Maddison

[coolhandfox]

1 minute ago, FatDave said:

 

Transfer fees are rarely one “lump sum”; they are paid in instalments, normally over the length of the contract signed. This is how the buying club writes off the value of the player.

 

For example, Liverpool sold Suarez and the fee was paid to Liverpool over 5 years. The Man Utd fee for Maguire was paid over years also, 6 years I believe.

 

Lump sums are very rare and only really exist in football management games. Oddly enough, your friend Mike Ashley was one of the few owners who insisted on lump sums.

 

When you see a “up front” tag, it means the large part of the transfer fee not subject to clauses and additional payments. This up front fee is staggered in instalments.

 

Why did Newcastle bid a miserly £35 million? It’s a statement of intent designed to unsettle Maddison, a statement that your owners won’t just splash cash and an attempt to force LCFC to negotiate.

 

Its fairly clear now that Maddison wants the move but he won’t demand a transfer. The onus is on Newcastle to lodge an acceptable offer.

 

Reports say Leicester want £60 million. If that happens, that a typical construct will be 10% now. Say £50 million over 5 years and £4 million in clauses. 
 

Nevertheless, this is an opportunity for Maddison to be rewarded with a bumper new contract.

 

Whatever happens next, the agent wins 

How do you know?

[coolhandfox]

22 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

What I'd counter there is, we've signed players before having to get rid of players in the past. It's very very unlikely we won't move on the 5+ players who won't make the 25 man PL squad, they'll leave in the final days of the window when we've agreed to more favourable conditions to the buying team.

 

Considering we have supposedly told Praet, Soumare, Vestergaard etc they can leave, we've rejected bids for all of them. I don't see clubs overpaying for such players so we'll likely have to agree to similar terms or even less the nearer we get to deadline day and every day nearer to then we also run the risk of being mucked about for players we want ro sign if their clubs value them rather than being a fringe player.

 

It's all a bit confusing what we are playing at this summer.

Still think someone at the Top, no pun intended has put their foot down. 

 

We seem to be playing hardball on in and outs.

 

[Bert]

1 hour ago, TheFish said:

There must be a reason why Newcastle bid £35m. We haven't picked that figure out of the clear blue sky.

 

Honestly? Part of it is undoubtedly NUFC hammering home the message that just because our majority owners are rich, doesn't mean we're going to splash the cash like Man City and Chelsea did, even if the players are great.

 

If rumours are true and Maddison is keen on the move, then there's no way you're getting £80m for him. A larger upfront fee and the rest as bonuses might work, but we're not going to put up £60m in one lump sum, surely?

They’re teetering with FFP. They’re interested in Cornet from Burnley who is available for £17.5m due to a release clause but they might have to make it up to £25m in a structured deal because they can’t do the full £17.5m in one go. 

[Ric Flair]

1 minute ago, coolhandfox said:

Still think someone at the Top, no pun intended has put their foot down. 

 

We seem to be playing hardball on in and outs.

 

Possibly but then Top seems confident we'll sign players this month which is this is all part of some grand plan is an unusual one to say the least. Nearly all our targets we've been linked to have moved already.

[rachhere]

3 minutes ago, FatDave said:

Its fairly clear now that Maddison wants the move but he won’t demand a transfer. The onus is on Newcastle to lodge an acceptable offer.

 

Is it? His OH has just been posting pics of their little boys LCFC mini kit ready for the season ahead. Doesn't seem like something you would do if you weren't planning to stick around! I can well imagine he would enjoy the attention as it's another message to Gareth Southgate that he's a player in demand who should be noted, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that he's not 100% committed to the season ahead at Leicester, and doing his very best to try and grab a place in that England squad. 

[ClaphamFox]

Just now, coolhandfox said:

Still think someone at the Top, no pun intended has put their foot down. 

 

We seem to be playing hardball on in and outs.

 

Other clubs have likely read reports that we're desperate to sell and are trying to take advantage by lowballing us. We're refusing to be bullied, and rightly so.

[ClaphamFox]

5 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

How do you know?

He doesn't know.

[RowlattsFox]

He might consider it, if a bid was accepted, but don't think he'd be that bothered about this. Sees himself at a higher level I think and would probably rather wait and see if he can get one of the big boys interested next summer. 

[TheFish]

13 minutes ago, indierich06 said:

Cashflow isn't the problem, we don't have enough spots in our squad to make new signings, and our wage bill is fairly high -  we don't want surplus players sitting around picking up a wage for doing nothing. We're trying to remedy that by getting rid of players we don't want, not by selling key first teamers. Seems like there may well be movement soon, with Soumare, Vestergaard, Amartey, Praet etc all linked with moves away.

 

It's certainly not a case, as outsiders seem to think, that we're desperate for cash and we absolutely need to cash in on these high value assets. 

 

I've seen you baulk at an upfront fee of around £60m - is that not the going rate for this calibre of player? Grealish went for £100m, Richarlison's gone for £60m. He's English, still fairly young and he's absolutely red hot at the minute - we would be mugs if we let him go for anything less than £60m cash tbh.

Thing is other clubs are going to look at your situation (trying to offload squad players) and offer below market fees for them, or structuring the deals to get the best deal. They'd be mugs to offer you the going rate for those players, because they know you need to offload them and their wages. We've been in a similar situation (lower standard of player), and have ended up farming players out on loan to lose them for nowt at the end of the season. Nobody will buy Shelvey off us because of his wages. So he'll bimble about the squad, and/or go out on loan until the end of his deal.

 

The interesting thing for me is that there haven't been "He's not for sale" quotes from higher up that I've seen for Maddison or Fofana. Nor anything about a new deal in the pipeline for either of them. 

 

£60m might be the 'going rate' for good domestic players, I'm baulking at spending £60m up front on Maddison when we could just as easily spend £60m on a structured deal for a better player from abroad. Put it this way, Darwin Nunez went for £67m and he's one of the most highly regarded young strikers in Europe! Is Maddison better than Sterling, Lewandowski, Kounde, Gabriel Jesus, etc. 

 

I don't think he is.

 

Grealish went for £100m because he was Aston Villa's local boy done good, best player, England's great new hype, moving to Moneybags Man City. Had you bought him, you wouldn't have forked out £100m on him. 

 

Richarlison is mental money, he's good, but Spurs have a habit of paying over the odds for good players.

[coolhandfox]

2 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Possibly but then Top seems confident we'll sign players this month which is this is all part of some grand plan is an unusual one to say the least. Nearly all our targets we've been linked to have moved already.

I just think it is a case of outs first and then getting someone in.

 

Seem very risk-averse. 

 

 

[coolhandfox]

4 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Other clubs have likely read reports that we're desperate to sell and are trying to take advantage by lowballing us. We're refusing to be bullied, and rightly so.

I think we have to be, it's a tough market post covid.

[Babylon]

Stop saying we having got spaces in the squad, it’s nonsense. We can still buy players and put them in the 25. We simply can’t afford it.

[foxinsocks]

8 minutes ago, FatDave said:

 

Transfer fees are rarely one “lump sum”; they are paid in instalments, normally over the length of the contract signed. This is how the buying club writes off the value of the player.

 

For example, Liverpool sold Suarez and the fee was paid to Liverpool over 5 years. The Man Utd fee for Maguire was paid over years also, 6 years I believe.

 

Lump sums are very rare and only really exist in football management games. Oddly enough, your friend Mike Ashley was one of the few owners who insisted on lump sums.

 

When you see a “up front” tag, it means the large part of the transfer fee not subject to clauses and additional payments. This up front fee is staggered in instalments.

 

Why did Newcastle bid a miserly £35 million? It’s a statement of intent designed to unsettle Maddison, a statement that your owners won’t just splash cash and an attempt to force LCFC to negotiate.

 

Its fairly clear now that Maddison wants the move but he won’t demand a transfer. The onus is on Newcastle to lodge an acceptable offer.

 

Reports say Leicester want £60 million. If that happens, that a typical construct will be 10% now. Say £50 million over 5 years and £4 million in clauses. 
 

Nevertheless, this is an opportunity for Maddison to be rewarded with a bumper new contract.

 

Whatever happens next, the agent wins 

What pisses me off about this is thst it just inflates prices as clubs pay with money they havent got.  Worse when a club goes pop the football creditors get preferential treatment over local Small businesses who washed the kit and sold the pies.

If gootball teams thought that being owed money by say derby was a risk they would ask for cash with order.    Would you sell your house for future payments?

[Simoken]

13 minutes ago, FatDave said:

 

Transfer fees are rarely one “lump sum”; they are paid in instalments, normally over the length of the contract signed. This is how the buying club writes off the value of the player.

 

For example, Liverpool sold Suarez and the fee was paid to Liverpool over 5 years. The Man Utd fee for Maguire was paid over years also, 6 years I believe.

 

Lump sums are very rare and only really exist in football management games. Oddly enough, your friend Mike Ashley was one of the few owners who insisted on lump sums.

 

When you see a “up front” tag, it means the large part of the transfer fee not subject to clauses and additional payments. This up front fee is staggered in instalments.

 

Why did Newcastle bid a miserly £35 million? It’s a statement of intent designed to unsettle Maddison, a statement that your owners won’t just splash cash and an attempt to force LCFC to negotiate.

 

Its fairly clear now that Maddison wants the move but he won’t demand a transfer. The onus is on Newcastle to lodge an acceptable offer.

 

Reports say Leicester want £60 million. If that happens, that a typical construct will be 10% now. Say £50 million over 5 years and £4 million in clauses. 
 

Nevertheless, this is an opportunity for Maddison to be rewarded with a bumper new contract.

 

Whatever happens next, the agent wins 

i dont believe any of this waffle. sorry. k thanks

[TheFish]

5 minutes ago, Bert said:

They’re teetering with FFP. They’re interested in Cornet from Burnley who is available for £17.5m due to a release clause but they might have to make it up to £25m in a structured deal because they can’t do the full £17.5m in one go. 

We can, we absolutely can, we just don't want to. Our FFP wriggle room is huge because of the parsimonious previous owner. But where's the sense in using up all of that wriggle room now, just because we can. Makes much more sense to build a solid foundation on good players at a reasonable price, then if we're short £100m worth of talent to get us into a restricted strata otherwise thought unobtainable at that time, use that FFP buffer then.

[The_77]

5 minutes ago, TheFish said:

The interesting thing for me is that there haven't been "He's not for sale" quotes from higher up that I've seen for Maddison or Fofana. Nor anything about a new deal in the pipeline for either of them. 

Top and Susan rarely do interviews. I think it’s clear we don’t want to sell Fofana or Maddison, and that it would take an absurd offer for us to consider losing either of them.

[TommyK]

52 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

I honestly don't think we'd even accept £60m. 

I would hope not. He's worth far more to us than that. He's going to have an amazing season

[when_you're_smiling]

 

Sod off.

[CosbehFox]

1 minute ago, when_you're_smiling said:

 

Sod off.

Just to let everyone know he will be right this fella but he’s also a total nob whom is disliked in the journo game 

[moore_94]

1 minute ago, when_you're_smiling said:

 

Sod off.

Still an incredibly poor offer

 

Guarantee that isn't actually just an offer of £45m, that will have some kind of add ons as well

[KFS]

This lot are going to **** me off big time aren’t they. Darent even check what their deluded fans are saying. He’s using you for a new contract you mugs.

[MarriedaLeicesterGirl]

1 minute ago, moore_94 said:

Still an incredibly poor offer

 

Guarantee that isn't actually just an offer of £45m, that will have some kind of add ons as well

There is no way Maddison "wants" a move to Newcastle. He probably just wants the contract Youri was offered last year.

[coolhandfox]

Just now, moore_94 said:

Still an incredibly poor offer

 

Guarantee that isn't actually just an offer of £45m, that will have some kind of add ons as well

100%

 

It will be 5m for finishing top 4, 5m for winning the league, and 5m for winning the Champions League etc.

 

Load of old tosh.

[jv1]

such a strange one this- I cannot believe we would let him go for less than £70m- why are they coming back with something that is still a million miles away- makes no sense- if that journo is in the know then there is definitely something we have no idea about going on here- you dont put 2 bids in under 50m for a 70m player - seems so bizarre

[Finnegan]

I don't think there's any doubt Newcastle are bidding. 

 

The doubt is whether they really know what they're doing. 

 

They can't honestly think we'd sell him for anywhere near that sort of money back when the window opened, let alone a week before the season starts when we're still quite likely losing Tielemans too. 

 

Doesn't really make any sense.