smudgerfox

Please explain how we avoid a player who is determined to run down his contract, doing just that?

On the bench for the 9-0 - presumably, Angus Gunn not available...

I agree that's the best case explanation - but it's also Rudkin's job to know Enzo might jump ship and be wary of making manager- specific signings if that is a possibility. Or to hold fire on significant contracts until a new manager has been appointed - especially as the player had repeatedly failed at Premier League level.

If I was investigating the possibility of corruption at LCFC (which I'm not), I would start with the decision to give Vestergaard a second contract. It's the first question I would ask Rudkin if I ever got chance to interview him. It really was incomprehensible then and nothing has happened since to clarify such a mind-boggling decision. This is not the benefit of hindsight. Vestergaard was inexplicably pursued by Brendan and equally inexplicably described as a replacement for the injured Fofana. There is a video on the internet of an ex manager saying in 2016 he assessed JV thus:"he can't run, he can't turn." Within six months of arriving in Leicester he'd lost his place in the team, wasted no time in complaining about it publicly and was exiled from first team training, by the manager who had seemed so determined to sign him. He turned down several chances to leave the club - Fulham and Berlin. He seemed at best, likely to be a bit part player until his three year contract ran down- then Conor Coady got injured and JV established himself in Enzo's team as a passing centre back. Seemingly, on the strength of this one season alone, at a lower level, under a very specific manager, playing a very specific style, who in any case had left the club, we gave an ageing, slow, centre back a three year Premier League contract. A player who'd had a major fallout with the manager who signed him and who routinely used international call-ups to criticise the club in the Danish press. What was the thinking there Jon? And of course since, we've had his dog at training and now he's absented himself from pre-season, asking the club to "terminate his contract " - no doubt a journalistic euphemism for paying up his contract..so he can find some other club to take the p*** out of.

You think a "tear it up" season by a 19/20 yo in League One is going to raise Chilwell/Barnes type of money?

Whether or not he IS a generational talent is neither here nor there. The fact is Monga is believed to be a generational talent which is why we got £10m for him. My point is, by definition, you are not going to have a generational talent to sell every year. And even when you do, £10m isn't very much in footballing terms. So how viable is this business model?

Chsrlie Methven estimated it at £40m on Where's the Money Gone podcast. But even if he's completely wrong and it's £10m - that means Monga has paid for Seagrave for one year.And that assumes we see all of that £10m straight away without strings. And what do we do next year if we have no red hot generational talent to sell for £10m? I'm struggling to see how it amounts to a viable business model..

The point is £10-million will barely pay for the investment we've made in the player from an early age let alone contribute to the ongoing financial stability of the club as a whole. And that assumes Man City have put £10-million on the table - and not tied up some of it in appearances/caps incentives. Money in/money out we must have made a loss on Cartwright.. So my point remains - if the Academy is not producing first team players for LCFC and we're just going to recruit from other clubs (presumably players who've developed at another Academy), then what exactly is the point?

Monga gone. Cartwright gone. No doubt more to follow. A generational talent in Monga sold for a fee that will pay a quarter of the annual cost of Seagrave.. All after years and years of investment in their footballing development....

How will this work with "childcare" arrangements? Wait till he tells them he cant move from Hemel Hempstead

Thanks for this can you tell us which players are with which agency?

Are we the only club in the world who allows transfer negotiations with our players before a fee is agreed? So many times the player sorts out a move and then there are protracted talks over the fee. Obviously, it puts us in a weak negotiating position as the player has his bags packed and the buying club has the press conference organised and we end up causing ill feeling (with the player and other clubs) by pulling the plug or by constantly getting diddled (causing ill will with the fanbase). Nelson was our best centre back last season (admittedly not saying much) and his talent has not been nurtured at the club - a fact that will not have gone unnoticed by other Academy players.

Yes happy to continue discussing...maybe by DM to spare others !! ..I think you're discounting loan signings , assuming agents are not involved in those, but I'm not sure that's true. And I take your point about signing at the very end of the transfer window but I've assumed that's to do with our declining attractiveness and players waiting for a better offer. Hard to know I suppose...

I think the accusation is not that we pay a lot to agents. That is inevitable if you're buying and selling players with EPL pedigree. They're going to have agents who will want a slice of the financial action of incoming and outgoing transfers. And for all we know their payments may not all be up front - they could well be in instalments. The more specific accusation is that the club is over-reliant on a very small number of agents. They, allegedly, have far too much influence on transfers in and out, effectively controlling who we buy. If true, that would be game-changing and explosive. It would help explain why we have signed so many complete duds - ill advised and poorly researched players who have been quickly dismissed by our managers: Aribo; Carranza; Coulibaly; that second keeper; the Chelsea striker/winger ; Edouard. For a club with no money that's a lot of dosh out the door (wages, signing fees) for no return at all. it would also destroy Top's assertion that he, head of recruitment, director of football and manager all have to agree a transfer for it to happen. This already seems highly dubious when you consider that Coulibally, Carranza and Edouard were discarded so quickly by their managers. So the over influential agent is a very enticing theory - the only trouble is, there's little evidence to date that it's true.

Dont the last agent fee stats refer to PL season?