Wesley Fofana - He is no more - finished - forgotten.

[sacreblueits442]

5 hours ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

If they'd offered this 2 months ago I'd reckon we'd sell. Fact is its preferable for us to sell some of the bomb squad for nor much and get a winger in on the cheap than sell one of our best players.

...pretty strategic I would say by Chelaea!!!

  The timing for them is perfect even if they have to pay £100m, which they have probably felt it would have been, to secure the sale.

Edited 10 August 2022 by sacreblueits442
Spelling error.

[sacreblueits442]

3 hours ago, supernuk said:

Exactly this, Leicester and fofana need to look at it next summer not now. Only signed a new deal a few months ago. 

.. which also benefits us!!!

[The_77]

I see it’s another day ending in “y” so Ben Jacobs has to, once again, tell everyone that Fofana is desperate to go to Chelsea. 

[lanefox]

Gammon supporters of Chelsea and the media don’t realise we have all the cards because he has 5 years left

[Mickyblueeyes]

Rob Dorset currently discussing this on Sky Sports. 
 

Says Fofana agents pushing for move as it’s quite lucrative. A lot of the noise is the agent.

 

Cryptic messages on Twitter/insta could be others or Fofana himself. People shouldn’t look so much into it. I’d say the same on people trying to analyse everything he does on the pitch too. 

 

Fofana is a level headed guy. Quite happy and respectful at Leicester and isn’t pushing yet. Leicester keen not to be pushed over. Situation changes if Fofana pushes which he isn’t doing at the moment for the above reasons. 
 

Leicester fans are frustrated, understandably but squad is too big. Leicester owners very realistic. Leicester short of quality but far too many in terms of numbers. Leicester owners have a long term plan which won’t be risked. They want one or two big signings but future of club more important. 

Edited 10 August 2022 by Mickyblueeyes

[UHDrive]

3 minutes ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

Rob Dorset currently discussing this on Sky Sports. 
 

Says Fofana agents pushing for move as it’s quite lucrative. A lot of the noise is the agent.

 

Cryptic messages on Twitter/insta could be others or Fofana himself. People shouldn’t look so much into it. I’d say the same on people trying to analyse everything he does on the pitch too. 

 

Fofana is a level headed guy. Quite happy and respectful at Leicester and isn’t pushing yet. Leicester keen not to be pushed over. Situation changes if Fofana pushes which he isn’t doing at the moment for the above reasons. 
 

Leicester fans are frustrated, understandably but squad is too big. Leicester owners very realistic. Leicester short of quality but I’ve far too many in terms of numbers. Leicester owners have a long term plan which won’t be risked. They want one or two big signings but future of club more important. 

The irony, and depressing thing since the post PL winning season is that they have been, haven't they... Getting into into a situation like this is more than just blindsided.

[sacreblueits442]

39 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

No

It’s too complex to work out in detail but basically we are overspent £30m for the calendar year 2023. A lot of players will leave next summer so likely we have to save about fifteen mill.  The ones you listed are not going to be more than half of that. 

....my take on this is that due to covid the footballing bodies had agreed clubs could exceed FFP threshold by £30m, and the caveat being the owners of the clubs had the liquidity to meet those costs, and to make good.

[Guest itude]

5 hours ago, dannythefox said:

Not enough. 

Not your decision

[Frank Large's Black Book]

 

Has anyone also suggested that Hamza going relieves the logjam even further so Chelsea can do one

[Gevans_97]

The issue here, in my opinion, is that even with a £100m bid, it doesn't necessarily allow us to spend that money on the 2/3 players we need. The squad is still too big and the wage budget still stretched so even with a massive fee we probably won't be able to do much business. 

 

What we need is multiple, big contract players leaving, not 1 wonderkid. 

[sacreblueits442]

43 minutes ago, ARM1968 said:

I think they know it’s £100 million. They just want to keep trying our resolve. You’ve gone to £80 million, what’s another £20 in reality for them. This is negotiation, just being done our way, not theirs. 

.. if you look at the Lukaku deal, along with Havertz and Wermer, you know they will splash the cash!!!

  Until we say, how much it will take, is when the real negotiations starts.

[mozartfox]

FT sources have told me Boehly thinks he can pick up Fofana on the cheap in next season’s EPL Draft🏈

[Suzie the Fox]

The issue i have with all this, is when Maguire went for a record fee.. albeit a decent player for us, we knew we would never get a better financial offer and did have players in the pipeline that could take his place if we couldnt find a replacement. 

 

With Fofana we know that next year, there is a big likleyhood his price will increase, but more importantly we have no-one (reliable) enough to slot in & are in a MUST buy situation.

 

Any club knowing we have just rec'd a shit ton of money for Fofana are ofc going to increase their fee, especially knowing we are desperate.  

 

I really hope we don't sell (still dont think we will.) 

[goose2010]

1 minute ago, Gevans_97 said:

The issue here, in my opinion, is that even with a £100m bid, it doesn't necessarily allow us to spend that money on the 2/3 players we need. The squad is still too big and the wage budget still stretched so even with a massive fee we probably won't be able to do much business. 

 

What we need is multiple, big contract players leaving, not 1 wonderkid. 

In a way you're right but say Wes is on 70k a week Kasper 120k a week and Hamza 30k (saved, as we are still paying 50%) 

 

If we don't register Bertrand or Ricardo then that is 5 players off the list. 

 

It will give us 100m to spend and 3 players we could register. 

 

We would have saved 220k a week. 

 

If we bring in 3 young players or even two and a loan we would easily save a lot a week on wages plus have 50 odd mill extra in the back. 

[Twitcher]

Just watched a debate on Sky Sports re. the Fofana situation, and Leicester's transfer position generally.

At no point was ffp mentioned. So, are we/would we be under any restrictions, or a chance of falling foul of the rules if we made signings? I can’t believe Sky would be that out of touch with the facts. Their portrayal was more that it's the club strategy to improve the training facilities, increase the stadium size, move on fringe players on high salaries, and generally have a structured, strategic approach, but not a situation where our hands are tied in terms of transfers.

Another thing that may support this is the suggestion that BR was at odds with the board re. signings. If that was true, the only way that scenario could materialise is if there was opportunity to sign players, otherwise BR would be aware of the situation and keep schtum.

So in our hands to sign players now, or not? 

[turtmcfly]

4 minutes ago, Twitcher said:

Just watched a debate on Sky Sports re. the Fofana situation, and Leicester's transfer position generally.

At no point was ffp mentioned. So, are we/would we be under any restrictions, or a chance of falling foul of the rules if we made signings? I can’t believe Sky would be that out of touch with the facts. Their portrayal was more that it's the club strategy to improve the training facilities, increase the stadium size, move on fringe players on high salaries, and generally have a structured, strategic approach, but not a situation where our hands are tied in terms of transfers.

Another thing that may support this is the suggestion that BR was at odds with the board re. signings. If that was true, the only way that scenario could materialise is if there was opportunity to sign players, otherwise BR would be aware of the situation and keep schtum.

So in our hands to sign players now, or not? 

 

Give over 

 

[The_77]

35 minutes ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

Rob Dorset currently discussing this on Sky Sports. 
 

Says Fofana agents pushing for move as it’s quite lucrative. A lot of the noise is the agent.

 

Cryptic messages on Twitter/insta could be others or Fofana himself. People shouldn’t look so much into it. I’d say the same on people trying to analyse everything he does on the pitch too. 

 

Fofana is a level headed guy. Quite happy and respectful at Leicester and isn’t pushing yet. Leicester keen not to be pushed over. Situation changes if Fofana pushes which he isn’t doing at the moment for the above reasons. 
 

Leicester fans are frustrated, understandably but squad is too big. Leicester owners very realistic. Leicester short of quality but far too many in terms of numbers. Leicester owners have a long term plan which won’t be risked. They want one or two big signings but future of club more important. 

Fofana could cut out the middle man and just pay Ben Jacobs directly. 

[turlo]

4 minutes ago, Twitcher said:

Just watched a debate on Sky Sports re. the Fofana situation, and Leicester's transfer position generally.

At no point was ffp mentioned. So, are we/would we be under any restrictions, or a chance of falling foul of the rules if we made signings? I can’t believe Sky would be that out of touch with the facts. Their portrayal was more that it's the club strategy to improve the training facilities, increase the stadium size, move on fringe players on high salaries, and generally have a structured, strategic approach, but not a situation where our hands are tied in terms of transfers.

Another thing that may support this is the suggestion that BR was at odds with the board re. signings. If that was true, the only way that scenario could materialise is if there was opportunity to sign players, otherwise BR would be aware of the situation and keep schtum.

So in our hands to sign players now, or not? 

The issue is we're massively overspending on wages due to handing out new contracts and overpaying squad players in recent years. We had over 100m worth of players, earning 500k+ a week unused at the weekend. There's possible some truth that Rodgers & the board are at odds with each others, as while Rodgers wants new players but the board will see unused players earning big wages, mostly recruited during Rodgers time at the club. 

[Ric Flair]

44 minutes ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

Rob Dorset currently discussing this on Sky Sports. 
 

Says Fofana agents pushing for move as it’s quite lucrative. A lot of the noise is the agent.

 

Cryptic messages on Twitter/insta could be others or Fofana himself. People shouldn’t look so much into it. I’d say the same on people trying to analyse everything he does on the pitch too. 

 

Fofana is a level headed guy. Quite happy and respectful at Leicester and isn’t pushing yet. Leicester keen not to be pushed over. Situation changes if Fofana pushes which he isn’t doing at the moment for the above reasons. 
 

Leicester fans are frustrated, understandably but squad is too big. Leicester owners very realistic. Leicester short of quality but far too many in terms of numbers. Leicester owners have a long term plan which won’t be risked. They want one or two big signings but future of club more important. 

Looking at our squad now, it's not hugely bloated. Certainly not to bring 1 or 2 in, we just need to lose a couple more players. Obviously a rebuild would need similar numbers out but I don't think it's being talked about enough on neatly the entire squad are on salaries we in future cannot afford to offer, so the squad numbers is not the only reason we cannot do the business we want to do.

[taupe]

If we don't have to sell and we don't want to sell then we really do hold all the cards. Selling will weaken us so it really is not in our interests to do so. From just about any angle it's a non-starter. Money talks for sure but it would have to be a world record amount by some way. 

 

Our only issue if we don't sell is managing a potentially pissed off Fofana. I could understand if he wants to go, he's young and the world's his lobster. 

[st albans fox]

38 minutes ago, sacreblueits442 said:

....my take on this is that due to covid the footballing bodies had agreed clubs could exceed FFP threshold by £30m, and the caveat being the owners of the clubs had the liquidity to meet those costs, and to make good.

the new rules introduced  in April for calendar year 2023 were not anticipated by anyone 

 

the £30 m I mentioned is a rough amount where our wages etc exceed 90% of expected t/over 

 

17 minutes ago, Twitcher said:

Just watched a debate on Sky Sports re. the Fofana situation, and Leicester's transfer position generally.

At no point was ffp mentioned. So, are we/would we be under any restrictions, or a chance of falling foul of the rules if we made signings? I can’t believe Sky would be that out of touch with the facts. Their portrayal was more that it's the club strategy to improve the training facilities, increase the stadium size, move on fringe players on high salaries, and generally have a structured, strategic approach, but not a situation where our hands are tied in terms of transfers.

Another thing that may support this is the suggestion that BR was at odds with the board re. signings. If that was true, the only way that scenario could materialise is if there was opportunity to sign players, otherwise BR would be aware of the situation and keep schtum.

So in our hands to sign players now, or not? 

as mentioned above - of course sky are clueless - you think their audience wants to get its head around amortisation ! 

[Hales]

It's Chelsea and we also don't have a replacement so no thanks - bye!!!

[dbtcity]

32 minutes ago, Twitcher said:

Just watched a debate on Sky Sports re. the Fofana situation, and Leicester's transfer position generally.

At no point was ffp mentioned. So, are we/would we be under any restrictions, or a chance of falling foul of the rules if we made signings? I can’t believe Sky would be that out of touch with the facts. Their portrayal was more that it's the club strategy to improve the training facilities, increase the stadium size, move on fringe players on high salaries, and generally have a structured, strategic approach, but not a situation where our hands are tied in terms of transfers.

Another thing that may support this is the suggestion that BR was at odds with the board re. signings. If that was true, the only way that scenario could materialise is if there was opportunity to sign players, otherwise BR would be aware of the situation and keep schtum.

So in our hands to sign players now, or not? 

Some1 shared this the other day on here and it seems to cover the situation… nice to see some1 actually do some research instead of just spouting nonsense like SkySports/bt

[sacreblueits442]

32 minutes ago, goose2010 said:

In a way you're right but say Wes is on 70k a week Kasper 120k a week and Hamza 30k (saved, as we are still paying 50%) 

 

If we don't register Bertrand or Ricardo then that is 5 players off the list. 

 

It will give us 100m to spend and 3 players we could register. 

 

We would have saved 220k a week. 

 

If we bring in 3 young players or even two and a loan we would easily save a lot a week on wages plus have 50 odd mill extra in the back. 

....taking players off the list, still leaves us with their wages to be paid!!!

if we brought in 3 young players and due to our usual generosity we pay them £60k per week each we would be saving £40k per week in view of your scenario. I am working on the assumption that a transfer fee received is classed as revenue and therefore would heavily impact the ratio, of Wages to Revenue.

[OriginalRobboFOX]

Do St Etienne get a % of what we sell for? Surely they would have asked for a sell in fee….