leicesterlad1989 Posted 3 August 2017 Share Posted 3 August 2017 16 minutes ago, Col city fan said: It's looking like I must be one of the only ones to think Sigurdsson WOULD be worth paying for. 50 mill, an obscene amount of money, is fast becoming last season's 30 mill. And I believe he'd make a huge difference to this team personally, I'd love to see the link up play between him and Mahrez. I guess it's what's seen as being value for money. The club has it, football is its own market and I think he'd make a massive difference. I do think he would make a massive difference for us but I think 50 million is crazy money for him. I think we are screaming out for a creative player. He would have fit the bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlueBrett Posted 3 August 2017 Share Posted 3 August 2017 45 minutes ago, Rusko187 said: Oh yeah he's ancient **googles Sigurdssons age** He's only 27?! He's still in his prime! and I guess the only players not aging are the ones dead and buried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerard Posted 3 August 2017 Share Posted 3 August 2017 6 minutes ago, Col city fan said: Well which 'similar players' are we linked with, might be genuinely available, with Prem experience etc? If you can name some realistic targets, for less money, I'm all ears. Everton are becoming 'a big club' and they seem to want him. 28 is a prime age for this type of player. He's got 4 good years left in him. Man City signed Gabriel Jesus for £27m. Would you rather sign a 19 year old who is one of the best rated players in South America for half the money or buy a near 28 year old who has spent his career as a big club reject and one of the better players in the lower half of the PL for twice the money? Buying Sigurdsson for £50m is safe, unspectacular and overpriced. We already know he'll be decent for them but he won't be bridging the gap against the other teams above them. They'll also never get anything like the money back they're paying for him. Sigurdsson is like a new car, as soon as they buy him they've lost a lot of money and his value will only depreciate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusko187 Posted 3 August 2017 Share Posted 3 August 2017 Just now, BlueBrett said: and I guess the only players not aging are the ones dead and buried. I just find it sad that I'm 32 next week and I'm thinking "27? God he's finished, no way we should go for that old donkey" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col city fan Posted 3 August 2017 Share Posted 3 August 2017 12 minutes ago, leicesterlad1989 said: I do think he would make a massive difference for us but I think 50 million is crazy money for him. I think we are screaming out for a creative player. He would have fit the bill. Genuinely think if we compare 'the worth' of say Slimani (30 m plus wages) to Gylfi (let's say 45m plus wages) it becomes more contextual. I think Sigurdsson's 'worth' to LCFC would far outweigh that of Slimani. So for 15 mill extra, he would be worth paying for. The players that 'make the difference' are expensive. It's how it is. We are a Prem football club and are full of middle of the road players. We need to modernise and get one of two of the next level up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Countryfox Posted 3 August 2017 Share Posted 3 August 2017 2 minutes ago, Rusko187 said: I just find it sad that I'm 32 next week and I'm thinking "27? God he's finished, no way we should go for that old donkey" I'd be more than happy to be thirty fookin two !! .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicesterlad1989 Posted 3 August 2017 Share Posted 3 August 2017 11 minutes ago, Col city fan said: Genuinely think if we compare 'the worth' of say Slimani (30 m plus wages) to Gylfi (let's say 45m plus wages) it becomes more contextual. I think Sigurdsson's 'worth' to LCFC would far outweigh that of Slimani. So for 15 mill extra, he would be worth paying for. The players that 'make the difference' are expensive. It's how it is. We are a Prem football club and are full of middle of the road players. We need to modernise and get one of two of the next level up. At the same time you could put it into the context of signings made by other clubs. Currently it looks like we overpaid for Slimani so in that context, Sigurdsson for £50m doesn't seem as bad. The only reason he's "worth" £50m is because he plays in the Premier League. Don't get me wrong I am really on the fence with regards to his worth. Do we even have a plan b or c, now he's set for Everton? We seriously lack creativity, so I suppose in hindsight perhaps £50m would just solve that. I do agree with getting one or two top players. Problem is we are struggling to hold onto our only genuine "top" player and that is Mahrez. Doesn't send out a great signal. What's worse is Mahrez is going to go for considerable less than Sigurdsson. As you can see from my response, I am said ****ing unsure on what I'd do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wymsey Posted 3 August 2017 Share Posted 3 August 2017 Like the Iheanacho saga, this should've been sorted a week ago - with nearly everyone knowing their very likely destinations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovejoy Posted 3 August 2017 Share Posted 3 August 2017 I'm not as convinced about Everton's business as others are. I don't see Lukaku's goals being replaced by Rooney or Sandro and they seem a bit heavy on central players. They'll be top seven again and Gylfi is a good signing, but I certainly don't see top four for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtmcfly Posted 3 August 2017 Share Posted 3 August 2017 24 minutes ago, Col city fan said: Genuinely think if we compare 'the worth' of say Slimani (30 m plus wages) to Gylfi (let's say 45m plus wages) it becomes more contextual. It's no secret you think 30million for Slim was way too much, so it's an interesting move using him as the context to advocate a 45 million quid bid for Sigurdsson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Posted 3 August 2017 Share Posted 3 August 2017 The only winners here are Swansea. A very good player indeed but one who you would think is just about at his peak. Wouldn't have been annoyed if we had signed him but not bothered that we're not - what does bother me is if we were truly after him why haven't we identified more than one player similar to him and gone after him when this scenario came to the fore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcfc sheff Posted 3 August 2017 Share Posted 3 August 2017 this has got deadline day bid written all over it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan LCFC Posted 3 August 2017 Share Posted 3 August 2017 39 minutes ago, Col city fan said: Genuinely think if we compare 'the worth' of say Slimani (30 m plus wages) to Gylfi (let's say 45m plus wages) it becomes more contextual. I think Sigurdsson's 'worth' to LCFC would far outweigh that of Slimani. So for 15 mill extra, he would be worth paying for. The players that 'make the difference' are expensive. It's how it is. We are a Prem football club and are full of middle of the road players. We need to modernise and get one of two of the next level up. You're comparing it against another rip-off though. Doing better business than last summer is scraping the barrel. We paid loads for mediocrity. I would like Sigurdsson but I wouldn't go higher than £30mil personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UniFox21 Posted 3 August 2017 Share Posted 3 August 2017 4 minutes ago, Bert said: The only winners here are Swansea. A very good player indeed but one who you would think is just about at his peak. Wouldn't have been annoyed if we had signed him but not bothered that we're not - what does bother me is if we were truly after him why haven't we identified more than one player similar to him and gone after him when this scenario came to the fore? Swansea lose in a sense of losing a star player, but for 50 million and a good scouting set up they can surely replace him and improve in several places Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 3 August 2017 Share Posted 3 August 2017 8 minutes ago, Bert said: The only winners here are Swansea. A very good player indeed but one who you would think is just about at his peak. Wouldn't have been annoyed if we had signed him but not bothered that we're not - what does bother me is if we were truly after him why haven't we identified more than one player similar to him and gone after him when this scenario came to the fore? £50m is an amazing amount for Siggy. Swansea could turn that into 3 or 4 young players with as much potential. Lawrence for 15m for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted 3 August 2017 Share Posted 3 August 2017 For Sigurdsson to be worth £80m to us over the next four years what would we have to achieve? Champions League? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawko Posted 3 August 2017 Share Posted 3 August 2017 We've gone backwards since winning the league. Lacking ambition, penny pinching cheapskates, happy to finish in 17th place. No wonder Mahrez wants to leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Countryfox Posted 3 August 2017 Share Posted 3 August 2017 20 minutes ago, Dan LCFC said: You're comparing it against another rip-off though. Doing better business than last summer is scraping the barrel. We paid loads for mediocrity. I would like Sigurdsson but I wouldn't go higher than £30mil personally. It's all about what he is worth to the buying club ... and I'd say he's worth a lot more to us than other clubs that are interested in him. If we can tempt him to come .. do it. I've seen some good solid players arrive at the club so far but no real game changers ... he is one. If we can shift out some cr@p, hang on to our good players and get (say) Gibson in (and Siggy) ... that would be good business as far as I'm concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Countryfox Posted 3 August 2017 Share Posted 3 August 2017 19 minutes ago, FIF said: £50m is an amazing amount for Siggy. Swansea could turn that into 3 or 4 young players with as much potential. Lawrence for 15m for example. Thats true but we need a quality player now .. no more 'potential' for a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan LCFC Posted 3 August 2017 Share Posted 3 August 2017 31 minutes ago, Countryfox said: It's all about what he is worth to the buying club ... and I'd say he's worth a lot more to us than other clubs that are interested in him. If we can tempt him to come .. do it. I've seen some good solid players arrive at the club so far but no real game changers ... he is one. If we can shift out some cr@p, hang on to our good players and get (say) Gibson in (and Siggy) ... that would be good business as far as I'm concerned. Agreed, to me he isn't worth fifty million of our money. In-fact the only club he's worth that to is Swansea, hence why they'll charge it. I just personally want better for that kind of money. Not someone who couldn't get in Spurs' side and someone who the bulk of the creativity comes from set pieces rather than in general play. There's no doubt he'd be an improvement but if we're prepared to spend that we can do better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Countryfox Posted 3 August 2017 Share Posted 3 August 2017 3 minutes ago, Dan LCFC said: I just personally want better for that kind of money ... There's no doubt he'd be an improvement but ... But who .... Who is there that's better that we could tempt ... Unfortunately we are in that prem no mans land and the better players will want to go to a 'top 6' type club ... The impetus we got from winning the league was wasted and has gone. For us to move on we have to grab any player that (like you said) is an improvement and bite the bullet. Regularly getting into the top 6 or 8 is more difficult than getting out of the Championship imo. And for me spending big is an investment as what's big now will probably be peanuts in a few years time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPH Posted 3 August 2017 Share Posted 3 August 2017 3 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said: I'm glad we didn't goes balls out and offer 50m. A club our size has no business in that territory, and I don't think he'd be worth it. Thats an odd thing to say. Not only do we have a huge amount left from the TV money for last season, we are likely to get about 40m for Mahrez sometime soon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col city fan Posted 3 August 2017 Share Posted 3 August 2017 33 minutes ago, MPH said: Thats an odd thing to say. Not only do we have a huge amount left from the TV money for last season, we are likely to get about 40m for Mahrez sometime soon... I've said before, some people post like it's their own money. It isn't and the club is not going to go bust because we buy Gylfi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerard Posted 3 August 2017 Share Posted 3 August 2017 23 minutes ago, Col city fan said: I've said before, some people post like it's their own money. It isn't and the club is not going to go bust because we buy Gylfi. That is the attitude of an animal caring more about it's next meal rather than the sustainability of the food source. Signing Sigurdsson would make us a slightly better side but to the detriment to the long term health of the club. If we spent £50m on Sigurdsson we probably have him for five years and with transfer fees and wages he costs us £90m. In five years time he possibly moves for free as a 33 year old and we don't get £90m of value out of him which means we have to cut costs elsewhere in the squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HankMarvin Posted 3 August 2017 Share Posted 3 August 2017 Just now, Gerard said: That is the attitude of an animal caring more about it's next meal rather than the sustainability of the food source. Signing Sigurdsson would make us a slightly better side but to the detriment to the long term health of the club. If we spent £50m on Sigurdsson we probably have him for five years and with transfer fees and wages he costs us £90m. In five years time he possibly moves for free as a 33 year old and we don't get £90m of value out of him which means we have to cut costs elsewhere in the squad. or potentially the owners would pump more money in as opposed to take it out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.