Riyad Mahrez - The great Artist

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

13 minutes ago, YorkshireYellow said:

 

What you did was price Liverpool out of a move here. 

Coutinho went for £105 million.... but about 10% of that would have gone to agents, then Countinho would have got a few million in outstanding loyalty bonuses, the accountants would have deducted the £8.5m that Liverpool originally signed him for.... and a 'profit neutral' Coutinho replacement would probably needed to have been purchased for somewhere around £75m. That's roughly the amount that Liverpool would have had to replace Coutinho, at a maximum.  

 

That's why £95m is unrealistic. 

 

Man City paid £55m for De Bruyne and £44m for Sterling. Although football 'inflation' has increased substantially in the two years since, I don't think it has increased enough to value Mahrez at £95m when there is uncertainty about how he'd perform when he's not a big fish in a relatively small pond.... £65m to £75m probably his market value, accounting for the January premium. 

And what about the last 2 days of January premium?  It rightly goes up again then

 

And reportedly we would have taken 80 mil

 

I'm not sure we have done anything like pricing him out of a move.  Just stood our ground within reasonable bounds

[SecretPro]

55 minutes ago, YorkshireYellow said:

Its an unrealistic price for a team like Leicester to be asking for a player, £95m is crazy money. 

 

That's the type of money that you would expect a player to leave a top 4 side for, to go to Barcelona or Real Madrid, or PSG. 

 

Man City paid £55m for De Bruyne and £44m for Sterling. 

 

You should have just sold him for £60m and bought yourself James Maddison from us for the £20m that we'll probably get.... he'd be worth £50m within a year of playing Premier League football. (By all means mock that claim, but if you are going to then prepare yourself to have this bumped when he's shining in the Premier League and pulling on an England shirt, kids top drawer). 

Sorry?

[David Hankey]

21 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

Sorry? Do not apologise!!

 

1 hour ago, YorkshireYellow said:

Its an unrealistic price for a team like Leicester to be asking for a player, £95m is crazy money. 

 

That's the type of money that you would expect a player to leave a top 4 side for, to go to Barcelona or Real Madrid, or PSG. 

 

Man City paid £55m for De Bruyne and £44m for Sterling. 

 

You should have just sold him for £60m and bought yourself James Maddison from us for the £20m that we'll probably get.... he'd be worth £50m within a year of playing Premier League football. (By all means mock that claim, but if you are going to then prepare yourself to have this bumped when he's shining in the Premier League and pulling on an England shirt, kids top drawer). 

What do you mean "for a team like Leicester"?!! We have every right to hold out for the this type of figure given Mahrez's undoubted talent, the current market valuations and the fact that the likes of Liverpool splash out £75M for a defender. You appear to be saying because it's Leicester City who are not a top 4 club they have no right to try and get the top price for a top player. As for Maddison, who is he?!!

Edited 2 February 2018 by David Hankey

[SecretPro]

17 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

 

What do you mean "for a team like Leicester"?!! We have every right to hold out for the this type of figure given Mahrez's undoubted talent, the current market valuations and the fact that the likes of Liverpool splash out £75M for a defender. You appear to be saying because it's Leicester City who are not a top 4 club they have no right to try and get the top price for a top player. As for Maddison, who is he?!!

He's clearly deluded. apparently market value only applies to top 4 clubs.

[skikdi]

Is it true that the owners agreed to sell him for a reasonable offer? We've all heard of the famous 'gentleman's agreement'... None of us know what was said or what was agreed on. If Mahrez feels like the owners went back on their word then his antics are a little more understandable. 

 

Also make me laugh when people cite the fact that he's making 100K per week. He's being underpaid according to market value. 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

1 minute ago, SecretPro said:

He's clearly deluded. apparently market value only applies to top 4 clubs.

If he played for Liverpool/Tottenham nobody would bat an eyelid at turning down 60 mill when we did

[SecretPro]

14 minutes ago, skikdi said:

Is it true that the owners agreed to sell him for a reasonable offer? We've all heard of the famous 'gentleman's agreement'... None of us know what was said or what was agreed on. If Mahrez feels like the owners went back on their word then his antics are a little more understandable. 

 

Also make me laugh when people cite the fact that he's making 100K per week. He's being underpaid according to market value. 

Perhaps they would have sold for a reasonable offer though. I would consider £100m reasonable, but given that Mahrez has statistically out-performed Coutinho and Hazard for the last 2 years and with Coutinho fetching £140m I don't see hwy we should accept any less for Riyad.

[SheppyFox]

1 hour ago, YorkshireYellow said:

 

What you did was price Liverpool out of a move here. 

Coutinho went for £105 million.... but about 10% of that would have gone to agents, then Countinho would have got a few million in outstanding loyalty bonuses, the accountants would have deducted the £8.5m that Liverpool originally signed him for.... and a 'profit neutral' Coutinho replacement would probably needed to have been purchased for somewhere around £75m. That's roughly the amount that Liverpool would have had to replace Coutinho, at a maximum.  

 

That's why £95m is unrealistic. 

 

Man City paid £55m for De Bruyne and £44m for Sterling. Although football 'inflation' has increased substantially in the two years since, I don't think it has increased enough to value Mahrez at £95m when there is uncertainty about how he'd perform when he's not a big fish in a relatively small pond.... £65m to £75m probably his market value, accounting for the January premium. 

Which team do you support? 

[skikdi]

Just now, SecretPro said:

Perhaps they would have sold for a reasonable offer though. I would consider £100m reasonable, but given that Mahrez has statistically out-performed Coutinho and Hazard for the last 2 years and with Coutinho fetching £140m I don't see hwy we should accept any less for Riyad.

But we don't know what was said. Maybe a figure was given to Mahrez, I remember at the time of the Roma bid, many thought the owners would promise to let him go for 50m. 

 

If they said 'Stay an extra season, sign this contract and we'll sell you if you fetch us 50m', then changed their minds according to the inflation of the market, then I can see why he'd be vexed. 

[SheppyFox]

21 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

He's clearly deluded. apparently market value only applies to top 4 clubs.

It’s the northern brain power. 

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, YorkshireYellow said:

Its an unrealistic price for a team like Leicester to be asking for a player, £95m is crazy money. 

 

That's the type of money that you would expect a player to leave a top 4 side for, to go to Barcelona or Real Madrid, or PSG. 

 

Man City paid £55m for De Bruyne and £44m for Sterling. 

 

You should have just sold him for £60m and bought yourself James Maddison from us for the £20m that we'll probably get.... he'd be worth £50m within a year of playing Premier League football. (By all means mock that claim, but if you are going to then prepare yourself to have this bumped when he's shining in the Premier League and pulling on an England shirt, kids top drawer). 

 

De Bruyne and Sterling moved 2.5 years ago, during a summer transfer window. Fees have risen markedly since then, due to the extra TV money. Also, fees are always higher in the January window, due to the disruption caused to the selling club - never mind the disruption caused by an unwanted sale arranged in the last 2 days of that window! (p.s. To exaggerate the case briefly: Barcelona only paid £5m for Maradona in 1982 - prices change!)

 

I've not seen enough of Maddison to know how realistic your assessment of his potential is. I've heard good things, but there's always an element of uncertainty as to which players can make the step up to perform well in the PL.

Assuming you're right, though, even you are suggesting that it would take him time to adapt and improve. We might have that time in the summer, but we don't have it now. We're trying to secure a Top 7 position, European football, potentially even the FA Cup. If we had lost Mahrez, our chances of achieving that would have been much lower. As a result, we'd have been more vulnerable to some of our other best players being cherry-picked by big clubs in the summer - and at lower prices, as we'd have been seen as a soft touch. If we'd followed your advice, sold Mahrez and bought Maddison, he might well have found himself at a club that finished in the bottom half, had to overhaul its squad in the summer and ended up in relegation struggle next season... 

 

That might happen anyway, if Mahrez chooses to mess us about for the next 6 months. But this way at least the club has a chance to talk him round, get him performing as he has been for the past 3 months, so that we end up in the Europa League and he ends up with a big move in June. There's a risk it will go wrong for us - but the risk would have been much, much greater if our owners had capitulated to Man City's bullying. 

Edited 2 February 2018 by Alf Bentley

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

De Bruyne and Sterling moved 2.5 years ago, during a summer transfer window. Fees have risen markedly since then, due to the extra TV money. Also, fees are always higher in the January window, due to the disruption caused to the selling club - never mind the disruption caused by an unwanted sale arranged in the last 2 days of that window! (p.s. To exaggerate the case briefly: Barcelona only paid £5m for Maradona in 1982 - prices change!)

 

I've not seen enough of Maddison to know how realistic your assessment of his potential is. I've heard good things, but there's always an element of uncertainty as to which players can make the step up to perform well in the PL.

Assuming you're right, though, even you are suggesting that it would take him time to adapt and improve. We might have that time in the summer, but we don't have it now. We're trying to secure a Top 7 position, European football, potentially even the FA Cup. If we had lost Mahrez, our chances of achieving that would have been much lower. As a result, we'd have been more vulnerable to some of our other best players being cherry-picked by big clubs in the summer - and at lower prices, as we'd have been seen as a soft touch. If we'd followed your advice, sold Mahrez and bought Maddison, he might well have found himself at a club that finished in the bottom half, had to overhaul its squad in the summer and ended up in relegation struggle next season... 

 

That might happen anyway, if Mahrez chooses to mess us about for the next 6 months. But this way at least the club has a chance to talk him round, get him performing as he has been for the past 3 months, so that we end up in the Europa League and he ends up with a big move in June. There's a risk it will go wrong for us - but the risk would have been much, much greater if our owners had capitulated to Man City's bullying. 

Or.... just forget all of that, because our clubs aims arent as important to the entire world as Mahrez dream of going and being back up for Man City in their bid to win 4 trophies this season.

 

@YorkshireYellow yeah, we are complete plumbags for not doing this and buying Maddison.  You sir, are a sweet little nut

[ARTY_FOX]

18 minutes ago, skikdi said:

But we don't know what was said. Maybe a figure was given to Mahrez, I remember at the time of the Roma bid, many thought the owners would promise to let him go for 50m. 

 

If they said 'Stay an extra season, sign this contract and we'll sell you if you fetch us 50m', then changed their minds according to the inflation of the market, then I can see why he'd be vexed. 

We know they never said 50 though. It's already bee  reported many times before the window opened that the 50m we reportedly wanted for him in the summer was false. It was 'well below what we value him at. 

[skikdi]

1 minute ago, ARTY_FOX said:

We know they never said 50 though. It's already bee  reported many times before the window opened that the 50m we reportedly wanted for him in the summer was false. It was 'well below what we value him at. 

Do we know what the figure was then? I highly doubt it was 95...

[ARTY_FOX]

Just now, skikdi said:

Do we know what the figure was then? I highly doubt it was 95...

I highly doubt there was a figure at all.

 

Also, you must know that negotiations have a starting price and the bid is always going to be below what you ask. You then meet at a point your both happy. Not our fault man city don't really rate him that highly is it.

[cambridgefox]

30 minutes ago, SheppyFox said:

Which team do you support? 

Norwich.

TBF Maddison does look good.

[skikdi]

19 minutes ago, ARTY_FOX said:

I highly doubt there was a figure at all.

 

Also, you must know that negotiations have a starting price and the bid is always going to be below what you ask. You then meet at a point your both happy. Not our fault man city don't really rate him that highly is it.

You're probably right, but I think Mahrez must feel like the club haven't held up their side of the bargain or he wouldn't be acting the way he is. 

[ARTY_FOX]

1 minute ago, skikdi said:

You're probably right, but I think Mahrez must feel like the club haven't held up their side of the bargain or he wouldn't be acting the way he is. 

I think he's being a spoilt little shit because he hasn't got his own way despite this supposed 'super aren't telling him he would. I think he's probably embarrassed that all these top clubs he dreams of playing for don't value him as highly as the players they have. He should be upset at man city. It's them who wouldn't pay. It's pep who said they only pay that money for special players indicating he doesn't think mahrez is one. I mean the signs are there clear as day and he doesn't seem to get it. He isn't and never was a 'long term target he'd someone that could rotate in and out of the squad for prem and champions league games until their actual stars that guardiola actually wants come back. 

[David Hankey]

19 hours ago, SecretPro said:

He's clearly deluded. apparently market value only applies to top 4 clubs.

Bollocks!!

[Larry_LCFC]

Hand on heart, I really don't care if he never wears a Leicester shirt again. He is arguably the best player we've ever had, but my days, what a ****.

 

His attitude stinks, always has done and always will until he gets his own way. Last time I checked, it wasn't ok to go AWOL from work because you don't get your own way. As painful as it may be to say, the sooner we get rid the better. The summer will be exactly the same childish drama.

[Tuna]

!

Edited 3 February 2018 by Tuna

[The Doctor]

On 01/02/2018 at 12:56, urban.spaceman said:

"Modern day slavery"

Love the irony of calling it slavery when man city's money comes off the back of slave labour.

[st albans fox]

It’s just nonsense to talk about what players cost. Are academy players supposed to be released on a free cos they weren’t purchased? What about all the signings that don’t work out ?  He cost 400k because that’s all he was worth in the market. If Le Harvre thought he was such a prospect they would have put a sell on clause in the deal. We have developed him as a rounded  player. 

 

And slaves just aren’t paid 20 million quid over 4 years .............

[Finn Claw II]

He signed a 4 year contract surely some part of him realised he might have to see it out.

 

i think he'll go for about what Man City offferd but on our terms when we have time to replace him.

 

adhering to the terms of a fixed contract is not slavery.

[GloverFox]

I currently earn my monthly ‘crust’ under a contract of employment and this also entails a minimum termination of employment on my side ... it’s certainly not slavery .... and Gods teeth I get paid nowhere near 100k a year let alone a week and have to work hard and consistently (including turning up for work on time ‘every day!) ... totally agree with Finn Claw II

Mahrez ... get on with what you signed up to do and stop being such a hurt-spoilt-little-boy!

whilst we all makes mistakes as we go through life sulking and throwing ones dummy out of the cot solves nothing!