alanf0x Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 Will be a big lift for all after the disappointment of missing out on a couple of targets yesterday.
Max Power Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/feb/02/jamie-vardy-new-contract-leicester-city-2019 Extra year and more money.
VLC86 Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 Explains why we wanted to keep a bit of money back. For those still moaning about lack of signings, would you prefer Remy or more security of our best player staying?
SecretPro Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 Explains why we wanted to keep a bit of money back. For those still moaning about lack of signings, would you prefer Remy or more security of our best player staying? Haha, I'm not sure the club are in a position where they can't sign players because otherwise they couldn't pay our current players.
EnglishOxide Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 Explains why we wanted to keep a bit of money back. For those still moaning about lack of signings, would you prefer Remy or more security of our best player staying? No it doesn't. We are rich as owt and getting richer.
Babylon Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/feb/02/jamie-vardy-new-contract-leicester-city-2019 Extra year and more money. I'd love to know why he was given a 40k a week contract before even kicking a ball in the premier league. If those figures are true our wage bill is going to be HUGE!
MC Prussian Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 No it doesn't. We are rich as owt and getting richer. Doesn't mean we ought to purchase anyone just for the sake of it. It's not the amount of money that counts, it's how you use it.
Babylon Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 No it doesn't. We are rich as owt and getting richer. How exactly do you know what our finances are?
FoxesFan94 Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 Good. If we can keep Mahrez as well that'd be extra nice.
EnglishOxide Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 How exactly do you know what our finances are? We are living in a world where Stoke are banging out 18m signings and we are on course for some huge TV and maybe CL money as well. Our owners have invested heavily whenever needed. If we have concerns about our finances I would be asking some serious questions.
Kilworthfox Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 I think that we will be offering all our main men new contracts soon, they are fully deserved. Mahrez, Morgan, Kanté, Drinkwater, Huth, Schmeichel, & Fuchs. I guess that we will be looking to upgrade at right back and right midfield. Thats not to say Simpson and Albrighton have not been magnificent so far.
MC Prussian Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 We are living in a world where Stoke are banging out 18m signings and we are on course for some huge TV and maybe CL money as well. Our owners have invested heavily whenever needed. If we have concerns about our finances I would be asking some serious questions. Those £18m have yet to prove their worth, though. It's not like sending Porto £18m in a briefcase alone will solve all your problems instantly, lad's got to make an impact first. Investing in a player in today's football world is short-term to mid-term investment, with the main hope of recouping the transfer fee by being able to sell the same player to another club at a higher price a few years later.
UPinCarolina Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 If we secure Mahrez, Vardy, Morgan and Kante (and others) - that's more important than any striker signing could have been this window.Take that £18 million we were going to spend on Musa and pay them what it will take to keep them at the King Power...and our CL window is blown wide open for the next few seasons, until age catches up to us.
RowlattsFox Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 I think Mahrez is more likely to leave so we need to get him signed up again too, even if it just guarantees a huge transfer fee.
Guest CityFan 06 Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 Good news for the club in general. Important to secure the services of our best players.
Babylon Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 We are living in a world where Stoke are banging out 18m signings and we are on course for some huge TV and maybe CL money as well. Our owners have invested heavily whenever needed. If we have concerns about our finances I would be asking some serious questions. So you don't know what our finances are then. Our owners have repeatedly said they want the club to stand on its own two feet, we've not had any "heavy" investment above what we earn for a few years now. They seem to be running a much more prudent ship, compared to when we chucked wads of cash at a load of old shit a few years ago. If we're paying Vardy, a player who only stepped out of non league a few seasons before 40k a week (£2m a year excluding bonuses) before he kicked a ball in the premier league, then I think it's safe to assume the others are on at least the same currently. Add that up over a whole squad, add in £20-£30m on players each season for the last two, add in bonuses for staying up etc etc etc... and I think it's fair to assume we're not currently running at a giant profit. Potential champions league money and future premier league money is just that. We don't have it yet... we also don't know if we've already spent some of it considering we've spent a fair bit more this season than we did last already. We'll also spend a huge amount of it trying to keep our best players. We've spent about £3m less than stoke this season by the way on transfers.
Danizen Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 Explains why we wanted to keep a bit of money back. For those still moaning about lack of signings, would you prefer Remy or more security of our best player staying?It's not an either/or situation so that question is irrelevant.
VLC86 Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 Haha, I'm not sure the club are in a position where they can't sign players because otherwise they couldn't pay our current players. Heard of budgets. Ok the word 'can't' should have been replaced by 'willing to' but you get the point
Danizen Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 Heard of budgets. Ok the word 'can't' should have been replaced by 'willing to' but you get the pointBut Pearson and Ranieri have always said that money is always available if needed. We are running to a budget but it's not a strict one. They would have been able to do the Musa deal without it affecting Vardy's or Mahrez's contracts.
Nod.E Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 You've got to be a pretty insecure Leicester fan to be worrying about our finances at this moment in time.
Kitchandro Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 So you don't know what our finances are then. Our owners have repeatedly said they want the club to stand on its own two feet, we've not had any "heavy" investment above what we earn for a few years now. They seem to be running a much more prudent ship, compared to when we chucked wads of cash at a load of old shit a few years ago. If we're paying Vardy, a player who only stepped out of non league a few seasons before 40k a week (£2m a year excluding bonuses) before he kicked a ball in the premier league, then I think it's safe to assume the others are on at least the same currently. Add that up over a whole squad, add in £20-£30m on players each season for the last two, add in bonuses for staying up etc etc etc... and I think it's fair to assume we're not currently running at a giant profit. Potential champions league money and future premier league money is just that. We don't have it yet... we also don't know if we've already spent some of it considering we've spent a fair bit more this season than we did last already. We'll also spend a huge amount of it trying to keep our best players. We've spent about £3m less than stoke this season by the way on transfers. It's ok for you to assume things then. £40K a week is not a huge amount at all at this level. Vardy is also a particularly valuable player and his wage increase will be at the level the interest in him demands. There's every reason to think that with the huge TV deal and increased exposure this season that our finances are just fine.
Thracian Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 There's bound to be risks in stepping up into the big league - and the first steps are the most dangerous because, once established, you just end up dealing in bigger figures all the time. I don't know but would imagine the owners have weighed in all kinds of factors including aspects connected to the growth of our global brand and things like books and the oft-mentioned film people talk about. Even in this latest seemingly disappointing transfer window, we've had considerable publicity both here and abroad and the lifting of our profile in that sense has been almost as remarkable as our topping the league. Vardy has done so much to make it all possible so can easily be considered a special situation although I've no doubt he'll raise our wages bar as well. In another way it might also show existing and prospective signings that we're serious not just about qualifying for Europe but about staying there. And to do that, the global brand becomes ever more important as a source of additional income from all sorts of avenues.
inckley fox Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 So you don't know what our finances are then. Our owners have repeatedly said they want the club to stand on its own two feet, we've not had any "heavy" investment above what we earn for a few years now. They seem to be running a much more prudent ship, compared to when we chucked wads of cash at a load of old shit a few years ago. If we're paying Vardy, a player who only stepped out of non league a few seasons before 40k a week (£2m a year excluding bonuses) before he kicked a ball in the premier league, then I think it's safe to assume the others are on at least the same currently. Add that up over a whole squad, add in £20-£30m on players each season for the last two, add in bonuses for staying up etc etc etc... and I think it's fair to assume we're not currently running at a giant profit. Potential champions league money and future premier league money is just that. We don't have it yet... we also don't know if we've already spent some of it considering we've spent a fair bit more this season than we did last already. We'll also spend a huge amount of it trying to keep our best players. We've spent about £3m less than stoke this season by the way on transfers. We don't know about any potential financial restrictions, but if we don't know about them, neither can we treat them as a reason for going from four available forwards at the beginning of the month, with another on loan, to three available forwards for the rest of the season, with two on loan. Likewise, there's no evidence that we had any pressing need to reduce our options to such an extent in defence, either. And if financial restrictions were an issue, then you'd have to be all the more disappointed at the money wasted on, say, Benalouane in the first place. If financial restrictions were a problem, then reducing ourselves to three strikers - when we usually use three each game, one of which has been carrying an injury for months, another of which got injured in the last game - and announcing to the world that we wanted a new striker, was probably not the cleverest thing to do. And if we're haggling over the difference between 18m and 23m, as may have been the case, it suggests that we don't have any great financial shortage and, if anything, tend to commit ourselves to expensive targets rather than pursuing more affordable options. Perhaps Dodoo, Schlupp, or Mahrez can fill in more effectively than Kramaric and Lawrence - it's perfectly possible - and perhaps injuries won't be an issue. Equally, it would be silly to start pointing fingers. Is it Rudkin's fault for the negotiations? Walsh's for the targets? Ranieri for telling everyone we were desperate for a striker? The board for overseeing the whole thing? We have no idea. But one thing we can see, clearly, is that we're going into the next game with the three strikers that we'll use and, for the first time all season, no obvious alternative available.
FoxesFan94 Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 Any sane football club separates budgets for signing new players and also extending the contracts of it's current players. With this and the money that we will get at the end of the season (plus the money we already have) we will be more than fine.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.