Let's be blunt: I'm not having a go at the players. Fernandez and Chermiti can be good signings in their own right. The issue here is the structure of the deals we did last summer — big initial fees with sell-on clauses tacked on. That's not the same as praising or slagging the lads; it's about value for the club.

The deal, not the player

When people say we 'overpaid' for Fernandez or Chermiti, they're talking about the price at the point of purchase, not what those players might be worth in a year's time. Paying £3.5m for Fernandez and handing over a large fee for Chermiti while accepting a sell-on feels like paying a premium and then giving away a slice of any future upside. You can see why that frustrates supporters — it's the club's negotiation, not the player's ability, that's under scrutiny.

Sell-ons are a double-edged sword

Sell-on clauses aren't automatically bad. They can help close a deal when you want a player now but don't want to blow the budget. To be fair, they can also reduce risk for the buying club. But when the transfer fee already seems high, adding a sell-on starts to look like poor leverage. It effectively reduces the long-term return on what might otherwise be a big future sale — and if we're right about the initial price being too rich, that could mean real money lost down the line.

What this should teach the board

Truth is, recruitment isn't straightforward. Sometimes you pay a premium for immediate impact and that's defensible. The problem comes when a pattern forms: big upfront fees combined with clauses that hand away future gains. I'm not calling for penny-pinching, but for smarter structuring. If the sums the club paid last summer were too high, then we should expect better bargaining on the next batch of signings. Fans aren't denying the players' potential — we're asking the board to protect the club's long-term value.

Written by RohlWithCheese: 6 March 2026

Tags: transfers tactics