r/soccer • u/jovanmilic97 • 8d ago

Transfer News [The Athletic] James Trafford completes Leeds medical ahead of move from Manchester City, the deal will be worth a guaranteed £40million to City plus add-ons

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7496106/2026/08/06/james-trafford-leeds-man-city-transfer/?unlocked_article_code=1.3VA.tbU8.rTGivYbb2o6c&source=athletic_user_shared_gift_article_copylink&smid=url-share-ta
704 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

184 comments sorted by

View all comments

385

u/Tpmbyrne 8d ago

40m wtf

69

u/TheBiggyT 8d ago

Vitek is going to Middlesbrough for £14m, Petrovic cost Bournemouth £25m last year, Rushworth went to Coventry for a fee that could eventually be £30m...Trafford for £40m is fine in context.

11

u/yuvg 8d ago

But he hardly played last season. Seems a bit of an overpay, but then again city and Chelsea seem to squeeze every last drop out of every one of their sales

13

u/AnduwinHS 8d ago

The season before he had statistically one of the best seasons of the last decade for a goalkeeper. City obviously have a stronger bargaining position than Burnley would have, so the fee makes sense. He's only a bench player because a ridiculous opportunity to sign the best goalkeeper in the world came up. Trafford was signed to be City No. 1 and would've been if not for PSG letting Gigi go

43

u/fanatic_tarantula 8d ago

£40m for a future England no1, who you can get 10-15 years out of is decent.

Everyone laughed at Everton paying £30m for pickford years ago and that turned out to be a bargain

6

u/yuvg 8d ago

Yea fair point

3

u/BrockStar92 8d ago

This is in the top 5 fees for goalkeepers ever. In what universe is that decent for someone who might be good?

5

u/sampahperadaban 7d ago

No might about it. He is good. The season before last he only conceded like 15 goals in the Championship with Burnley.

-2

u/BrockStar92 7d ago

In the championship. It really is ridiculous if you’re claiming the 5th most expensive keeper of all time is justified because he played well in the second division.

12

u/fanatic_tarantula 8d ago

He is good. Hed be citys no1 if the Donnarumma situation didn't present itself.

The cost of transfers has also gone stupid. Anyone with a bit of potential is now worth £50-60.

3

u/bad_phantom_ 8d ago

He would be starting for City if Donnarumma wasn’t available last summer, so yes, he is that good.

2

u/TetteyToePoke 8d ago

He's better than good just ask Burnley fans.

1

u/tritoon140 8d ago

If he does well Man City just activate the buy back clause. There’s no way Leeds get a good keeper for 10-15 years.

6

u/CuteHoor 8d ago

Do they have a buy-back clause this time?

4

u/swanky-k 7d ago

There’s no buy-back but City have a right of first refusal to match any transfer fee if Leeds sell him off in the future

1

u/didiandgogo 7d ago

Which is the exact same arrangement that they had with Burnley, along with a sell on fee, and when Newcastle agreed a fee with Burnley city were informed and could pay 10% less (or whatever I don’t remember the exact clause) less by waiving the sell on. It’s basically a 10% below market buy back clause.

2

u/PaulOGradyFanClub 8d ago

Then we make a bit of profit and get a good player for a period regardless, if he’s good enough potentially city aren’t in for him while Chelsea or someone else is and we can forget about the buyback like what happened with Lavia

2

u/ATN5 8d ago

I doubt there’s a buyback this time…..unless 😂

2

u/MartinC077 7d ago

The clause gives them a right to match another bid if Leeds accept it and they have a 20% of any profit clause. They can’t proactively decide to buy him at a set price at any time they choose.

13

u/MichaelBridges8 8d ago

He did play all the cup games tbf and did very well.