantee for them!

I'd argue that 5m for a kid who's never scored above league two level is not 'giving him away'.

Are there many other examples of fees that high for players who've only scored at that level?

On the surface that’s a reasonable question, but IMO too crude a way to value a player. If you take Lookman, the one player for whom we got fair value at the time. Lookman basically had 12 months as a first team player here. In that time he scored 7 goals according to FotMob stats. Everton are said to have paid £7,5m up front with addons taking the fee to £11m. According to a detailed answer from Claude AI Everton’s revenues have risen 54% from that season to the 23/24 season. Everton of course are an under-achiever in the FAPL, and the bigger clubs have seen revenue rise by far more, due to big increases from European competitions. So that gives you a conservative benchmark of what Mbick might be worth if he stays with us a full season: £12m plus add-ons. 

This of course will trigger people saying that Mbick isn’t as good as Lookman, etc. However they may first want to remind themselves what people on here wrote about Lookman at various stages during his 12 months in the squad.

Lookman played for us in the Championship and then half a season in league one, so that's not really comparable to Mbick.

Red_Chester said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

PragueAddick said:

fenaddick said:

PragueAddick said:

WSS said:

You seem unusually very emotional about this Prague…

And no apologies for it. I thought we finally had serious owners, and maybe we do but they are listening to Rodwell. This is not the “business model” you and others think it is. With the exception of Lookman, it is the dismal pattern of our post FAPL demise: Gomez, Konsa, Shelvey all sold at least a season too soon and for no positive “business” result. I’m so sick of it.

Far too early to see with these owners if it is a business model or not. They’ve rejected offers for players before, it just doesn’t he spoken about. They aren’t selling at the first offer like TS. He might not even be gone. I’d save your anger until it’s confirmed and we have a vague idea of the fee 

i’m talking about the business model as many fans think it is. Its not the model pursued by Sunderland (post Methven) or Ipswich to get them promoted from this division. People talk about “investing” the fee in supposedly more  seasoned players. They forget that such players also come with seasoned salary demands. And then there is the Academy itself. M’bick is easily the most promising product through there since Lookman. If we give him away now for £5m -or probably less - you cant say the Academy earns its keep, if you then blow the money on a
modestly talented Championship player, which is all we’d get if you amortise the salary on top of say a £3m fee. And as for the line about no guarantees that he will fulfil his promise; there were no guarantees with Olaofe, Apter, or Kelman either. Yet very few minded that we were paying sizeable  transfer fees to bring them in. Pity nobody insisted on a money-back guarantee for them!

I'd argue that 5m for a kid who's never scored above league two level is not 'giving him away'.

Are there many other examples of fees that high for players who've only scored at that level?

Ollie Watkins £7.25 million 

This isn't strictly true. They ended up getting a decent amount but not immediately.

"Watkins was sold to Brentford for an initial fee of £1.8 million.
When Watkins moved from Brentford to Aston Villa for a fee of £28 million (potentially rising to £33 million), Exeter City received approximately £4 million as a result of their 15% sell-on clause on the profit.
Subsequent performance-related bonuses (such as his England debut and further appearances) brought in an additional £450,000 to £750,000, bringing the total received to just over £6 million."

So they got 1.8m + add-ons.
I suspect if we can get around 4-5m + decent add-ons then we'll have done well comparative to the level he's played at.

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

Red_Chester said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

PragueAddick said:

fenaddick said:

PragueAddick said:

WSS said:

You seem unusually very emotional about this Prague…

And no apologies for it. I thought we finally had serious owners, and maybe we do but they are listening to Rodwell. This is not the “business model” you and others think it is. With the exception of Lookman, it is the dismal pattern of our post FAPL demise: Gomez, Konsa, Shelvey all sold at least a season too soon and for no positive “business” result. I’m so sick of it.

Far too early to see with these owners if it is a business model or not. They’ve rejected offers for players before, it just doesn’t he spoken about. They aren’t selling at the first offer like TS. He might not even be gone. I’d save your anger until it’s confirmed and we have a vague idea of the fee 

i’m talking about the business model as many fans think it is. Its not the model pursued by Sunderland (post Methven) or Ipswich to get them promoted from this division. People talk about “investing” the fee in supposedly more  seasoned players. They forget that such players also come with seasoned salary demands. And then there is the Academy itself. M’bick is easily the most promising product through there since Lookman. If we give him away now for £5m -or probably less - you cant say the Academy earns its keep, if you then blow the money on a
modestly talented Championship player, which is all we’d get if you amortise the salary on top of say a £3m fee. And as for the line about no guarantees that he will fulfil his promise; there were no guarantees with Olaofe, Apter, or Kelman either. Yet very few minded that we were paying sizeable  transfer fees to bring them in. Pity nobody insisted on a money-back guarantee for them!

I'd argue that 5m for a kid who's never scored above league two level is not 'giving him away'.

Are there many other examples of fees that high for players who've only scored at that level?

Ollie Watkins £7.25 million 

This isn't strictly true. They ended up getting a decent amount but not immediately.

"Watkins was sold to Brentford for an initial fee of £1.8 million.
When Watkins moved from Brentford to Aston Villa for a fee of £28 million (potentially rising to £33 million), Exeter City received approximately £4 million as a result of their 15% sell-on clause on the profit.
Subsequent performance-related bonuses (such as his England debut and further appearances) brought in an additional £450,000 to £750,000, bringing the total received to just over £6 million."

So they got 1.8m + add-ons.
I suspect if we can get around 4-5m + decent add-ons then we'll have done well comparative to the level he's played at.

Watkins had also played 3 full seasons (two at league two, and one at conference south) by that time - so really once again, hardly comparable to Mbick.

The Red Robin said:

PragueAddick said:

WSS said:

You seem unusually very emotional about this Prague…

And no apologies for it. I thought we finally had serious owners, and maybe we do but they are listening to Rodwell. This is not the “business model” you and others think it is. With the exception of Lookman, it is the dismal pattern of our post FAPL demise: Gomez, Konsa, Shelvey all sold at least a season too soon and for no positive “business” result. I’m so sick of it.

It’s quite clear Prague, that this lot don’t have the money we were led to believe. Look at this transfer window. Loans and freebies. 

Conveniently ignoring Sichenje? 

I am hoping the thread title which mentions bids rejected is a bit of an indicator in all this.
If Mbick is so rubbish, so unproven, so inexperienced, then either that is a wrong judgement or a lot of people recognise his quality and potential, or the two rejected bids were fifty pence, and a pound.

WSS said:

Wonder if he's been promised a new deal and place in the matchday squad next season?

He signed a new deal last summer but we'll have a space in the squad for a target man with Dykes contract coming to an end, so I wouldn't rule him being part of the first team next season.

I don't think this is necessarily the end of Brighton's interest. May also be other clubs having a look if he continues improving at Colchester.

PragueAddick said:

GChris_from_Sidcup said:

PragueAddick said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

PragueAddick said:

fenaddick said:

PragueAddick said:

WSS said:

You seem unusually very emotional about this Prague…

And no apologies for it. I thought we finally had serious owners, and maybe we do but they are listening to Rodwell. This is not the “business model” you and others think it is. With the exception of Lookman, it is the dismal pattern of our post FAPL demise: Gomez, Konsa, Shelvey all sold at least a season too soon and for no positive “business” result. I’m so sick of it.

Far too early to see with these owners if it is a business model or not. They’ve rejected offers for players before, it just doesn’t he spoken about. They aren’t selling at the first offer like TS. He might not even be gone. I’d save your anger until it’s confirmed and we have a vague idea of the fee 

i’m talking about the business model as many fans think it is. Its not the model pursued by Sunderland (post Methven) or Ipswich to get them promoted from this division. People talk about “investing” the fee in supposedly more  seasoned players. They forget that such players also come with seasoned salary demands. And then there is the Academy itself. M’bick is easily the most promising product through there since Lookman. If we give him away now for £5m -or probably less - you cant say the Academy earns its keep, if you then blow the money on a
modestly talented Championship player, which is all we’d get if you amortise the salary on top of say a £3m fee. And as for the line about no guarantees that he will fulfil his promise; there were no guarantees with Olaofe, Apter, or Kelman either. Yet very few minded that we were paying sizeable  transfer fees to bring them in. Pity nobody insisted on a money-back guarantee for them!

I'd argue that 5m for a kid who's never scored above league two level is not 'giving him away'.

Are there many other examples of fees that high for players who've only scored at that level?

On the surface that’s a reasonable question, but IMO too crude a way to value a player. If you take Lookman, the one player for whom we got fair value at the time. Lookman basically had 12 months as a first team player here. In that time he scored 7 goals according to FotMob stats. Everton are said to have paid £7,5m up front with addons taking the fee to £11m. According to a detailed answer from Claude AI Everton’s revenues have risen 54% from that season to the 23/24 season. Everton of course are an under-achiever in the FAPL, and the bigger clubs have seen revenue rise by far more, due to big increases from European competitions. So that gives you a conservative benchmark of what Mbick might be worth if he stays with us a full season: £12m plus add-ons. 

This of course will trigger people saying that Mbick isn’t as good as Lookman, etc. However they may first want to remind themselves what people on here wrote about Lookman at various stages during his 12 months in the squad.

Lookman played for us in the Championship and then half a season in league one, so that's not really comparable to Mbick.

It is a - conservative- benchmark for his value if he stays with us next season and performs as well as Lookman did. 

It’s conservative because the revenues of the Big 6 have moved up far more than the rest, and revenues of European clubs have also generally greatly improved, (France being an exception when you take Plastic Saint-Germain out of the analysis). All of this inflation filters down the English pyramid. However revenues in the Championship have not gone up to match this inflation, due to us surrendering control of TV money to FAPL club owners since 1991. That is why the Championship is rated by club finance directors as the biggest financial basket case of the lot. You have to pay £2m or more for strikers who cannot manage to score more than 3 goals by February. And that is why it does my head in that we are prepared to let young talent go at the first whiff of money.

All that said, he hasn’t gone. Maybe I have once again under-estimated Big Jim. I hope so. I also hope he doesnt read CL, since I would very much like to see Mbick scoring in front of the Covered End. Is that really such a big ask? 

It makes no sense.  We get kids in at 9 years old and spend the next 9 years looking after them for what they may become.  Then, as you say, as soon as money is offered, some posters flip to what they may not become.  

We had a similar discussion about Burstow when we sold him to Chelsea. He is 22 now and is back to playing in League 1, on loan at Bolton, having been sold by Chelsea to Hull. He has 8 goals this season from 35 appearances of which one has come in his last 23 matches. Had we not sold him, he still wouldn't have been playing for us now in the Championship.

There really aren't that many English strikers who make it as an international or even in the PL. For every Toney or Watkins there are loads who don't kick on. Look at Cameron Archer - Southampton paid £15m for him - he scored two goals in a whole season in the PL and has another two in the Championship so far to make it four goals in 54 appearances. And he's 24 now. 

£5m would be decent but the key for me is that sell-on clause. Something like 30% could be very big but if turns out not to be that much then the probability is that Mbick turned out to be not as good as we had hoped he would. 

By the time he leaves Liverpool I suspect it will be on a free transfer, a reward for his loyalty!