Danizen Posted 21 June 2019 Share Posted 21 June 2019 16 minutes ago, murphy said: The last thing we need is that cry baby pouting around the place thinking he's slumming it and doing us a favour. No thanks. Never look back and no more toe-curling 'sweet prince' posts. Agree 100%. Amazing player on his day but we've all seen first hand how ineffective he is when he's having a strop. Well we'd be treated to a season-long strop. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moore_94 Posted 21 June 2019 Share Posted 21 June 2019 It is 15% of any profit we make, if we sell Maguire for £75m, Hull get 15% of the £58m profit = £8.7m. https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/football/manchester-city-harry-maguire-windfall-2886172 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beechey Posted 21 June 2019 Share Posted 21 June 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, moore_94 said: It is 15% of any profit we make, if we sell Maguire for £75m, Hull get 15% of the £58m profit = £8.7m. https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/football/manchester-city-harry-maguire-windfall-2886172 For those who can't be bothered, it means if we sold at £75m, we'd get a shade over £66m of that. Equally, if we sold at £65m, we would see bout £59m of it. Edited 21 June 2019 by Beechey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monsell1976 Posted 21 June 2019 Share Posted 21 June 2019 (edited) Should run a book on which one of our players Man City buy next season, will probably be chilwell ? Some reports say his medical is pencilled in for next week, well I’m guessing they have come up with what we want? Edited 21 June 2019 by Monsell1976 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtmcfly Posted 21 June 2019 Share Posted 21 June 2019 12 minutes ago, bmt said: I'm just talking from old Football Manager experience but I think unless stated it's on the transfer fee not on profit. It's worth noticing that this gives clubs selling young players for a fee which they believe to be low (but where the player wants to leave to a bigger club) a bit of protection. Eg. A Club in League One have a decent 22 year old player who was decent in League One but unproven elsewhere, and Man United want to buy him for 10 mil. If they give a sell on fee on transfer fee of 25%, even if the player turns out to only be okay and moves to say Brighton the next season for 10 million, they get a decent extra payout (2.5 million). If it's only on profit they receive nothing. Example in media: https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/627160/Premier-League-transfers-sell-on-clauses-profit-sportgalleries "The Burnley centre-back moved to the Toffees for a fee of £30m yesterday. And the Red Devils will pocket £7.5m of the cash after Louis van Gaal negotiated a 25 per cent sell-on clause with the Turf Moor club when he sold Keane." There are some sell-on fees which are just on profit, but they tend to be stated. I can see this on a very low initial transfer fee e.g. your example League 1 player scenario, because in affect the sell on amount is nearly all profit anyway, so it makes no odds. The Keane example from the Daily Star - Burnley paid less than 3 million for him. But on the example you initially commented on, with an initial transfer fee of 30 million? I can't see it. You start getting the daft scenario of selling the player for 20 million and still having to pay a sell on fee of 2 million. The Salah example is the only one I can find with a similar initial fee to Maguire's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicolo Barella Posted 21 June 2019 Share Posted 21 June 2019 I liked it better when I just assumed money in was money in and had never heard of amortisation. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Babylon Posted 21 June 2019 Popular Post Share Posted 21 June 2019 1 hour ago, Camberwell Fox said: John Percy. we valued him at £80 million last summer prior to his England performances and his gradual improvement this season just gone. its therefore very reasonable to value him in today’s market at £90-£100 million. i don’t believe either Manchester clubs will meet that valuation. He’s not worth that in a month of Sunday’s. We might stick a silly value on him because we aren’t keen to sell and break up the team unless we really really have to. And to push up any fee we eventually get. But we need to get real, he’s not worth that. His performances don’t warrant it, nothing that’s happened in the market suggests that’s his true market value either. 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmt Posted 21 June 2019 Share Posted 21 June 2019 22 minutes ago, turtmcfly said: I can see this on a very low initial transfer fee e.g. your example League 1 player scenario, because in affect the sell on amount is nearly all profit anyway, so it makes no odds. The Keane example from the Daily Star - Burnley paid less than 3 million for him. But on the example you initially commented on, with an initial transfer fee of 30 million? I can't see it. You start getting the daft scenario of selling the player for 20 million and still having to pay a sell on fee of 2 million. The Salah example is the only one I can find with a similar initial fee to Maguire's. You may well be right, like I said most of it was based on football manager! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murphy Posted 21 June 2019 Share Posted 21 June 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Babylon said: He’s not worth that in a month of Sunday’s. We might stick a silly value on him because we aren’t keen to sell and break up the team unless we really really have to. And to push up any fee we eventually get. But we need to get real, he’s not worth that. His performances don’t warrant it, nothing that’s happened in the market suggests that’s his true market value either. He really is. Well £80m anyway. £90-£100m s pushing it a bit, Find me another CB that can maraud up the pitch like Harry. He is still young for a centre half and will improve defensively. £80m is not excessive imo when you see the prices that are being quoted for the likes of Brooks or Wan-Bissaka. It's just the runaway train of transfer inflation and we need to keep pace with it. Edited 21 June 2019 by murphy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotch Posted 21 June 2019 Share Posted 21 June 2019 Not enough in my opinion. ESPECIALLY since the Euro under 21's has convinced me that we WOULD need another CB. I don't have the trust in Benkovic that alot of you seem to have, especially since he was torn apart in Croatia last game and aggravated his re-occuring injury AGAIN. Soyuncu is untested.... we will end up playing with Wes for another season and although I think he's still got some good games left in him a season would be too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxfanazer Posted 21 June 2019 Share Posted 21 June 2019 11 minutes ago, Babylon said: He’s not worth that in a month of Sunday’s. We might stick a silly value on him because we aren’t keen to sell and break up the team unless we really really have to. And to push up any fee we eventually get. But we need to get real, he’s not worth that. His performances don’t warrant it, nothing that’s happened in the market suggests that’s his true market value either. Spot on. Been nothing better than average this season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fox_up_north Posted 21 June 2019 Share Posted 21 June 2019 This only works if we've got another CB lined up. Realistically this transfer has been mooted for, what, six months? I'd hope the club have had a contingency in place - 2-3 targets to replace him for that time. Brendan will have had his own idea of what kind of player he likes at CB. It is still fairly early in the window as well. If we can get him out, money in and another transfer on the go by mid July then it works. But no more outs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muzzy_no7 Posted 21 June 2019 Share Posted 21 June 2019 1 minute ago, fox_up_north said: This only works if we've got another CB lined up. Realistically this transfer has been mooted for, what, six months? I'd hope the club have had a contingency in place - 2-3 targets to replace him for that time. Brendan will have had his own idea of what kind of player he likes at CB. It is still fairly early in the window as well. If we can get him out, money in and another transfer on the go by mid July then it works. But no more outs. Dunk and Tarkowski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camberwell Fox Posted 21 June 2019 Share Posted 21 June 2019 He’s worth what someone is willing to pay the same as if you are selling your house. in today’s market £90 million for a ball playing C/B isn’t ridiculous, just because the two clubs interested don’t want to pay that and get him on the cheap shouldn’t pressure us to sell him for below his market value. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HankMarvin Posted 21 June 2019 Share Posted 21 June 2019 29 minutes ago, murphy said: He really is. Well £80m anyway. £90-£100m s pushing it a bit, Find me another CB that can maraud up the pitch like Harry. He is still young for a centre half and will improve defensively. £80m is not excessive imo when you see the prices that are being quoted for the likes of Brooks or Wan-Bissaka. It's just the runaway train of transfer inflation and we need to keep pace with it. Agreed His performances this season haven’t warranted the huge increase in value, but the prices being touted for other players has pushed established international players value up. Wan Bissaka 21 42 career games £60m the landscape is changing, the premier league has followed the NBA in terms of earning. How long before a player is payed 1m a week. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urban fox Posted 21 June 2019 Share Posted 21 June 2019 The issue here of course is that if we do sell for a huge fee, every potential replacement target will have an extra £10M slapped on their price by greedy agents and clubs as they will use the logic 1- we now have a shed load of dosh to spend and 2- we NEED a replacement. This does not take into account the fact that 1 - we already have plenty of dosh and anything we get for Harry will not be earmarked for a replacement but in other areas because 2- we are not desperate for another CB (Benkovic injury aside we still have Evans, Soyunku, Morgan and at a push Amarty or even Fuchs can play there) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackneyfox Posted 21 June 2019 Share Posted 21 June 2019 1 hour ago, Danizen said: Agree 100%. Amazing player on his day but we've all seen first hand how ineffective he is when he's having a strop. Well we'd be treated to a season-long strop. Why would we get a season long strop? He can't be forced to come back on loan (with a view to a permanent move at the end of the season) so if he agreed to it then he's happy to do so. We get a player that can the goals and assists we are desperate for. Maddison, Tielemans and Mahrez would give us a very good chance of top six. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muzzy_Larsson Posted 21 June 2019 Share Posted 21 June 2019 2 minutes ago, urban fox said: The issue here of course is that if we do sell for a huge fee, every potential replacement target will have an extra £10M slapped on their price by greedy agents and clubs as they will use the logic 1- we now have a shed load of dosh to spend and 2- we NEED a replacement. This does not take into account the fact that 1 - we already have plenty of dosh and anything we get for Harry will not be earmarked for a replacement but in other areas because 2- we are not desperate for another CB (Benkovic injury aside we still have Evans, Soyunku, Morgan and at a push Amarty or even Fuchs can play there) This very thing annoys the hell out of me with Celtic, we never go out and replace before we have the money in our hands to spend and as a result it ends up costing us more, albeit on a lesser scale from yourselves. Poor succession planning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Muzzy_Larsson Posted 21 June 2019 Popular Post Share Posted 21 June 2019 Surely whatever way you look at it getting Mahrez back either on loan or permanent would be an absolutely superb piece of business? No disrespect but I couldn't see Leicester attracting a wide player even close to his level. 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urban fox Posted 21 June 2019 Share Posted 21 June 2019 If Mahrez did come back on a loan with permanent option, no doubt if he had a storming season and we ended up top 6, MCFC would no doubt value him at far more than they paid us for him but at the same time refuse to meet our valuation for Chilwell, Madders or whoever else they decided that they wanted to cherry pick from our squad as they will not be "held to ransom" over inflated valuations just because they are who they are and perceived to have all the money. Hypocrites the lot of them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 21 June 2019 Share Posted 21 June 2019 51 minutes ago, murphy said: He really is. Well £80m anyway. £90-£100m s pushing it a bit, Find me another CB that can maraud up the pitch like Harry. He is still young for a centre half and will improve defensively. £80m is not excessive imo when you see the prices that are being quoted for the likes of Brooks or Wan-Bissaka. It's just the runaway train of transfer inflation and we need to keep pace with it. You'll be happy to pay £50m for Dunk then? Or do these stupid valuations only work one way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Posted 21 June 2019 Share Posted 21 June 2019 Meanwhile, back on Earth... 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Babylon Posted 21 June 2019 Popular Post Share Posted 21 June 2019 Why is Mahrez being discussed... it was a fake ITK account attempting to mirror another fake ITK account?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! 8 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surrifox Posted 21 June 2019 Share Posted 21 June 2019 the whole matter of medicals being pencilled in seems like utter nonsense on the face of it. If the club have agreed a deal (which would be a forerunner to any "medical" ) why are they not making some sort of statement (there would be nothing to lose by that stage) but allowing MC to make all the public statements or leak details to the papers seems an odd way to conduct business. If its an attempt to exert pressure on us I would be inclined to tell them to FOAD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotch Posted 21 June 2019 Share Posted 21 June 2019 8 minutes ago, henrik_62 said: Surely whatever way you look at it getting Mahrez back either on loan or permanent would be an absolutely superb piece of business? No disrespect but I couldn't see Leicester attracting a wide player even close to his level. You are thinking of Mahrez on his day, and on that day, we would agree with you. We would love that Mahrez back but we as Leicester fans know full well that, that Mahrez doesn't always show up. If he's in a huff, he goes missing and what we are worried about is, Mahrez on loan for a year could mean Mahrez in a huff for a year. 2 minutes ago, Babylon said: Why is Mahrez being discussed... it was a fake ITK account attempting to mirror another fake ITK account?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! I think many of us are hoping for truth in it because £65m seems low and we are hoping that there is something else to the deal. Even if it is blatantly fake, as you've said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts