Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Happy Fox

Harry Winks

By Happy Fox, in Transfer Talk

Recommended Posts

FoxyJim1987

FoxyJim1987

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, Clarkey123 said:

On the face of it, you have to say this is a shocking bit of business for us. Spurs fans will be loving getting our best player (player they desperately need) on the cheap and getting rid of their deadwood (arguably we don’t really need) at an inflated price.
 

Only at Leicester it seems:doh:

Yes but one club are (unfortunately) one of the biggest clubs in the country with a billion pound stadium who are in the premier league and consistently challenging at the top end of the league whilst the other is relegated and rebuilding. His one year left on his contract means we were never going to get his true value.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gerard

Gerard

Posted
Posted
Just now, Ric Flair said:

Exactly, we've had an absolute howler of moving such players on and yet we've queued over night to pay over the odds for such a player. I wish I could walk away from this club, I really do. I'm in agony.

 

You look at our transfers for the last five years or so. Outside the huge money transfers we've failed to move anyone on who was deemed surplus for a mid range fee, last one I think was Musa for £15m who was bought on the strength of his World Cup.

 

We just can't sell our surplus players and to think we've put £10m down on a player who was unwanted, one year left and no suitors. I thought we'd get him for £2-3m.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AKCJ

AKCJ

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

I don't mind a short term player that helps get us up and probably needs replacing in a few years but at £10m and probably 40-50k a week, no thank you! 

Is there anything that suggests we'd be paying him that much?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mickyblueeyes

Mickyblueeyes

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, StriderHiryu said:

This.

 

If we received 50m for Maddison and got Winks on a free, it sounds better to our fans. But then we'd have to pay 15% on the 26M profit to Norwich.

 

We've done the accounting such that Norwich get a sum, but we aren't taken to the cleaners. Also to amortise costs across several years, etc.

 

 

 

How ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lcfc278

lcfc278

Posted
Posted

Comes across as a classic Leicester (2012-2016 era) signing, in terms of a player that's not wanted elsewhere and most likely has a point to prove.

 

I think he'll come good for us in the Championship and with our situation we could both be exactly what we need for each other.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SouthStandUpperTier

SouthStandUpperTier

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, filbertway said:

50 - 3.9 = 46.1.

 

40m - 2.4 - 10 = 27.6.

 

By my calculations we're £18.5m down doing it this way rather than the other in the 2 examples you gave :D

 

edited as I forgot to take of 15% of 16m.

Exactly. It's a percentage cut. The higher the fee for Maddison the better it is for Norwich AND for Leicester. We both win. Taking a lower fee in order to pay less to Norwich makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GLC

GLC

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, hackneyfox said:

Meltdowns about the fee and wages, do we know for sure that we're even interested let alone worrying about costs.

 

Seems highly likely that we are about to sign him

Link to comment
Share on other sites
filbertway

filbertway

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, filbertway said:

 

The fact we've been burnt by so many players in this age bracket and the fact he's never been an established first choice player, it's just not an exciting deal.

 

If we go up, unless he's going to be a 1st name on the teamsheet, we're once again stuck with a player that nobody will want who's taking up a squad space.

 

Would have preferred a loan deal if we're signing him with the aim of promotion.

 

Just to clarify to the clever people that say "if he was a foreign name, the same people would be loving it".  I'd feel exactly the same if we were signing a random 27 year old from Lyon who'd never established themselves as a first choice player.

I look forward to the posts in 18 months 

 

"Well it's easy to have hindsight now, but at the time it looked like a very clever signing"

 

I'm with you, short term deals for more experienced players I'm all for. If I see this a 4/5 year contract I'll be sick lol

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
StriderHiryu

StriderHiryu

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, filbertway said:

50 - 3.9 = 46.1.

 

40m - 2.4 - 10 = 27.6.

 

By my calculations we're £18.5m down doing it this way rather than the other in the 2 examples you gave :D

 

edited as I forgot to take of 15% of 16m.

Maddison brought for 24M. Sell on clause is 15% of any profit made on a subsequent sale. 

 

Receive 50m = 26m profit. 3.9m fee to Norwich.

 

Receive 40m = 16m profit. 2.4m fee to Norwich.

 

So if we want one of their players, we use some of that money that would be paid to Norwich as part-payment for the player we want. That's what I suspect has gone on here. So it looks like an over-inflated deal for their player when in reality it's a bit cheaper.

 

I'm not claiming this is some kind of Rudkin / Wheelan masterclass, just saying the prices listed don't tell the full story. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
An Sionnach

An Sionnach

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, ChrisFilter said:

This negativity is exhausting. Harry Winks is a solid signing for a team hoping to win the Championship. It's that simple.

Some still think we are swimming in the same pond as Chelsea or Arsenal. Don't worry , they will soon learn. The Southampton forum is far more realistic.. They know this is going to be no easy task.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
CaliFOXnia

CaliFOXnia

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

I don’t have much of an issue with Harry Winks the player. I think he will come in and be a steady acquisition, experienced, solid in a lower league with hopefully a point to prove. 
 

What you can’t help but take issue with, however, is the club and the apparent model this suggests we’re going to follow AGAIN this summer. A reported high fee, plus wages that you’d imagine to be on the higher side, on a player the wrong side of 25 with little to no chance of recouping the initial outlay. It stings even more with Maddison going the other way for £40mil and almost smacks of Spurs “doing us a favour” in getting Winks off their wage bill. Although he may be an effective signing (injury dependent), it’s very hard to get excited when it’s all said and done. 
 

Talents like Gustavo Hamer out there for what you’d assume would be £15/£20mil, similar wages, much higher upside and little to no risk at Championship level. Wish the club would learn from the mistakes that got us in this god awful mess in the first place. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmayne7

dmayne7

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, StriderHiryu said:

This.

 

If we received 50m for Maddison and got Winks on a free, it sounds better to our fans. But then we'd have to pay 15% on the 26M profit to Norwich.

 

We've done the accounting such that Norwich get a sum, but we aren't taken to the cleaners. Also to amortise costs across several years, etc.

 

 

 

First time ever that I have no clue what you're talking about here :D. You're talking about a £20m loss to save a few million going out to Norwich? If we had got £50m and Winks that would sound better because it would be better, about £16m better! lol

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
filbertway

filbertway

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, StriderHiryu said:

Maddison brought for 24M. Sell on clause is 15% of any profit made on a subsequent sale. 

 

Receive 50m = 26m profit. 3.9m fee to Norwich.

 

Receive 40m = 16m profit. 2.4m fee to Norwich.

 

So if we want one of their players, we use some of that money that would be paid to Norwich as part-payment for the player we want. That's what I suspect has gone on here. So it looks like an over-inflated deal for their player when in reality it's a bit cheaper.

 

I'm not claiming this is some kind of Rudkin / Wheelan masterclass, just saying the prices listed don't tell the full story. 

 

 

Which part of my post is wrong because I genuinely don't understand where you're coming from here mate :D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bordersfox

Bordersfox

Posted
Posted
Just now, CrispinLA in Texas said:

There laughing their heads off on Spurs's fightingcock forum.....they can't believe we're paying 10m for him.....posters saying they should be paying Leicester millions to take him instead!

Yes but that forum makes this place seem like a font of knowledge and sanity.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mod hero

mod hero

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, CrispinLA in Texas said:

There laughing their heads off on Spurs's fightingcock forum.....they can't believe we're paying 10m for him.....posters saying they should be paying Leicester millions to take him instead!

I’m a bit perturbed by the fee quoted, however they’re the most heinous fan base in the world

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...