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

Chunes said:

The sell-on clause for Joe Gomez hasn't done us much good!

He's still only 28, so I live in hope!

PragueAddick said:

Chris_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? 

You're making a completely unrelated point.

Every single one of us knows that if he stays with us and does well in the Championship then his value will skyrocket. 

The debate is about whether the club cashes in BEFORE that happens. Because there is a chance it may not happen and then we never get a 5m bid ever again. 

Pretty sure there were similar debates on here post-Burstow when Leaburn came onto the scene. What would we do if we got an offer? Keep him and he'll be worth 10m+ soon etc. Three seasons on from his debut season there haven't been any offers.

Where has this Brighton bid £5 million come from?

Does anyone know that for a fact or is it just supposition?

Fortune 82nd Minute said:

Where has this Brighton bid £5 million come from?

Does anyone know that for a fact or is it just supposition?

5m is guesswork on our part i think.

David Ornstein (and then Cawley) reported Brighton had 2 bids rejected, second one for about 3.5m.

Callumcafc said:

Chunes said:

The sell-on clause for Joe Gomez hasn't done us much good!

In hindsight, a sell on clause to Liverpool was smart by them and a bit stupid from us (no surprises there).

Liverpool one of the half a dozen clubs in the world that aren’t a selling club. Gomez would’ve had to turn out to be a Real Madrid level star for that to be triggered in the way you imagine sell ons to be.

It could have been triggered by Gomez moving to a smaller, but still large, PL club though, if he had either a better injury record, or was more interested in being a regular starter. A £20m move to Spurs or Villa would have generated a nice bit of money.

Stu_of_Kunming said:

Callumcafc said:

Chunes said:

The sell-on clause for Joe Gomez hasn't done us much good!

In hindsight, a sell on clause to Liverpool was smart by them and a bit stupid from us (no surprises there).

Liverpool one of the half a dozen clubs in the world that aren’t a selling club. Gomez would’ve had to turn out to be a Real Madrid level star for that to be triggered in the way you imagine sell ons to be.

Didn’t Gomez have a release clause? I don’t think there was much we could do 

Correct. Was £3m and once Liverpool bid that he was gone...

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

PragueAddick said:

Chris_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? 

You're making a completely unrelated point.

Every single one of us knows that if he stays with us and does well in the Championship then his value will skyrocket. 

The debate is about whether the club cashes in BEFORE that happens. Because there is a chance it may not happen and then we never get a 5m bid ever again. 

Pretty sure there were similar debates on here post-Burstow when Leaburn came onto the scene. What would we do if we got an offer? Keep him and he'll be worth 10m+ soon etc. Three seasons on from his debut season there haven't been any offers.

Yeah, but only a minority of us want to see that happen. The rest are glass half-empty. 

Turn it on its head. We get £5m (well, probably less, £3.5m is what is alleged we turned down). We stick that in the transfer budget and hand it over to the Rodwell/Jones combo. So, tell me, how much do you reckon we paid for Oloafe and Apter, including amortised salary for first year? Bang, gone on duff recruitment. I could have used the example of Kelman instead but I am hoping - hoping- that he fulfils our reasonable expectations.

We have very rarely followed the business model of sell to build. There are only two occasions I can think of, the most recent being Carl Jenkinson. Parker is not an example because we fought tooth and nail to keep him. So then you go back to Danny Mills, and that was partly "tactical" too. And then Lee Bowyer but the money went into rebuilding the Valley rather than the team. Not a great record is it? Hence my extreme frustration.

Anyway, it hasn't happened. Maybe, just maybe we are getting serious. 

I think I am right that you can buy a player outside the window, they just can't play for you until the opening of the next one.

If Brighton bought him now, I assume they could do so and leave him on loan at Colchester?  In which case the window is somewhat irrelevant as they would have left him there anyway most likely.

This interest from Brighton will put quite a lot of pressure on Mbick now. Hope he copes with that, all part of his learning process I suppose.

msomerton said:

Athletico Charlton said:

I think I am right that you can buy a player outside the window, they just can't play for you until the opening of the next one.

If Brighton bought him now, I assume they could do so and leave him on loan at Colchester?  In which case the window is somewhat irrelevant as they would have left him there anyway most likely.

they would have to register the loan to Colchester, and the purchase of the contract with the EFL, and have not done so.

Fair enough. I guess Google AI is wrong as it said it was possible and the new parent club just takes over the loan contract as it is already registered with the FA and the club loaned to is not changing.

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

killerandflash said:

Callumcafc said:

Chunes said:

The sell-on clause for Joe Gomez hasn't done us much good!

In hindsight, a sell on clause to Liverpool was smart by them and a bit stupid from us (no surprises there).

Liverpool one of the half a dozen clubs in the world that aren’t a selling club. Gomez would’ve had to turn out to be a Real Madrid level star for that to be triggered in the way you imagine sell ons to be.

It could have been triggered by Gomez moving to a smaller, but still large, PL club though, if he had either a better injury record, or was more interested in being a regular starter. A £20m move to Spurs or Villa would have generated a nice bit of money.

There's still time. He's got 1 more year left on his contract so maybe this is the summer they decide to move him on and get some money. Knowing our luck they'll pay up his contract and release him.

They'll sell for £3,000,100, and we'll get a sell on payment of £20.

Gisappointed said:

With speculation on Mbick, can I throw out some values for our squad of fairly proven Championship players or latent talent.

Kaminsky £1m
Pre-injury Ramsay £3m+
Coventry £1m+
Kanu £2m+
Mbick £5m+
Leaburn £2-3m+
Apter £2m+
Kelman £2m+
TC £2-3m+
Fullah £1m+ (will get minutes)
Carey £2m+
Zach £1m (will get minutes)
Fit Edwards £2m
Jury out on Knibbs/JRC

I think only Ramsay and Mbick have the quality to launch us to the Prem, but Miles and Fullah have the potential, with Collins an unknown. 

Possibly six-eight upgrades to get us up, given Jones and Bell are approaching their sell by dates. 

I think Carey might actually fetch the biggest fee at the moment. On track for a 10 goal season as an attacking midfielder in his first championship season. Those kind of numbers will attract interest 

Fortune 82nd Minute said:

Where has this Brighton bid £5 million come from?

Does anyone know that for a fact or is it just supposition?

Fact - if you include sell-ons etc. 
The weekly wage agreed was about 20 times what he is on with us, rising every 5 apps for them. 

Callumcafc said:

Chunes said:

The sell-on clause for Joe Gomez hasn't done us much good!

In hindsight, a sell on clause to Liverpool was smart by them and a bit stupid from us (no surprises there).

Liverpool one of the half a dozen clubs in the world that aren’t a selling club. Gomez would’ve had to turn out to be a Real Madrid level star for that to be triggered in the way you imagine sell ons to be.

A better solution would be something like a 25% sell-on clause with the added agreement that the buying club pays us X number of pounds for every 50 appearances, up to a maximum of 250, but for every 50 appearances 5% also gets knocked off the sell clause. That way if the player goes on to be an established regular at the new club for a long period, we still get a payout that better reflects the player reaching their potential but the buying club doesn't get disincentivised to sell the player later.

stoneroses19 said:

Surprised it went completely quiet in the end, the last thing of note was that Mbick followed Brighton on Twitter. 

I wonder if it's been agreed to wait for the summer, but everything is finalised. 

There were some people in the know about this, on our side and someone who knew Brighton's recruitment team. Any updates from those posters? 

If everyone is finalised should have announced it now. No point him bagging 20 goal getting us all excited and then suddenly it’s announced he has already gone. Would literally be looking out for a player which isn’t even ours