Realist Guy In The Room Posted 4 August 2022 Share Posted 4 August 2022 Last season we finished 8th and he was missing for a large proportion of the season. He is an excellent player but it looks like a lot of our fans are valuing him as though he’s realised his potential already. £70m and Colwill with buyback is more than acceptable. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FoxyJim1987 Posted 4 August 2022 Share Posted 4 August 2022 Have I missed something I thought Colwill was going to Brighton? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dahnsouff Posted 4 August 2022 Share Posted 4 August 2022 29 minutes ago, murphy said: But it would have to be a deal weighted in our favour to get him otherwise why would we entertain selling him? We hold all the cards, long contract, don't need to sell etc. In a way its similar to the Ghezzal deal in which Fenherbace held all the cards and we had to accept a terrible deal rather than keep him on the books and not playing. Personally, I'd rather just fermez the bloody fenetre and go with what we have. No point in selling a proven asset in order to but unproven ones and his value will likely increase next year. You assume we are an unwilling seller, like most bizarrely seem to on here. It is a business model that served us well, one we were forced to abandon due to covid and lost revenue affecting the market. If we are seeking to involve a player, it cannot be all on our terms, and as much as Wes could be worth 100m to us, if we were to sell we cannot set any price we like and just expect it to be paid, there is compromise involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grebfromgrebland Posted 4 August 2022 Share Posted 4 August 2022 Buy back clauses should be banned. They in no way benefit the smaller club whilst placing all the risk on them. Only if the buy back price is massive should they be considered. Eg £50m for Colwin expiring after 2 years. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARM1968 Posted 4 August 2022 Share Posted 4 August 2022 7 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said: You assume we are an unwilling seller, like most bizarrely seem to on here. It is a business model that served us well, one we were forced to abandon due to covid and lost revenue affecting the market. If we are seeking to involve a player, it cannot be all on our terms, and as much as Wes could be worth 100m to us, if we were to sell we cannot set any price we like and just expect it to be paid, there is compromise involved. We can certainly set the price we want. The compromise is selling him at all. If we do not wish to sell and do not need to sell, then we can set whatever price we like. If the other side meet that price we then reach our point of compromise. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaphamFox Posted 4 August 2022 Share Posted 4 August 2022 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said: You assume we are an unwilling seller, like most bizarrely seem to on here. It is a business model that served us well, one we were forced to abandon due to covid and lost revenue affecting the market. If we are seeking to involve a player, it cannot be all on our terms, and as much as Wes could be worth 100m to us, if we were to sell we cannot set any price we like and just expect it to be paid, there is compromise involved. But the club is clearly an unwilling seller when it comes to Maddison and Fofana - at least in this transfer window. If the club had decided that at least one of our best players needs to go to balance the books, your argument would make sense. But it's clear that they don't want to sell any of our stars apart from Tielemens (and in his case only because of his contract situation), which means that any 'compromise' on the price is much less likely. Edited 4 August 2022 by ClaphamFox 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dahnsouff Posted 4 August 2022 Share Posted 4 August 2022 Just now, ARM1968 said: We can certainly set the price we want. The compromise is selling him at all. If we do not wish to sell and do not need to sell, then we can set whatever price we like. If the other side meet that price we then reach our point of compromise. Sure, you just may not get a sale and if your model is as per ours to buy prospect to develop and sell at profit, then it becomes unsustainable to not sell - surely this be must be clear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dahnsouff Posted 4 August 2022 Share Posted 4 August 2022 1 minute ago, ClaphamFox said: But the club is clearly an unwilling seller when it comes to Maddison and Fofana - at least in this transfer window. If the club had decided that at least one of our best players needs to go to balance the books, your argument would make sense. But it's clear that they don't want to sell either of them, which means that any 'compromise' on the price is much less likely. We never seem to want to sell otherwise the prices would start low Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Posted 4 August 2022 Share Posted 4 August 2022 Azpilicueta has just signed a new deal…. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaphamFox Posted 4 August 2022 Share Posted 4 August 2022 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said: We never seem to want to sell otherwise the prices would start low Fine, but I get the impression that the club has no intention of letting either Maddison or Fofana go unless a ridiculous bid comes in. I don't think it's a negotiating strategy - we really don't want to sell them. Newcastle won't bid enough for Maddison; Chelsea might for Fofana, but they won't get him for anything like what they've bid so far. Edited 4 August 2022 by ClaphamFox 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerblod Posted 4 August 2022 Share Posted 4 August 2022 Fofana does not 'make' the team. He's not Jesus Christ...yet. Neither is he a Mahrez figure - whose immaturity made him prefer posing to playing. Howyever, given he's a critical part of a shaky defence, until that defence is stabilised he is needed. Last summer the cracks in City's recruiting system became all too obvious. Covering up that incompetence by selling a key player and hoping that the money can be entrusted to the same unreliable recruitment arm would be foolish. Selling him isn't going to solve the problem of a manager who's assuring us that a rejig/refresh will happen but who's also apparently at odds with the club over funding new recruits. I suspect that there's discord between several key figures at City. A few months back wise heads with accounting caps on were querying the borrowing to capital assets figures. Has Top overstretched the company with the loans taken out for construction? Is the stadium expansion been put on ice? Is KP duty-free business experiencing cash flow problems? As usual, we supporters are the mushrooms - kept in the dark and fed s**te. We thought we were following a well run club. Now I'm not at all sure that that situation still exists. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARM1968 Posted 4 August 2022 Share Posted 4 August 2022 1 minute ago, Dahnsouff said: Sure, you just may not get a sale and if your model is as per ours to buy prospect to develop and sell at profit, then it becomes unsustainable to not sell - surely this be must be clear? Oh yeah absolutely right. It may well stop a sale. Again, that is part of our stance and another compromise if you will. We accept that the price we demand might dissuade the buyer. This isn’t bartering over a leather jacket in Morocco. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dahnsouff Posted 4 August 2022 Share Posted 4 August 2022 Just now, ClaphamFox said: Fine, but I get the impression that the club has no intention of letting either Maddison or Fofana go unless a ridiculous bid comes in. I don't think it's a negotiating strategy - they really don't want to sell them. Newcastle won't bid enough for Maddison; Chelsea might for Fofana, but they won't get him for anything like what they've bid so far. Please don’t think I want them to go, they are both super players and I would love Maddison to sign a new long term deal, love Wes to stay for ages, but we have to be boring and pragmatic sometimes for the security of the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARM1968 Posted 4 August 2022 Share Posted 4 August 2022 2 minutes ago, gerblod said: Fofana does not 'make' the team. He's not Jesus Christ...yet. Neither is he a Mahrez figure - whose immaturity made him prefer posing to playing. Howyever, given he's a critical part of a shaky defence, until that defence is stabilised he is needed. Last summer the cracks in City's recruiting system became all too obvious. Covering up that incompetence by selling a key player and hoping that the money can be entrusted to the same unreliable recruitment arm would be foolish. Selling him isn't going to solve the problem of a manager who's assuring us that a rejig/refresh will happen but who's also apparently at odds with the club over funding new recruits. I suspect that there's discord between several key figures at City. A few months back wise heads with accounting caps on were querying the borrowing to capital assets figures. Has Top overstretched the company with the loans taken out for construction? Is the stadium expansion been put on ice? Is KP duty-free business experiencing cash flow problems? As usual, we supporters are the mushrooms - kept in the dark and fed s**te. We thought we were following a well run club. Now I'm not at all sure that that situation still exists. Spot on. I’ve said several times recently that the well run club moniker no longer applies - it simply doesn’t. Far too many mistakes and poor judgement to say otherwise. I think there are multiple reasons for so little action in the market and none of them are good. Happy to be proven wrong anytime, but not sure I will be on this. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paninistickers Posted 4 August 2022 Share Posted 4 August 2022 10 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said: But the club is clearly an unwilling seller when it comes to Maddison and Fofana - at least in this transfer window. If the club had decided that at least one of our best players needs to go to balance the books, your argument would make sense. But it's clear that they don't want to sell any of our stars apart from Tielemens (and in his case only because of his contract situation), which means that any 'compromise' on the price is much less likely. I'm not so convinced that the our 'model' is one of selling players anyway - tho it seems largely to have become an accepted wisdom that it is. The club, I felt, were reluctant to lose Kante (but had no option). They didn't want to lose Drinkwater, Chilwell or Maguire and held on to Mahrez for as long as was fair and realistic. In all cases, had the players been willing to stay, I feel the club would've been delighted. Selling was the last resort - not a business model 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dahnsouff Posted 4 August 2022 Share Posted 4 August 2022 7 minutes ago, gerblod said: Fofana does not 'make' the team. He's not Jesus Christ...yet. Neither is he a Mahrez figure - whose immaturity made him prefer posing to playing. Howyever, given he's a critical part of a shaky defence, until that defence is stabilised he is needed. Last summer the cracks in City's recruiting system became all too obvious. Covering up that incompetence by selling a key player and hoping that the money can be entrusted to the same unreliable recruitment arm would be foolish. Selling him isn't going to solve the problem of a manager who's assuring us that a rejig/refresh will happen but who's also apparently at odds with the club over funding new recruits. I suspect that there's discord between several key figures at City. A few months back wise heads with accounting caps on were querying the borrowing to capital assets figures. Has Top overstretched the company with the loans taken out for construction? Is the stadium expansion been put on ice? Is KP duty-free business experiencing cash flow problems? As usual, we supporters are the mushrooms - kept in the dark and fed s**te. We thought we were following a well run club. Now I'm not at all sure that that situation still exists. But this ignores the reality of not selling a significant player for the last two years, not having the revenue to bridge the gap, contract improvements catching up with our wages/revenue numbers and several signings not delivering as hoped. Selling a key player is hardly new to us, it was our model before covid, not sure it’s papering over any cracks, it’s running to our model. Have zero idea why people are so horrified by this potential sale, this IS the way we operate at our best, it may be a year earlier than we would like, but so be it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grebfromgrebland Posted 4 August 2022 Share Posted 4 August 2022 What ever noises the club make we are definitely a winning seller. We just want the price we want. As soon as that's matched he's off. The only way to get that price is to tell everyone he's not for sale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnegan Posted 4 August 2022 Share Posted 4 August 2022 25 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said: You assume we are an unwilling seller, like most bizarrely seem to on here. It is a business model that served us well, one we were forced to abandon due to covid and lost revenue affecting the market. If we are seeking to involve a player, it cannot be all on our terms, and as much as Wes could be worth 100m to us, if we were to sell we cannot set any price we like and just expect it to be paid, there is compromise involved. Just because we expect to sell him, doesn't mean we want to sell him now. We absolutely do NOT buy footballers only to sell them. We buy footballers to play them, then sell them. Fofana isn't at his peak value yet (unless he gets a horrific injury or his form nose dives) and still has plenty he can contribute to us, especially given the season starts in a couple of days and he's our first choice in a key position. Oh, and, yknow, our manager just said he categorically isn't for sale. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaphamFox Posted 4 August 2022 Share Posted 4 August 2022 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Paninistickers said: I'm not so convinced that the our 'model' is one of selling players anyway - tho it seems largely to have become an accepted wisdom that it is. The club, I felt, were reluctant to lose Kante (but had no option). They didn't want to lose Drinkwater, Chilwell or Maguire and held on to Mahrez for as long as was fair and realistic. In all cases, had the players been willing to stay, I feel the club would've been delighted. Selling was the last resort - not a business model 100% agree. The belief that our 'model' is to sell a top player every summer or two is almost universally accepted, but I don't think it is at all. We would not have sold Kante, Mahrez, Chilwell or Maguire if they hadn't pushed for a move (I suspect we snatched Chelsea's hand off when they offered £35m for Drinkwater, but that's just my opinion). All this talk of the 'Leicester model' is massively overdone. Edited 4 August 2022 by ClaphamFox 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murphy Posted 4 August 2022 Share Posted 4 August 2022 1 minute ago, Dahnsouff said: You assume we are an unwilling seller, like most bizarrely seem to on here. It is a business model that served us well, one we were forced to abandon due to covid and lost revenue affecting the market. If we are seeking to involve a player, it cannot be all on our terms, and as much as Wes could be worth 100m to us, if we were to sell we cannot set any price we like and just expect it to be paid, there is compromise involved. I'm convinced we are unwilling sellers. why is that bizaare? Rodgers has already said not for sale and these are hostile bids from Chelsea. Any club with an asset like Fofana would need him to be prized from their cold dead hands, you don't compromise and play nice, that is not the model. Chelsea will have to come up with something special to turn us from unwilling into willing sellers, like United did with Maguire. We will be quite happy to keep him I'm sure. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filbertway Posted 4 August 2022 Share Posted 4 August 2022 3 minutes ago, Finnegan said: Oh, and, yknow, our manager just said he categorically isn't for sale. It's been a pleasure watching you Wes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dahnsouff Posted 4 August 2022 Share Posted 4 August 2022 1 minute ago, Finnegan said: Just because we expect to sell him, doesn't mean we want to sell him now. We absolutely do NOT buy footballers only to sell them. We buy footballers to play them, then sell them. Fofana isn't at his peak value yet (unless he gets a horrific injury or his form nose dives) and still has plenty he can contribute to us, especially given the season starts in a couple of days and he's our first choice in a key position. Oh, and, yknow, our manager just said he categorically isn't for sale. No idea what the bit in bold is supposed to say, of course we buy them to play football. For Leicester City no less…. He is a great player, will get better unless he gets further injuries but we will clearly want to make money on him, it’s only a question of when. Never said we did want to sell him now, but I can see the logic, it is a model we have followed before, and one where we usually say they are not for sale….. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dahnsouff Posted 4 August 2022 Share Posted 4 August 2022 4 minutes ago, murphy said: I'm convinced we are unwilling sellers. why is that bizaare? Rodgers has already said not for sale and these are hostile bids from Chelsea. Any club with an asset like Fofana would need him to be prized from their cold dead hands, you don't compromise and play nice, that is not the model. Chelsea will have to come up with something special to turn us from unwilling into willing sellers, like United did with Maguire. We will be quite happy to keep him I'm sure. Of course we would rather keep him, I don’t want to sell him, but if Chelsea offered 80m for him, would we sell? Should we sell? It’s hardly like selling a prospect is not our modus operandi pre-covid, I just don’t see why putting the club before any single player is a bad thing, because that is what I was considering. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanSP Posted 4 August 2022 Share Posted 4 August 2022 22 minutes ago, Bert said: Azpilicueta has just signed a new deal…. Promising news when it comes to Chelsea buying Fofana. I expect they thought Azpilicueta would leave but the Barca deal failed to materialise. Now what other clubs will try and get Fofana... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lambert09 Posted 4 August 2022 Share Posted 4 August 2022 1 hour ago, The People's Hero said: Fofana probably goes but the fee is going to be unreal. Wouldn't be surprised if we are working Colwill in to the deal and Colwill comes out with a high value just to screw St Etienne on the pay away. I haven't heard much on this other than that Chelsea are very very engaged. LCFC so far just rejecting offers; not negotiating, but there simply must be a price. Someone suggested to me the bite point is £70mn and Colwill but I have no reason to believe that they are right other than that they've been right before. I simply don't believe the board would show their hand to the person in question. That said; I reckon it would test LCFC's resolve and is far more than already offered. What is definitely true is that every player offered from big 6 to LCFC in any deal has involved buy back clauses. We must avoid these on young players unless they profit is huge. I know Romano has been having a stinker this summer but the fact he was so sure Colwill was going to be part of the Cucurella deal makes me think that we are so adament about keeping fofana, that weve indicated that adding him wont change our stance. They would have to be out of their mind if they have that card and it was a way to get their top target but chose not to use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts