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
Stevosevic

Ben Gibson - Interest

By Stevosevic, in Transfer Talk

Recommended Posts

Edingleyfox

Edingleyfox

Posted
Posted

If the costs of Gibson and Evans are similar surely we need to look at Gibson before it is too late as he is a lot younger and on the verges of the England Squad.Would be disappointed if we lost out to West Brom on any signings!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FoxonMaui

FoxonMaui

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, Edingleyfox said:

If the costs of Gibson and Evans are similar surely we need to look at Gibson before it is too late as he is a lot younger and on the verges of the England Squad.Would be disappointed if we lost out to West Brom on any signings!

Agree with this. Think we should get Gibson even if it costs 25m. I could also see why Shaky might prefer Evans due to his positional sense and experience but for me the massive upside of Gibson makes going for him a no brainier. With Gibson and Maguire we may very likely end up with the best rated  two English center backs in the country by the end of the coming season. With Iheanacho on board as well I can see us very hard to score against and lethal on the break, with or without Riyad. If he stays I can see us pushing for top four this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ROB-THE-BLUE

ROB-THE-BLUE

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

The ten mill difference between Gibson and Evans could be the difference between being able to afford a punt on gylfi or not .............

I really don't think it'll boil down to that. If our owners really wanted to get Siggy they have plenty of money to pay what's necessary. To me it sounds like he's already indicated he's not interested in coming here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FoxonMaui

FoxonMaui

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

The ten mill difference between Gibson and Evans could be the difference between being able to afford a punt on gylfi or not .............

With Iheanacho we will not necessarily need Gylfi , as to me it looks like Shaky is going to go 442 with a plan B of 352. Also we need to stick with a transfer strategy of only buying players under 25 who we can get with big upside. We need to look to becoming the Sevilla of the Prem , with shrewd buys and not signing players that are closing on 30  for top prices.  Anyway to get Evans we are going to have to probably pay close to 20m to pry him away from West Brom so we will not be dealing with a 10m difference as I think Gibson will go for 20m plus some add ons. Evans will only really be a three year option due to his age where Gibson can be a amortized over five years or more.  As a result he's actually cheaper and has much greater future value due to potential upside if one of the big four want to spunk down big money to sign him in two or three years. We pay 15 to 20m for Evans and in three years he's pretty much worthless in sell on value. Same with Gylfi , we throw 40m to get him on a five year contract at 12ok per week and after two years he's peaked and we are stuck with his high wage for three more years and a declining value. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, FoxonMaui said:

With Iheanacho we will not necessarily need Gylfi , as to me it looks like Shaky is going to go 442 with a plan B of 352. Also we need to stick with a transfer strategy of only buying players under 25 who we can get with big upside. We need to look to becoming the Sevilla of the Prem , with shrewd buys and not signing players that are closing on 30  for top prices.  Anyway to get Evans we are going to have to probably pay close to 20m to pry him away from West Brom so we will not be dealing with a 10m difference as I think Gibson will go for 20m plus some add ons. Evans will only really be a three year option due to his age where Gibson can be a amortized over five years or more.  As a result he's actually cheaper and has much greater future value due to potential upside if one of the big four want to spunk down big money to sign him in two or three years. We pay 15 to 20m for Evans and in three years he's pretty much worthless in sell on value. Same with Gylfi , we throw 40m to get him on a five year contract at 12ok per week and after two years he's peaked and we are stuck with his high wage for three more years and a declining value. 

 

Not making a judgement - just pointing out that if we don't sell Riyad that five or ten mill here and there could be relevant

Link to comment
Share on other sites
urban.spaceman

urban.spaceman

Posted
Posted

We've earned £266m in the last two seasons. 

 

Last season we spent about £75m; minus the £56m for Kante, Schlupp, Kramaric, Hernandez and De Laet; so a £19m net spend.

So far we've spent £24m (£29m with addons) and could be spending the same amount in the next couple of days.

 

I don't think we need to worry much about the extra £10m here or there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FoxonMaui

FoxonMaui

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Not making a judgement - just pointing out that if we don't sell Riyad that five or ten mill here and there could be relevant

Fair enough, but I think our owners are smart guys and hopefully they have learnt from our last window where we dropped 29m on Slimani with no real exit strategy if he did not work out. Gylfi for 40m is different in that we know what he can do in the Prem but the bottom line in today's Prem for any team outside the big five who (can afford to splash big money for talent at their peak)  is to not dig a hole you cannot get out of in terms of player acquisitions. For us sell on value has to be a big part of our decisions.  Our biggest danger with our new wealth is to do just what we did in the last window. Not selling Riyad right now is not going to harm us as he will be better this year as we are going to be better personnel wise around him  than when we started last season due to our horrendous transfer moves. He will eventually be sold for a large profit and that is what's important as our owners know this and they can pretty much count on that future income from him to cover any outlays this window.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unclenobhead

Unclenobhead

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

We've earned £266m in the last two seasons. 

 

Last season we spent about £75m; minus the £46m for Kante, Schlupp and De Laet; so a £29m net spend.

So far we've spent £24m (£29m with addons) and could be spending the same amount in the next couple of days.

 

I don't think we need to worry much about the extra £10m here or there.

We might now the owners have been caught on the fiddle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vanity

vanity

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, FoxonMaui said:

With Iheanacho we will not necessarily need Gylfi , as to me it looks like Shaky is going to go 442 with a plan B of 352. Also we need to stick with a transfer strategy of only buying players under 25 who we can get with big upside. We need to look to becoming the Sevilla of the Prem , with shrewd buys and not signing players that are closing on 30  for top prices.  Anyway to get Evans we are going to have to probably pay close to 20m to pry him away from West Brom so we will not be dealing with a 10m difference as I think Gibson will go for 20m plus some add ons. Evans will only really be a three year option due to his age where Gibson can be a amortized over five years or more.  As a result he's actually cheaper and has much greater future value due to potential upside if one of the big four want to spunk down big money to sign him in two or three years. We pay 15 to 20m for Evans and in three years he's pretty much worthless in sell on value. Same with Gylfi , we throw 40m to get him on a five year contract at 12ok per week and after two years he's peaked and we are stuck with his high wage for three more years and a declining value. 

 

"Also we need to stick with a transfer strategy of only buying players under 25 who we can get with big upside."

 

Certainly best to spend the money when the young players are available -- Maguire, Iheanacho, Gibson, etc. -- but to round out the team with the less expensive, hard-working, hard-nosed veterans who still have a few good seasons left (like Iborra) makes a lot of sense to me. Where LCFC is at the moment, I think we have to do both to field the best team possible.

 

Agree we may be out on Gylfi unless we are certain Nacho is mainly going to be the secondary striker. If Nacho is going to play as an AM, Gylfi might be redundant, though I would love to see a 3-4-1-2, with Gylfi, Ndidi, DD, and Gray in that midfield. Or a 4-4-2 with a  MF of DD-Ndidi-Gylfi-Gray coupled with Nacho as secondary and Vardy/Slim up front. I suspect we will play a 4-4-2 on defense, but on the attack, shift to more of a 3-5-2 look, possibly a 4-3-3. We are adding versatile players, that is what we need to play a more modern game, and I think we will be all the better for it.

 

Honestly, with Nacho in the fold, I would pay whatever is necessary for Gibson and Gylfi, then start the sell off. That is a top-5 team.  If we added those two, then we could sell Zieler, Amartey, Musa, Ulloa, Mahrez, and at least one of either Benalouane or Morgan. Even if we only get 40 for Mahrez, that is a 60-70 million transfer kitty. That roughly pays for both Gylfi and Gibson. If necessary, take a loss on Slim, pick up 20 mill, and make this move. Though I cannot imagine how the team could be in need of money for signings to the extent it needs to sell Slim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bayfox

Bayfox

Posted
Posted

Whilst the thought of maguire and Gibson sounds great. I would imagine both may want to play on a regular basis. Without moving huth or morgan on that's unlikely.

 

I think there is more chance we may move 1 on. Rest the other a bit more and see evans and maguire play alongside each other. As evans becomes the experience in the absence of huth for example.

 

I wonder if that has played a part in our thinking. We can't risk taking a young player him not playing. Value plummets and he gets frustrated.

 

Not suggesting any of this is fact but do wonder if would would risk playing both players week in week out on the back of 12 months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AmarteyAndChill

AmarteyAndChill

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Bayfox said:

Whilst the thought of maguire and Gibson sounds great. I would imagine both may want to play on a regular basis. Without moving huth or morgan on that's unlikely.

 

I think there is more chance we may move 1 on. Rest the other a bit more and see evans and maguire play alongside each other. As evans becomes the experience in the absence of huth for example.

 

I wonder if that has played a part in our thinking. We can't risk taking a young player him not playing. Value plummets and he gets frustrated.

 

Not suggesting any of this is fact but do wonder if would would risk playing both players week in week out on the back of 12 months.

Maguire best position is right CB, Ben Gibsons best position is left CB? Not sure we can have Huth or Morgan starting next season if we want to be competitive and achieve our aims (Europe).

 

*sorry, didn't see your bit about Evans, my bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gurru991

gurru991

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, AmarteyAndChill said:

Maguire best position is right CB, Ben Gibsons best position is left CB? Not sure we can have Huth or Morgan starting next season if we want to be competitive and achieve our aims (Europe).

 

*sorry, didn't see your bit about Evans, my bad.

If we had Gibson & Maguire I feel that Morgan would get no playing time & Huth would be limited

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unclenobhead

Unclenobhead

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Bayfox said:

Whilst the thought of maguire and Gibson sounds great. I would imagine both may want to play on a regular basis. Without moving huth or morgan on that's unlikely.

 

I think there is more chance we may move 1 on. Rest the other a bit more and see evans and maguire play alongside each other. As evans becomes the experience in the absence of huth for example.

 

I wonder if that has played a part in our thinking. We can't risk taking a young player him not playing. Value plummets and he gets frustrated.

 

Not suggesting any of this is fact but do wonder if would would risk playing both players week in week out on the back of 12 months.

In all honesty as great as he has been, and still is, I think anyone who has watched him live recently can see Morgan's legs have gone .

 

 Huth is maybe a season away from the same fate, it's a tough one, do you play Maguire and Huth to start with and swap Morgan in for Huth now and then or get either Evans or Gibson in now and go with a fresh two?  

 

As hard as it sounds I think you have to bite the bullet and get one or the other in now to play with Maguire and use Huth and Morgan to fight over a back up position.

 

Harsh I know but it going to happen next season anyway so why not now when the replacements ate available?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bamba's Babes

Bamba's Babes

Posted
Posted

I just don't understand it. Am I watching different games to everyone else?

 

Huth is the one to drop, not Morgan.

 

Huth's legs, to be honest I'm not sure we even signed them when he arrived, have gone! Morgan still has some athleticism. No doubt that Morgan plays better with Huth but he's not a bad defender on his own. He's also the captain and it would cause an arseache in the squad if he was dropped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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